Some thoughts on Civ V and improvement suggestions

[madscientist]

Well after a weak of Civ V I am almost ready to start playing CIV IV at Immortal for a while as I see this game has some really good aspects but some I really don't like that need to be fixed.

This thread is meant to just start some overall conversation, but I will toss out what my feeling are

OFFENSIVE WARS

I preferred CIV IV here.

Frankly there is little stopping you from warring from the get go. Even an archer/Warrior attack can work fairly well and I think warriors are just a little too well equipped. Maybe a lower strength so Spears have a better advantage or ad an intermediate unit between warriors and Swordsmen such as an axeman.

Also horsemen are way too powerful which I will not go into as there is another thread up on it. Suffice that my opinion is to have the AI build more and require archery. Also a decrease in city attack ability would help.

I think there is plenty of room for improvement here to setup a real hexagon warfare type game

DEFENSIVE WARS

I like this aspect alot more than CIV IV.

Setting yourself up for a good defensive war with a few key Social policies allows you to destroy attacking armies, but not all the time. Also you can utilize a real front at key cities and let your other cities rely on their own hit points for defense, while buying units for unforseen sneak attacks.

One final comment on military in CIV V, I think there SHOULD be some base free units. Perhaps ONE unit per city is free, and compensate with higher costs at a very high amount of military.

CULTURE/SOCIAL POLICIES

Without a doubt I love this system, best aspect of CIV V. A totally different tree is fresh, and the way to gather all those culture points is great. A few comments though

The should be a way to build culture here.

Increasing the number of needed culture compared with number of cities seams a bit off. I understand that you get more culture with additional buildings, but seams there should be a better or more rewarding way to tweak this.

I also love how the cities expand culturally.

GREAT PEOPLE

I am uninspired here with the exception of the Great General. Building the core buildings requires loss of improvements and does not provide much return. Give me the old acadamy for +50% science, perhaps allow the Great Artist to also add 50% culture, ditto Engineer and Merchant. Bulbing a free tech is soso (see below) but the Golden Age seams nice (see below).

GOLDEN AGES

Well done. I like the building up towards one, smaller free ones with Social Policies, and the Great Persons. I also like the deminishing returns based on the more you shoot off.

Also there are some nice plays to get VERY long golden ages later in the game even when not Persian.

TECH TREE

As good as I think the Social Plicy Tree is, I think the tech tree is incredibly BORING. It is too straight and linear for me and I greatly miss the diverse path you could get in CIV IV. Also almost every tech does this: Military Units/Building/Wonder.

Which also leads me to

BUILDINGS

The good, there are alot and they have nice prequisites. \

The Bad, there is very little diversity here. +25% this, +10% this, +3 happy that. In Civ IV all building offered numerous things (sometimes bad), graneries retained half population growth and provided health for certainr esources, forge gave happiness with resource and prodcution but unheath, market gave gold but also happiness.

What I would like to see is each building give a certain bonus based on.....

RESOURCES

The biggest reason I am thinkign of packing up and returning to CIV IV.

Horse/sheep/cows/deer/fish/grain have no lasting benefit except an extra hammer/food and cannot be traded. Hey, give me the land improvement and also give my city an extra base 2 food (such as a granery) that can either used in a designated city or traded away. Excess food should be a benefit to use.

Happiness, each resource gives a blanket 5 happy. WOW, this seams way too clunky and needs much more sophitication. I understand it's a EMPIRE thing rather than each city, but I feel having each happy resource give ONE happy face and allow certain buildings to add it EMPIREWISE. Say a MArket give 1 extra happiness to the empire for each cotton, thus if you have 4 cities with 4 markets that's a total of 5 happy faces. Fewer cities can get less but need less, larger empires get more but also need more. There are many buildings to assign the many resources to.

In Civ IV the happiness issue could be addressed so many ways and posed difficult choices (like abandoning the HR civic or upping the slider).

Also perhaps we can alter the resource yield to act like the military reousrces (which work greta by the way). Example if I have 2 spots of cotton, perhaps 1 has 2 yield and the other 3, leaving me some to trade off.

My point is there happy resources need to add a little more excitement into the game.

DIPLOMACY

OK, I have given it a chance and it's just not there. There needs to be more ways to negotiate (more option on the dialogue menu) and there should be an ability to establish long-time friends that share a border. Maybe I have not played enough but this needs some improvement and was probably the least prepared section upon release (after the gamey happiness system).

WONDERS

Not sure but I think I generally like them as they have some nice specific uses that you can pool together with the Social Tree. I would like to see a little more culture, or perhaps increasing the culture output as each age passes (+1 classical, +2 mideival, +3 Renasaince, etc....)

Now don't get me wrong, I like this game however there are many times I am thinking I prefer Civ IV which has all the bugs worked out (almost all).

Again this is just opening up the subject for discussion.

 

[madscientist]

I probably should add a comment on city-States also

CITY STATES

A good addition but does NOT replace good old AI diplomacy. However there are some improvements to be made here

Allow a city state to attack your cities that starts bordering theirs, especially if they are militaristic.

Allow them as a better trading partner for resoruces rather than gifted. Also give a generous trade route bonus for a connected City State.

Instead of irrational requests, let them ask for resources we have for in increased mutual benefit.

 

[xcaine]

These are all great suggestions.

Combat AI
I have a huge beef with AI in regards to warfare. It needs to stop sending units to chokepoints for centuries while leaving their empire vulnerable. This makes the game fun at first but after a few high-difficulty games, it's predictable and no longer exciting. Instead, we should see WW1-type trench fronts where neither side wants to attack because they know they're disadvantaged on the offense.

Wars and diplomacy needs to get deeper by a factor of 5. It's much, much too dumb. In a perfect game of civilization, diplomacy should be so complex that winning would be impossible without smart diplomatic plays.

War is too easy. Going to war mid and late-game for imperialistic motives should have MASSIVE happiness penalties unless you've adopted Fascism. Same for AI. Early in the game, wars should be fine, but as your literacy increases, wars must get increasingly difficult.

However, conquering cities afterwards should benefit war-time happiness. If your people see that you're winning it should make them happy, not the opposite.



Razing cities: all those people don't just die in the blaze, so unless razing implies a genocide, we need a new game concept: Refugees. Some go and settle in nearby AI cities, increase population and make them stronger. Even guerilla spawns from Civ2 could work. Or, they defect to your nearby cities and this would increase your population but affect economy/hapiness negatively.

Or, you could choose to genocide and risk massive diplomatic penalties from other nations, city states and your own people. Otherwise, with each razed city, you're making the other cities stronger.

Genocide is so un-PC and I don't expect to see it implemented, ever.

In real life, war is nasty. Very, very nasty. Civ5 makes it too easy.
I even disabled in-game music and replaced it with Command & Conquer OSTs. It's much more suitable.

 

[Gotag]

1) Please please please can the AI escort it's settlers!!!! My last game (diety conti) was spoiled as Lizzy persisted in sending her settlers right next to a barb camp(s). When I got around to killing the camps I got 4 workers and watched as she sent yet another settler which ended its turn right next to another camp. (and got enslaved) I think I build one worker that whole game and she never got a second city.

2) Siege, especially cannon, need a bit of toning down. They should not be able to one shot equivilent era units in the open. Perhaps reducing them to 1hp max.

3) Please give a handy screen to see who is at war with whom. Its a pain to check the notifications all the time. Ditto let me see what current deals I have going with each AI.

4) City States should never ever go always war with a hugely superior AI opponent except perhaps as last resort. Its nothing but a death sentence for the City State and makes no sense. In my current game, Warsaw (ally) gets attacked by Nappy. All city states are in play. Nappy had attacked another earlier. I got Nappy out of that war there for love but Warsaw is doomed as I cannot even bribe peace.

5) Please cap promos from ruins!! Riflemen in the BCs can really spoil your day (and game)

Gotag

 

[madscientist]

These are all great suggestions.





Razing cities: all those people don't just die in the blaze, so unless razing implies a genocide, we need a new game concept: Refugees. Some go and settle in nearby AI cities, increase population and make them stronger. Even guerilla spawns from Civ2 could work. Or, they defect to your nearby cities and this would increase your population but affect economy/hapiness negatively.

.

Now refugees is a great idea! Say you capture a size 6 city and RAZE it. I say half the citizans pop up in your nearest cities causing double unhappiness for a certeain period of time, until properly absorbed. You also have the option to Annex or Puppet it as per current rules (which are pretty decent although courthouse SHOULD be buyable).

I agree on the Geneocide topic, you can wipe out all the citizans at a severe diplomatic penalty abroad but without the home unhappiness.

 

[madscientist]

1) Please please please can the AI escort it's settlers!!!! My last game (diety conti) was spoiled as Lizzy persisted in sending her settlers right next to a barb camp(s). When I got around to killing the camps I got 4 workers and watched as she sent yet another settler which ended its turn right next to another camp. (and got enslaved) I think I build one worker that whole game and she never got a second city.

I agree and seams like a simple patch

2) Siege, especially cannon, need a bit of toning down. They should not be able to one shot equivilent era units in the open. Perhaps reducing them to 1hp max.

Again I agree and they should be succeptible to mounted units as per CIV IV

3) Please give a handy screen to see who is at war with whom. Its a pain to check the notifications all the time. Ditto let me see what current deals I have going with each AI.

Ditto

4) City States should never ever go always war with a hugely superior AI opponent except perhaps as last resort. Its nothing but a death sentence for the City State and makes no sense. In my current game, Warsaw (ally) gets attacked by Nappy. All city states are in play. Nappy had attacked another earlier. I got Nappy out of that war there for love but Warsaw is doomed as I cannot even bribe peace.

Not sure, but I like the City-States ganging up. However, the offending leader should have some serious disadvantage once this happens, perhaps a certain number of unhappy faces per City-State that enters the war. IN addition the city state should be able to support each other quickly in this case such as a large gold addition to buy troops or an outright gifty of troops from another city state.

5) Please cap promos from ruins!! Riflemen in the BCs can really spoil your day (and game)

yep. Keep ruins simple like 1 until upgrade up to Swordmen, map, gold, culture, citizan population.

Gotag[/QUOTE]

 

[xcaine]

I agree on the Geneocide topic, you can wipe out all the citizans at a severe diplomatic penalty abroad but without the home unhappiness.

Indeed, but that requires a complete overhaul of the diplomatic system as a whole. Right now, even if you do it, so what? The other civs won't war you because you razed a small city, that's too severe. But there's no middle way in civ5 diplo.

Also, I like the concept of revolutions. If your people are seriously unhappy, they not only stop working and fighting: they use their spare time to revolt and overthrow your sorry excuse for a leader.

Not sure how to implement that, but it could be as severe as anarchy from Civ2 or even schism, where certain cities split up and create a new state with a new leader. You then need to go war them if you want them back, like it happened with Yugoslavia in the 90s.

I'd prefer a logarithmic scale of unhapiness, maybe -100 to +100, -100 stopping all production and research (but not city growth - unhappy people still boink), +100 boosting it. This needs to obey the law of diminishing returns, whereby if you wanted to increase happiness from 90 to 100 for the ultimate boost, you'd have to invest much more effort than it would take to jump from 80-90.
Et cetera.

I think I'm already thinking about CiVI here.

 

[gareththegeek]

Agree with most of your comments.

In Civ IV the happiness issue could be addressed so many ways and posed difficult choices (like abandoning the HR civic or upping the slider).

Although perhaps less colourful in CiV, you surely face the same choices when dealing with happiness.

• I can use up a social policy choice improving happiness (spend culture to improve happiness)
• I can build a Colosseum to improve happiness (spend hammers to improve happiness)
• I can buy luxuries from another civ (spend money to improve happiness)

Each of these solutions takes time and has the additional cost that whilst you are using these resources to improve happiness you are not using them on something else.

Spending money is your 'get out of jail free card' for problems but is finite and generally is less efficient in cost than other methods.

The thing that I like about the new system is that there are fewer quick fixes for problems, planning ahead is rewarded and failing to do so is punished.

 

[madscientist]

Agree with most of your comments.



Although perhaps less colourful in CiV, you surely face the same choices when dealing with happiness.

• I can use up a social policy choice improving happiness (spend culture to improve happiness)
• I can build a Colosseum to improve happiness (spend hammers to improve happiness)
• I can buy luxuries from another civ (spend money to improve happiness)

Each of these solutions takes time and has the additional cost that whilst you are using these resources to improve happiness you are not using them on something else.

Spending money is your 'get out of jail free card' for problems but is finite and generally is less efficient in cost than other methods.

The thing that I like about the new system is that there are fewer quick fixes for problems, planning ahead is rewarded and failing to do so is punished.

This is true, however in CIV V you get the extra happiness and generally do not lose it (unless a failed trade) since you keep the Social policies once unlocked and the buildings. What you need more happiness for is to keep up with empire growth (population and cities).

In CIV IV you had a more fluid happiness sytem with obsolete resources, changing civics, civlian brutality (ah the days of the whip and draft), UN defies. Now it seams like you only need to settle/expand to nab all the resources once as opposed to the military resources.

However, with all that said you simple statement about planning ahead rings true. We now need to accept the inevitable unhappiness at empire growth through conquest.

As I said, this game has a lot of potential. Hopefully it will improve.

 

[gareththegeek]

This is true, however in CIV V you get the extra happiness and generally do not lose it

Fair point - once you do something in CiV, for better or worse, you are stuck with it!

As I said, this game has a lot of potential. Hopefully it will improve.

I Concur!

 

[Roxlimn]

Offensive Wars:

I don't think either Civ IV or Civ V are very strong war sims, but between the two, I prefer Civ V. Civ IV is mainly me making a large stack with siege and walking it over to bash the AI. It's just not particularly good. This doesn't improve when you increase the diff level. You just need to build your stack quicker.

In Civ V, you actually have to employ tactics. Granted, the AI is stupid at defending, but I prefer executing a nice maneuver over a stupid opponent over walking a single super-unit over and auto-attacking against an equally stupid opponent.


Great People:

I've found most of the buildings very strong in the early going. +5 Science per tile is very strong when your science output is small. Later in the game, bulbing is better. Similar as in Civ IV, and somewhat less of a brain-dead choice.


Tech Tree:

I've found the tech tree in Civ V to be stronger as a game element than it was in Civ IV. There are only a couple of ways you can get through the tech tree in Civ IV. The number of techs that you uncover just made it seem more variable. In actuality, you went through it a couple ways and there's really few real choices. Tech trading, in particular, made it so you nearly always went through the tree a particular way.

It only seems better because there are more square boxes and Nimoy is voicing it over. It's actually worse.

In Civ V, you can explore the tech in any of several ways, and the inability to trade means that you have to eventually backfill all those techs yourself. This gives you freedom to choose which techs to prioritize and lack of trading means that you can't trade for thousands of tech worth, just by teching something expensive.

The end result is that there is more variability in tech strategy.


Buildings:

I like the buildings in Civ V better. In Civ IV, the extras on the buildings made it seem more complex, but it truth, if you wanted Forge, you just ate the unhealthiness penalty, and you always built Market for the happies in the larger cities. No real choice there.

In Civ 4, the question isn't IF you're going to make a granary - it's when. This means that all cities have several buildings and are same-ish.

In Civ V, you don't need granaries everywhere - just in particularly food-poor locations. You don't need Wind Mills or Water Mills everywhere. You don't need Monuments everywhere. You don't even need Colosseums everywhere. Each city site has more character, and there's more variability.


Resources:

The biggest thing I like about Civ V. The unhappiness penalties above 10 need to be made more severe, but overall, I like it better.

With happiness being global, you have a real choice. In Civ IV, more cities is nearly always better, particularly if you can swing Forbidden Palace in a nice location. In Civ V, you can use Forbidden Palace to get more cities, or you can use it to put a few more pop points in your fewer, bigger cities.

A smaller Civ can keep up with a larger Civ in IV by doing all manner of specialist shenanigans, but it's not really something that you can't do with a large Civ - you just don't do it with a larger Civ because higher diff levels force you to make do with smaller.

In Civ V, the happiness mechanic itself forces you to choose. You can't have both a large empire and big cities. You have to choose one. If you have many cities, you're going to have to live with them being 10 to 15 or so, and that's late game. If you have fewer cities, you can boost them up to 30, and the concentrated population means that multiplier buildings are that much more cost-efficient.


Diplomacy:

There is no real diplomacy in Civ IV. You just manage the AIs. Choices are not character-driven, but point-driven. So-and-so choice gives me that number of points. So-and-so is going to attack because I can see this comment, and so on.

I would much prefer it being at the back of the curtain, as it were.

 

[madscientist]

Roxlimn, all good points.

Regarding wars,
I agree on what you said although it's easier to take out leaders in Civ V than Civ IV in my limited opinion, although I am still at King in V and was Immortal in IV. The strategy aspect is very good and will improve once tweaks are done to the AI (hopefully).

Great people,
I rethought what I meant here. Seams like they were overpowered in CIV IV early on and later useless. In CIV V they seams as useful later as earlier. So Great People in V are usefull throughout the game but do not give that big early advantage. OK, I chalk this up to maybe more experience to V and hold judgement.

Tech Tree,
Yes I miss the majesty of Nimoy's voice. However, the tech tree does seam more mundane to me and that daring of the IV tech trades are missed. The research pacts get's you a random tech in 30 turns, big deal. Perhaps this is the sacrifice to establish the Social Policy tree, but there is interest in the tech tree, it can be worked with I think.

Building,
I agree on most you said. However, I want more depth to buildings to give us more choices. Let a Windmill give 1 extra food from wheat present, some building give resource happiness and culture, tie the extra happiness to specific resources. Again these can be expanded a bit more to provide the multiple benefits like IV.

Resoureces,
I have a big disagreement here. I do agree about happiness being an empire issue than individual cities, but getting only 5 happy faces for 6 cotton sources while you also get 5 happy faces for the lone pearl resource off-shore????? Have each resoruce have specific yileds that are applied empirewise, 3 cotton here, 2 pearls there, etc... You can have a "BASE" happy amount of say 3 for each resource then add happy faces for every certain number (say 1 for every additional 2). This still allows good trades of excess resources but not back braking.

An example I am thinking

You have 3 cottan tiles with 2, 3, 4 yield each. Total 3 for cotton in general 4 extra for the "9" yields so a total of 7 happy. Now you can trade some excess cotton (2 at a time) to another leader for say pearls, say 2 cotton for 1 pearl, netting you the base 3 happy for Pearls but costing a hit in happiness from loss of cotton (6 instead of 7 happys). Add a few buuildings that aid cotton happiness (maybe the market, or watermill) and you now can do more intellegent trading to better exploit what you have. Just an idea, but my point is this game can do much more than the "trade for 5 happy" at a time.

Diplomacy,
I like the behind the curtain think to a certain extent. I prefer NOT to return the the list of +/- diplo modifiers, but too often the AIs can be simply ignored while I plod ahead with my own Empire especially if I can take my own continent early on. Bringing back open borders with trade rout yields for better gold is one easy path. Another is a more sophicticated resoruce trade network (they give me a disgusting number of military resources and gold for one happy resource). If diplomacy is more hidden then I want more opportunity for meaningful discussion, not teh same 2 or 3 options.

I do like your points though, makes me think a little bit more.

 

[City Raider]

I agree with a lot of Mad's points. But just to add my two cents. First, overall the game seems too easy (probably mostly to do with combat) or too easy to jump levels. I'm a huge civ fan and can't remember playing on Emp/Imm after only like a week of having a Civ game. It took me forever to get up to that level on previous versions.
I would seriously consider scaling (AI cheating if you will) for city defense as you move up in levels, at least in the early ages. Too easy to rush on any level. Since they can't start with a bunch of stacked archers (like Civ 4) maybe just boost the defense or hit points of Emp/Imm/Diety Cities (free city walls???).

I'm dissappointed in the Great people. I too miss the academies of a city and if you do settle why do you lose a food or something else already on the tile??? Settling should make the tile a "super tile" and worth it to settle.
Bulbing is waaaaay too powerful and thats all I do now. You can save 2-3 GS and bam instant muskets/rifles, longswords/knights, etc (just depends on when you want to make your jump).

I'd agree the tech tree is too linear. Its almost no fun. Just pick the next tech on the list. There is almost no downside or not much of a variation to have to worry about picking one branch over another. I remember in Civ 4 having the "do I go Lit/Aes or Military" or when do I go for Monarchy or Metal Casting over something else I need. Kinda had real penalties or needs that had to be addressed game to game. In Civ 5 you can pretty much just research everything, I don't feel like I'm making any tradeoffs if I rush to Steel or put it off.

Buildings. I'm not impressed. It doesn't seem like I need to build any. I build a few of the basics, monuments, libraries and a few others. But far too many seem like they aren't needed or not worth it. You don't need any culture buildings if you aren't going for that win type. But you generally have to decide on pursuing a culture win sooo early, so I never end up building any. Maybe some culture buildings could help with happiness resources or have a secondary benefit (Mad's point about multiple uses for Civ 4 buildings). Maybe make a Stable help pastured improvements, granery add the 2 food but help farmed imporvements, forge helps with production but also boosts mines output 1 hammer, etc...
I also miss the aqueduct. Bring back the old Civ model to grow past size 8 you need an aqueduct, to grow past 12 you need something else. Just don't make growth happiness related. If we have excess happiness give us the decision to build a building (cost say 2 or 3) before we can use it up, forcing us to way against how much gold we have and then again at size 12 (or 15).

Finally, I'm actually really dissapointed in tiles and resources. The resources don't seem 'special'. When you can farm something and do better then build its improvement then that is bad. I can understand an intial samll bonus like plus one hammer or food, but if Civil service helps river farms why can't some building or tech later help cows, wheat, etc.
Some of us want to build size 50-60 cities (drooling) with 36 tiles worked and we need food help and better resource yeild!!!

 

[Roxlimn]

Thanks. I got to Emperor in Civ IV before I called it quits, but I'm already at King in Civ V and it's still remarkably easy. It's because it's quite transparent. More of my game play is spent planning rather than figuring out mechanics. Perhaps it's the fiddly bits that you miss?

For instance, adding multiple benefits to buildings doesn't mean that they possess more strategic depth. It just means that you have to figure it out longer. Higher learning curve, but not necessarily more strategy once you figure it out. Example here is the Granary. The Granary in Civ V has more strategic depth because you don't want to just be building it everywhere, whereas you just spammed it in Civ IV. It was just something else you had to click, in other words. More clicking, less strategy.

Another example is the military buildings. In Civ IV, you either built Barracks in one place, or built Barracks everywhere for drafting. Not a whole lot of strategic depth. You could built a concentrated Military building somewhere, but not a whole lot of depth, either.

In Civ V, you can adjust your level of military specialization. You can have a moderately built military city that still has markets and banks, or you can have one that only has Forge, Windmill, Factory, Barracks, Armory, and Military Academy. In each age, it doesn't have enough time to dick around with everything. It has to build in a focused manner. More costly, but you get massively elite units out of it.

In Civ IV, the level of specialization amounts to one city just spamming lots and lots and lots of units. In Civ V, you get the question: more units, or fewer, better units?

For resources, the structure is actually a holdover from the Civ IV as far as the luxuries go. I'm not sure a limited amount would make for more strategic depth, but it's an interesting thought. However, I won't hold it against Civ V, since Civ IV was exactly the same.

The difference in Civ V is that some Civs get access to more, as unique traits. For instance, Arabs have greater counts of luxury resources, which means that they can afford to say yes to exorbitant deals from weaker Civs and still come out ahead.


I've been playing around the Diplomacy bit. It's interesting. I've been able to convince Civs to go to war with other Civs for money and resources. I don't consider that ignore-worthy. In one game, I made a fast friend of Gandhi and he stuck with me when Elizabeth decided that my lands were crunchy. Definitely more interesting for me at the lower diff levels where it's not all about the AIs dogpiling one after another.

 

[Roxlimn]

City Raider:

You don't have to decide on getting to Culture early. You do have to build Culture buildings on a relatively constant schedule or it's just off the table completely. In one game on King, I believe that I had all the victory conditions open, including Culture at a very late date. I simply decided on Science because it was quickest.

Culture buildings already have attendant benefits - they give you powerful social policies. Of course, puppeting would also give you this, because they don't add to policy cost while still building culture, but I'm not sure the entire puppet thing has been worked out very well.


Also, the tech tree is self evidently NOT linear. For instance, to get to Medieval early, you can go for Civil Service, or Theology. It's not clear that one is superior to the other, and to get there early, you have to forgo Iron Working completely, which isn't necessarily good.

You have to research everything yourself eventually, but choosing how to prioritize research is not linear at all.

 

[City Raider]

City Raider:

You don't have to decide on getting to Culture early. You do have to build Culture buildings on a relatively constant schedule or it's just off the table completely. In one game on King, I believe that I had all the victory conditions open, including Culture at a very late date. I simply decided on Science because it was quickest.

Culture buildings already have attendant benefits - they give you powerful social policies. Of course, puppeting would also give you this, because they don't add to policy cost while still building culture, but I'm not sure the entire puppet thing has been worked out very well.


Also, the tech tree is self evidently NOT linear. For instance, to get to Medieval early, you can go for Civil Service, or Theology. It's not clear that one is superior to the other, and to get there early, you have to forgo Iron Working completely, which isn't necessarily good.

You have to research everything yourself eventually, but choosing how to prioritize research is not linear at all.

True. But I guess its that I don't feel any penalty on if I pick Civil Service or Theology (in Civ 5). I know I'll research them both. I beeline IW (Great Library slingshot most of time) and then fill in techs.
Maybe its a larger issue (can't believe I'm saying this), but I might miss the ability to trade techs. *shrugs*

I guess you'er right about the culture social policy thing, (I do like the Social Policies btw), but its a larger point. I just don't build many buildings. Maybe War is too easy, which I personally think is the case. I don't even build barracks, ever. Never built a city wall, castle, etc.

You're right about some buildings in Civ 4 (they always get built at some point), but to me it seems like too many Civ 5 buildings are sort of all or nothing, so why build them at all. Just build military and conquer.
I'm not a warmonger player and like the builder aspect so I really do like building every building and having monster cities, but I'm having a hard time justifying it when you can run into early cash troubles (too many early buildings) or long production time early in the game, so it just becomes easier to conquer (raze cities) early, then once you start, might as well finish off the land mass. Its just missing something.

Oh, I also don't like that you can instantly buy buildings and stuff. You almost don't even need hammers at all. If you have gold you can just buy everything. Seems strange.

 

[madscientist]

City Raider, well I never thought of holding the Great People to bulb into rifles that fast, perhaps another issue there with Great People.

Roxlimn, yeah I like the tinkering aspect more. Civ is a complex game and I expect it be intricate, and the reousrces/happy issues are too "easy" for my tastes at the moment.

I do like how building stack, particularly the Military ones. I like the markets/banks/stock exchanges can be built non-stop as they have no upkeep. However, not getting the Heroic epic because I need a barracks in all cities, or some of the other buildings (such as the big +50% beaker building) need a "building" in each city takes away from that. Sometimes it's a matter of being 1 or 2 cities to get all these bonus, otherwise it makes no proactical sense. Seams a little imbalanced, afterall small civcs can grow to larger ones.

As far as culture, I view it to gobble up Social Programs, then consider if I want to pursue the culture victory path later. Also there is a big benefit to spreading out wonders in several cities rather than the "Wonder Spamming" capital based on some Social Policies.

I also find terrain and resource "Underwhelming". Riverside farmes are neat, cows/sheep/deer are rather pointless. Also trade posts can be used like cottages in CIV IV, start at one and at key techs (or ages) increase them by one gold at a cap of maybe 4 or 5. Ditto with mined hills. Gives a little more direction to the tech tree instead of which military unit or building do I get. It would weight techs with Social policies a bit more too.

 

[JanissaryRush]

City States shouldn't be just about money. They should make demands of their ally, not just requests.

If you don't you'll take a hit and it shouldn't be something you can fix with more money. I am not exactly sure how to implement this. Possibly have a total influence scale, part by money and part by doing favors. So you can't just pay them off for ignoring them.

Or you can have a max limit of how much influence can be helped by money. Say it is 200, if you do favors you can get up to 200 more and if you don't you'll lose favor. If you can buy more influence by money but it will just be stored and it can't help if you ignore your ally.

It is very unrealistic that if a city state is attacked and you don't declare war or at the least provide some units your relationship doesn't take a big hit and in it should be broken.

 

[Roxlimn]

City Raider:

It's always been the case in Civ games that winning through war is easier than otherwise. In Civ IV, you could hit up to Emperor just rushing with Warriors, and the tactical game there was practically nonexistent.

War is always the easier course in Civ games, and it's even easier in Civ V because the tactical game is so much more complex, so the AI has more chances to screw up.

Wealth and production issues are solvable, but they require more game knowledge to work, whereas with warring, you can win on Diety just crushing the AI on tactics and puppeting everything smartly.

If it's any consolation, I've managed to build very large, like size 30+ cities in the Industrial Era, and they are true monsters, capable of churning out units and wonders like nothing.

They got everything, too - granaries, wind mills, even hospitals and med labs, and my income continues to maintain at 150+ per turn. That's relatively meager. A small-city trade post approach can easily better that, and get more science as well.

Madscientist:

Not sure where I stand on the deer/sheep thing. On the one hand, they do provide easy access to better output earlier in the game, but on the other hand, techs don't improve them the way they improve everything else. Except for wheat - those get improved.

I'm not sure I liked the way Civ IV did it in that you almost always based your cities based on the placement of special resource tiles. Didn't matter that the rest were desert - you had 7 special resource tiles, you were golden. I'm liking how Jungles and Forests are strong in Civ V.

 

[gaiko]

Roxlimn, you've yet to comment on the military aspects of CivV. Does this mean you agree with the many comments concerning unbalanced mounted units and (IMO) overpowered siege in the field (or conversely, overpowered missle against cities)?

My addition concerns diplomacy: There should be diplomatic consequences for SP choices vis-a-vis the AI, depending on the civ character. Perhaps there are, but it is completely opaque then, and my sense is that the AI could care less which SPs you (or other AIs) chose.

City Raider:

You don't have to decide on getting to Culture early. You do have to build Culture buildings on a relatively constant schedule or it's just off the table completely. In one game on King, I believe that I had all the victory conditions open, including Culture at a very late date. I simply decided on Science because it was quickest.

Culture buildings already have attendant benefits - they give you powerful social policies. Of course, puppeting would also give you this, because they don't add to policy cost while still building culture, but I'm not sure the entire puppet thing has been worked out very well.


Also, the tech tree is self evidently NOT linear. For instance, to get to Medieval early, you can go for Civil Service, or Theology. It's not clear that one is superior to the other, and to get there early, you have to forgo Iron Working completely, which isn't necessarily good.

You have to research everything yourself eventually, but choosing how to prioritize research is not linear at all.