Some thoughts on Civ V and improvement suggestions

[Roxlimn]

The mounted units aren't actually grossly unbalanced. The AI simply doesn't know how to deal with them. For what it's worth, the same issue existed in Civ IV, which was why rushing up to Cavalry was just so damn powerful, even later on in BTS.

ZOC means that you can station Spearmen at particular locations, and defend more or less okay. It's the CC that's just crazy powerful, what with both strength and movement add-ons. It's clearly unbalanced.

I wouldn't be averse to a patch that cut down the CC to about where Horsemen are now, and gave a city-attack penalty to Horsemen.

Conversely, there seems to be something wrong with Cavalry. They keep losing in all manner of ways, even when the mouseover says that they ought to be winning decisive victories.


As for SPs, I'm not sure I follow. Gandhi already minds it when you wage war, and he tells you so. I'm not sure I'm ready for more Civ IV religion-manipulation shenanigans.

 

[City Raider]

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.

I'm fairly certain most of my concerns/issues are based on the fact that the AI simply can't handle war yet in Civ 5.

At least in Civ 4 the AI started with archers at Emp or higher levels making a warrior rush impossible, or making an axe/chariot rush harder and no guarantee if they were protective or far enough away.

I've actually found culture the easiest way to win (in Civ 4). I couldn't stand the tediousness of moving stacks and going for conquest late. The difference for me in Civ 5 is you can do so much damage early and since buildings take so long to build at the start, you might as well build a few horse and takeover your continent. Perhaps if horse were nerfed a bit. But even archers with any melee early can take out cities.

As for diplomacy, I simply don't trust it in Civ 5. Although I admit I might just need more games in that regard. But In Civ 4, It seemed a bit safer to play peacefully b/c you could tell who would backstab or how close people are to declaring on you. But now I have the civ 2 feeling where no matter what I do and how peaceful I am once I get strong they'll start with their stupid demands and eventually declare on me, so I have the mindset to simply preempt them and take them out early. Its like being sourrounded by a bunch on Montys or Shakas (you know war is inevitable, so you are better off taking them out early rather then letting them linger and build tons of cities and units). Again, I may just need more games so maybe this feeling will go away.

I am going to keep playing Civ 5 and trying to build my monster cities, but I don't like that the game is out for less than two weeks and I already have to handicap myself by saying "okay I can't horserush or I can't start any wars no matter what" b/c a horse rush or early war feels exploitative.

 

[Roxlimn]

Don't think of it as a handicap. Think of it as playing the game you want to play. Some people like rushing early and having classical wars. It would be unfair to them if the game were set up to make that impossible. I mean, what would Aztec and Indian players think?

As it is, the heyday of the Jaguar Warrior and War Elephant is all-too short lived. Let's not take their fun away.

It's still completely possible to win without waging war, or only waging a short one to clear your continent.