Sulla's first Civ V walkthrough

Discussion in 'Civ5 - General Discussions' started by OzWiz, Sep 27, 2010.

  1. OzWiz

    OzWiz Chieftain

    Joined:
    Nov 27, 2006
    Messages:
    22
    Location:
    The Deep North, Australia
    The first Civ walkthrough I read was Sulla's famous Civ IV walkthrough. Since then I enjoy reading about others' adventures in Civ almost as much as I do playing.

    So I was pleased to find Sulla's first Civ V stories at: http://www.garath.net/Sullla

    It's not altogether flattering, pointing out shortcomings in balance, UI, Civilopedia etc, however it is constructive and, from my experience, it is fair.

    (On a similar note see this review: http://www.1up.com/do/reviewPage?cId=3181540 )
     
  2. Jaroth

    Jaroth Warlord

    Joined:
    Feb 6, 2009
    Messages:
    249
    Location:
    USA
  3. May Day 10

    May Day 10 Prince

    Joined:
    Jun 12, 2006
    Messages:
    353
    Location:
    Buffalo, NY
    pretty harsh.
     
  4. anandus

    anandus Errorist

    Joined:
    Oct 27, 2005
    Messages:
    3,859
    Location:
    Amsterdam, Netherlands
    Yeah, but he's got some good criticisme here and there, even though it's still a bit from a Civ4-standpoint.
    There are some issues like the balancing which are quite off, he's right about that.

    It's better argumented criticism than most of the criticism on this forum.
     
  5. fantsu

    fantsu Prince

    Joined:
    May 24, 2009
    Messages:
    480
    Location:
    Finland
    I respect sullla, but he is an "civilization super scientist" and playing on very powerful US on continents using Emperor (the new Prince of ciV), wiping the board is too easy for him.

    Expecting tougher Deity game from him.

    :lol::lol::lol:

    ...also he was complaining the "mouse-over info" to be too slow to be good, and you can change that in the options to be faster.
     
  6. noontide

    noontide Warlord

    Joined:
    Dec 17, 2007
    Messages:
    251
    the review has been removed? can't find it.
     
  7. fantsu

    fantsu Prince

    Joined:
    May 24, 2009
    Messages:
    480
    Location:
    Finland
  8. noontide

    noontide Warlord

    Joined:
    Dec 17, 2007
    Messages:
    251
    thanks.
     
  9. Gnollen

    Gnollen Chieftain

    Joined:
    Jul 24, 2006
    Messages:
    39
    It's an interesting review, however I'm a bit puzzled regarding the city-state paragraphs. He talks about how powerful things are like the maritime ally food bonus, vs. making granaries and watermills yet neglects to mention the amount of gold it takes to ally a city-state. So he should at least acknowledge the trade-off. Maybe he did crunch the numbers and find that gold is best spent allying the maritime city-state but it isn't clear to me *shrug*
     
  10. Malecite

    Malecite Chieftain

    Joined:
    Nov 16, 2005
    Messages:
    45
    If you pay attention and actually fufill the demands of city states you can ordinarily have them for cheap or close to nothing. I think its a very valid strategy, most of the buildings cost far outweighs their usefulness, and many can actually cripple your economy.
     
  11. Ahriman

    Ahriman Tyrant

    Joined:
    Jun 8, 2008
    Messages:
    13,266
    Location:
    Washington, DC
    There are a lot of weird inconsistencies here.
    Like: it takes too long to raze cities, and you suffer unhappiness in the mean time.
    Combined with: razing cities is too easy and effective a strategy.
    Huh?

    Lots of reasonable points though too, like AI military ineffectiveness (particularly for city capture; it needs to understand how to not attack a city unless it has sufficient force to win, and it needs to understand how to not charge futilely into siege unit firing positions, and it needs to understand when to take defensive rather than offensive positions).

    Strongly disagree about wanting more sameness in civ UA/UU power to avoid multiplayer balance issues. I'd prefer different abilities across civs to balanced ones.
     
  12. Buccaneer

    Buccaneer Deity

    Joined:
    Nov 2, 2001
    Messages:
    3,562
    I thknk this is the best walkthrough and review I have seen.
     
  13. morss_4

    morss_4 Warlord

    Joined:
    Dec 6, 2005
    Messages:
    178
    He makes some good points, complains about some things that aren't really problems and makes some points I don't agree with.

    Here I think he makes a mistake that a lot of people are making. Specifically, the UA's aren't supposed to be balanced, the Civs are. Some civs clearly have better abilities than other Civs, but that's not necessarily a bad thing if those civs are compensated with strong UB's or UU's, and I think in most cases they more or less are. Certainly I think that some civs in the current game are better than others, but it's more complicated than he's making it.

    Here I disagree. Civ has always had a bad case of bigger=better. One thing I like about Civ V is some attempts made to try to counteract this, of which the social policies is the most obvious. I only wish they went further. Currently there's too many holes in the system, allowing large empires to essentially have their cake and eat it too. If it was up to me tech costs would scale with empire size in some way too, but that's another story.

    Isn't that what the "soldiers" listing in the demographics does?

    Pretty sure this isn't right. You can pass a worker just fine, you just can't stop on him as far as I know.

    I'm not sure why he's making such a big deal here. If he just puppets the city he can change his mind and annex/raze it whenever he wants. He makes it sound like an important decision, but it really isn't, unless he clicks "annex" for some reason.

    Wasn't this feature originally added specifically FOR multiplayer? It is not clear to me how this is a problem, I see it as an improvement. If an opponent wants to raze your city they have to hold it for a few turns now. Makes surprise attacks and backstabs slightly less exploitable.

    As said, this can be adjusted.

    He does make some good points. I agree city states need tweaking (perhaps diminishing returns on multiple states of 1 type), the build times are a bit long and the AI needs serious work.
     
  14. Sullla

    Sullla Patrician Roman Dictator

    Joined:
    Feb 9, 2002
    Messages:
    2,833
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Baltimore MD
    Hi folks. First of all, this is not a Walkthrough. It's just my impressions on playing some early games of Civ5. You can probably learn a little from reading, but please don't misunderstand the purpose. :)

    We can debate points back and forth endlessly, and we won't all share the same opinions. Here's the concise review of Civ5 thus far. Is it fun? Yes, although a lot of that is the newness factor after four years of no new Civ games. Is this a balanced and polished game? Absolutely not. I'm very disappointed by how poorly the AI currently performs, and by the unplayable state of Multiplayer at the moment. (I know MP isn't a priority for many of you, but it is for me.) Will things get better? Maybe. Hopefully. If there isn't a robust patching process, I very much doubt I'll still be playing this game in a year.
     
  15. Krill

    Krill Deity

    Joined:
    Jan 30, 2004
    Messages:
    3,332
    Location:
    Stoke-on-Trent, England
    5 years.
     
  16. pawelo

    pawelo Emperor

    Joined:
    Jul 12, 2007
    Messages:
    1,169
    Location:
    Québec, QC
    I must say I pretty much agree with Sulla's game overview. As for me, the worst thing is the dumb AI - we went a serious step backwards from the Civ IV.
    Although, I must say the game is fun. And hopefully, a few balance issues will be solved and maybe we'll get a game much more up to Civ standards.
     
  17. Buccaneer

    Buccaneer Deity

    Joined:
    Nov 2, 2001
    Messages:
    3,562
    Yep, agree.
     
  18. Buccaneer

    Buccaneer Deity

    Joined:
    Nov 2, 2001
    Messages:
    3,562
    It very much pleases me that this review (sorry to have said walkthrough earlier), which I think it's the best one yet (to repeat myself) is on the frontpage of CFC. This is the one review that I have passed along to friends and to those that want to know about Civ5.
     
  19. ButSam

    ButSam King

    Joined:
    Dec 27, 2001
    Messages:
    662
    I must say, I love your candidness Sulla, but I do have one minor criticism of your critique that I feel is unfair. You can't just look at a civilization as having a UA, or as having a UU, or a UI (either UU or UB). A civilization is comprised of a combination of the three.

    For example, Suleiman definitely has the weakest UA (and situational, no doubt), but very strong UUs -- possibly the strongest of the game.

    That said, the civs aren't truly balanced. I agree with your conclusions, but I just don't think it's fair to say Suleiman sucks because his UA sucks. The Greeks are incredibly powerful. The Americans are about average, though...one thing to note about the Minutemen is that units upgraded from Minutemen *keep* the terrain movement bonus. In essence they start with a promotion, and promotions are kept when upgrading, so building Minutemen essentially ensures that unit, even when upgraded, will not experience terrain movement penalties. That little-known fact makes the Americans better than most people give them credit for...still not the best, but not horrid.

    Overall, I am hopeful for some minor tweaks in the game (better AI...but Civ IV didn't have a good AI either until Bhruic...and more balanced civs), but I like the overall direction; it just needs refinement. I actually like that civ abilities aren't just a grab bag of a small handful of unique abilities; diplomatic victory actually requires diplomacy and protecting others now, not a surrogate for domination; combat is infinitely more fun IMHO; gold has much more usefulness and variety in what you can do with it; hexes make movement better.
     
  20. Aussie_Lurker

    Aussie_Lurker Deity

    Joined:
    Jul 21, 2003
    Messages:
    7,785
    Location:
    Adelaide, South Australia
    I disagree with him about wanting Civ Traits back (they were fun in Civ3 & Civ4, but eventually got too bland & samey) but I do agree with him that some traits are almost downright useless compared to others. I'm really surprised that these balance issues ever made it through play-testing without being picked up! I also concur on the issue of the military AI-I had at least one occasion where my lone archer unit was able to wipe out some barbarians, without them *once* being threatened by said barbarians.
    Of course, this is all based on the Demo. Picked up the full game today, so hopefully I'll get a better idea of the game from that!

    Aussie.
     

Share This Page