EmpireOfCats
Death to Giant Robots
Brutal review by Sulla, but with a lot of good points. They should have included him on the design team, at least on the testing team.
Sulla's first Civ V walkthrough
- Thread starter OzWiz
- Start date
Aussie_Lurker
Deity
Sullla says you cannot sell more of the luxury item for civs at the same time.
Not true - I had 4 spices in my game with Rome, and I traded 3 of them at the same time
to 3 civs...
just thought I mention it
Interesting thing (possibly a bug) but every time I go & use the trade screen, it keeps saying I've only got one of each luxury resource-even when I *know* I have multiple copies. Have you seen this V. Soma? Is that the way its *meant* to be?
Aussie.
Sock Bramson
Chieftain
- Joined
- Sep 27, 2010
- Messages
- 96
You CAN still chop, btw; there's just no tech that gives any added bonus to its effect. I completely agree that the ability to grow while producing a worker helps even things out a great deal.
To those complaining that production is too slow (and it IS slower, no doubt, but not necessarily "bad" as far as CiV is concerned), I offer an alternative to the trade post spam strategy: if you build improvements besides TPs or farms, it is possible to get some decent production up and running. That being said, it certainly helps to have ample forests and hills (or combos of the two) around a city to get production up to snuff. That's OK, though: just use the other cities as science or money farms.
Also, my earlier point about the benefits of what some people view as useless resources (cows and sheep and such) applies to the production issue. Pastures provide hammers on top of the apples, and it is pretty darn useful. (do the moderators care about the [gasp] "d-word"? figured I wouldn't take the risk)
To those complaining that production is too slow (and it IS slower, no doubt, but not necessarily "bad" as far as CiV is concerned), I offer an alternative to the trade post spam strategy: if you build improvements besides TPs or farms, it is possible to get some decent production up and running. That being said, it certainly helps to have ample forests and hills (or combos of the two) around a city to get production up to snuff. That's OK, though: just use the other cities as science or money farms.
Also, my earlier point about the benefits of what some people view as useless resources (cows and sheep and such) applies to the production issue. Pastures provide hammers on top of the apples, and it is pretty darn useful. (do the moderators care about the [gasp] "d-word"? figured I wouldn't take the risk)
Good review I agree on most things.
My own experience after 60 hours of gameplay is that the AI is not very smart and a bit cowardly. The AI´s demands me to declare war on the others and if I do I can just wait a while until they comes begging for peace, giving me gold and luxorities.
MAIN ISSUE is that there is to slow production. There is to few units in the game for the wars to ever become strategic. If the AI sends me just 3 units I can easely shoot them down using a city with a archer in it. Perhaps if the AI had been able to build 8 units they had been a bigger threat. But then again perhaps they would just get stuck on each other getting shoot down comming one by one, or as often turns out a third civs units are in the way just blocking everything.
Perhaps there would be less stucking issues if you could have 2 war units on same tile, if they are of diffrent sort. Like one melee and archer/siege or one melee and one cavalery and unit with best defens value will defend but both unit takes the damage. Perhaps that would keep some of the tactic elements and still ease up the mobility. And yes you should be able to stack how many unmilitary units you want. Why you can´t do that now bugs me? Why did they end up with that restriction too it doesnt ad anything to tactics.
The global happiness is working ok but I feel its a drawback to civs 4 city health/happiness system.
So to conclude so far is that the game looks awsome. I like the hexagons and the one unit tile rule even if it needs a fix. The dipomacy feels strange. But main is issue is to slow production and perhaps by that resulting inpoorly competion from the AI´s.
Perhaps if firaxis just changes back to civ 4 numbers when considering production and food.
Forest: 1 food 2 production -> with lumber mill 1 food 3 production
Hill: 2 production -> with mine 4 production
And give all bonus resources a buff please. Even some of the luxorities could use a food more.
My own experience after 60 hours of gameplay is that the AI is not very smart and a bit cowardly. The AI´s demands me to declare war on the others and if I do I can just wait a while until they comes begging for peace, giving me gold and luxorities.
MAIN ISSUE is that there is to slow production. There is to few units in the game for the wars to ever become strategic. If the AI sends me just 3 units I can easely shoot them down using a city with a archer in it. Perhaps if the AI had been able to build 8 units they had been a bigger threat. But then again perhaps they would just get stuck on each other getting shoot down comming one by one, or as often turns out a third civs units are in the way just blocking everything.
Perhaps there would be less stucking issues if you could have 2 war units on same tile, if they are of diffrent sort. Like one melee and archer/siege or one melee and one cavalery and unit with best defens value will defend but both unit takes the damage. Perhaps that would keep some of the tactic elements and still ease up the mobility. And yes you should be able to stack how many unmilitary units you want. Why you can´t do that now bugs me? Why did they end up with that restriction too it doesnt ad anything to tactics.
The global happiness is working ok but I feel its a drawback to civs 4 city health/happiness system.
So to conclude so far is that the game looks awsome. I like the hexagons and the one unit tile rule even if it needs a fix. The dipomacy feels strange. But main is issue is to slow production and perhaps by that resulting inpoorly competion from the AI´s.
Perhaps if firaxis just changes back to civ 4 numbers when considering production and food.
Forest: 1 food 2 production -> with lumber mill 1 food 3 production
Hill: 2 production -> with mine 4 production
And give all bonus resources a buff please. Even some of the luxorities could use a food more.
The Pianist
Chieftain
- Joined
- Sep 26, 2010
- Messages
- 9
Just been reading sulla's immortal egypt playthrough. I have to agree with most of the thing he's said. I remember watching videos before the release of this game where the developers would mention making the game more accessible but it's clear there are several issues in this area..sigh :/
tokala
Emperor
Luxuries can give food via AI trade and CS alliances, and this is much stronger than a +1
bonus would be. See Sullas second playthrough 
And for better bonus resource yields: its included in Valkrionns Eco mod
Sable
Chieftain
As far as accessibility is concerned, I think Firaxis have done a bang-up job. I'm an experienced gamer, but by no means an experienced Civ player. I leapt into the game--without even consulting the tutorial or the manual, with pretty much zilch experience in turn-based strategy--and got pretty far in as Rome on a standard Continents map before getting my butt handed to me by China
I think there's a distinction to be made between accessibility and mechanical transparency. Civ V was incredibly accessible for me. But transparent? Hardly. And that's a huge problem.
BjoernLars
Warlord
I just read his Immortal Egyptian game.
Wow... two games and Sulla is already on the verge of rage quitting Civ V completely...
Sullla says you cannot sell more of the luxury item for civs at the same time.
Not true - I had 4 spices in my game with Rome, and I traded 3 of them at the same time
to 3 civs...
just thought I mention it
If you offer a luxury and the AI doesn't have "enough" to trade for it, it will decline to offer anything. You can then manually set an AI offer, and it will go through.
Makes it look like they won't trade.
He's sore about two separate things.
The first (the big AI boys deciding to off him for picking unprovoked on weaklings) I think he'll come to love - it's a change long overdue.
The second (that the AI big boys got that way by playing a different game) we can hope will be corrected in time, but the criticism is well warranted.
Arrogant
Prince
No problem with that, but it should be the same with AI civilizations: Once someone starts an unprovoked war, then the others should attack that civ whether it's AI or human. Of course the AI should receive bonuses (it's impossible to create a competitive AI without cheating at such a complex game) but at least make it have the same attitude towards all other civs. The real art is to make the AI cheat but not too blatantly... The AI should play exactly the same whether it faces an AI civilization or a human one: Failure to implement this creates inconsistencies that remove much of the game's charm.
Sullla
Patrician Roman Dictator
It's not much of a game if the AI can act like a bully and terrorize weaklings, and then have everyone gang up on the player for doing the same thing.
Anyway, with the limited information we have, it appears as though the AI was more angry at the razing of cities in that game, not the declaration of war itself. I think so - still don't really know what's going on. Believe me, I wish I were enjoying this game more. Over the past decade, I've spent more time with the Civilization series than any other games. I'm just not having much fun with this one. Nothing again those of you who are enjoying Civ5, I wish you the best of luck.
tokala
Emperor
Don't you think that this asymmetry might be intended as a part of the game design? The stated goal was to make the game more accessible and more enjoyable to non die-hard civvers. And I have the impression that some design "flaws" us old-timers are grumbling about actually make sense if you see Civ5 more like a "player vs. environment" role-playing game than "player vs. AIs" strategy game. This is especially noticable in the way the AIs interact with the city states and how consistently one or two AIs snowball into huge empires in the mid- to lategame.
And from comments in another (general gaming) forum it seems that many gamers that weren't able to get into earlier incarnations of Civ, are enjoying Civ5 immensely. We might have to live with it more or less the way it is now
The egyptian game was pretty much a copy from my last Deity game.
I was trading with all the civs, my army sucked. Everyone seemed to be my good allies, but after I fought and won one of the other civs, thay all hated me. And few turns after the map was filled with troops, I was toast. My opponent wasn't even weak, he was stronger than me. I guess my fast expansion just made everyone hate me. No chance of making them like me again.
I was trading with all the civs, my army sucked. Everyone seemed to be my good allies, but after I fought and won one of the other civs, thay all hated me. And few turns after the map was filled with troops, I was toast. My opponent wasn't even weak, he was stronger than me. I guess my fast expansion just made everyone hate me. No chance of making them like me again.
Well, they should attack if they enjoy an overwhelming advantage as they did in Sulla's game (over him), as they should have in past Civ incarnations where we could exploit their reticence.
I'm glad the reticence is gone, now some re-balancing looks to be in order so you just don't get steamrolled every game.
I'm unwilling to concede the impossibility of intelligent AI. BTS vanilla was pretty damn good (as you could see in the contrast with AI performance in any of the good mods like FFH or RoM).
It's not much of a game if the AI can act like a bully and terrorize weaklings, and then have everyone gang up on the player for doing the same thing.
Anyway, with the limited information we have, it appears as though the AI was more angry at the razing of cities in that game, not the declaration of war itself. I think so - still don't really know what's going on. Believe me, I wish I were enjoying this game more. Over the past decade, I've spent more time with the Civilization series than any other games. I'm just not having much fun with this one. Nothing again those of you who are enjoying Civ5, I wish you the best of luck.
I'm enjoying the obvious modding possibilities more than the unfinished gameplay/interface of the vanilla, although that is still holding my interest for now.
I'm glad they released it "early" so we (i.e. you and other critics) can identify what needs fixing instead of hanging on to it forever like Diablo 3.
The problem is that high level AIs start with such a huge advantage over you. If their coded to attack whenever they see an advantage, then you'll be at war as soon as they see you. And that's just not very fun.
Not if there is more inviting prey, or if doing so could ruin their relations with other Civs. Playing that (diplomacy) game well was what it took to stay alive in high level CivIV. Vanilla BTS AI was the best yet at advancing it's own interests, but there was still room for improvement.
So far, Civ5 ain't it. It won't be it until the mod community masters the AI, which they very much didn't in CivIV, for all the other great work they did.
Similar threads
- Locked
