Sulla's first Civ V walkthrough

[Willburn]

From sullas article
"Research and especially gold were both in excellent shape for this point in time, thanks in part to China's awesome unique building. The Paper Marker is a library which also adds four free gold per turn. (Although it still costs 1gpt in maintenance; why they didn't just make it free and give +3 gold is beyond me!"

I dont agree with this statment as 4 gold is nicer to have than 3 gold when you count bonuses from such buildings as markets etc. Here for one of the few times i think Sullas doesnt really think about what he is saying. (Unless buildings bonus dont count as adding to the total gold that will be increased by % bonus buildings, but I dont think this is the case.)

Apart from that still 100% agree with the statments of Sullla on the game. I am truly sad civ5 is the game it is now, as I really wished for it to be better. I am seriously considering to play a civ4 game again as that game is far far better in every respect. I wish they included some of the multiplayer ladder community for playtesting as im sure those guys know how to balance a game. As im no longer part of that community (I dont have time to play some 1000 games like i did in civ4) its not for my own sake im mentioning this. Really it would only be in the favour of the civ franchise and civ5 if people like Sullla would be able to playtest and balance. Together with a talented designer like Jon schafer they could make civ5 the game it really ought to be.

 

[unaghy]

100 hammers is only 5 turns of 20 hammers each! How hard up are you on hammers that you can't assemble 20 for a mid-sized city?

Its almost impossible, as your citizens needs to work on farms and then the construction time is 10 to 20 days. Even you can end up 40 days building granary and watermill and have no tile improved as you could not be building worker at the same time.

 

[Guardian_PL]

Its almost impossible, as your citizens needs to work on farms and then the construction time is 10 to 20 days. Even you can end up 40 days building granary and watermill and have no tile improved as you could not be building worker at the same time.

I think you've meant turns, not days?
Overpowered maritime city states are the answer. Or simply cities at ~8 size working riverside farms can have enough spare food to get hammer-heavy tiles. Also, after Civil Service you can farm riverside hills - you get nice 221 tiles that way, which are becoming respectful 232 tiles under GA ^^

 

[pi-r8]

To be fair I did that a lot in civ4 as well. You had to expand in civ4 to be competitive. So what's the difference in this game? (I admit I haven't bought it yet, so that's a real question).

I'd like to see a review from a more casual player. No offense Sulla. Your skill level looks to be way above mine. I'd like to see a civ5 review from someone who plays Noble or prince in civ4 regularly. As that's what I'd normally play in civ4. Obviously hardcore stat players will find many holes in this game, but will the average civ4 player find holes in this game?

The difference was in Civ4 you had to be careful to put the city in good terrain, and not too far away, otherwise it would be a drag on your economy. So you had to think carefully about every city position. And even the best cities were long term investments that needed time to pay off, which might be more time than you have.

In Civ V you can just slap a city anywhere. Regardless of terrain or distance, you're only penalty is 2 unhappiness, and you get all sorts of benefits. It's really easy to do once you see the trick.

I think the only reason that more casual players haven't caught on to this yet is that the game gives you so much to look at, and it tricks you into thinking that everything is important. You're worried about unhappiness, you want to increase your population score, and you've got all these neat buildings to make like stock exchanges and hospitals, so even your best cities have too much to do. So you think "who needs more cities? 3 is plenty!" Once you learn to ignore terrain, ignore most buildings/wonders, ignore population, ignore farms (mine or trading post everything), ignore long trade routes, ignore big armies... basically ignore 90% of the game, everything becomes quite easy . However I don't think this is the way it's supposed to work.

 

[Julian Delphiki]

Of course, the problem is that this strategy isn't very interesting. It's actually quite boring, since you're just doing the same thing over and over again. I actually hate the Infinite City Sprawl (ICS) strategy. But if you're trying to play this game to win, and not cheese-rushing the AI, it is the best one to use. It's a major reason why I view the design of this game as being so flawed, because Civ5 is supposed to be all about small empires and the game actually promotes the most hardcore ICS tactics since Civ2.

It would be so fun if it would not make me cry.

 

[Andvare]

I just realized I've been missing an "L" in Sullla for years!

Don't worry, even his own site don't know it's with three "l".

 

[CaptTightpants]

First of all, I just wanted to say that I immensely enjoy your comments and reviews, Sulla. I too am a "veteran" of the Civ4 Walkthrough

I actually hate the Infinite City Sprawl (ICS) strategy. But if you're trying to play this game to win, and not cheese-rushing the AI, it is the best one to use. It's a major reason why I view the design of this game as being so flawed, because Civ5 is supposed to be all about small empires and the game actually promotes the most hardcore ICS tactics since Civ2.

I think this observation is the most damning to me for the entire design effort for Civ 5. A CORE design goal being completely negated by an exploit you found after only 3 or 4 plays?

On top of that, ICS has been a complaint about Civ going back about 15 years! I cannot imagine such a failure to be the product simply of rushing the game out the door.

I wonder: how much were hardcore fans actually driving the design process this time around? Or was everything guided by the wisdom of the marketing department, which thought that it should capitalize on the Civ Rev market?

I do have faith in the Civ community in modding this, however. Not so much in the original design team...

 

[charon2112]

First of all, I just wanted to say that I immensely enjoy your comments and reviews, Sulla. I too am a "veteran" of the Civ4 Walkthrough



I think this observation is the most damning to me for the entire design effort for Civ 5. A CORE design goal being completely negated by an exploit you found after only 3 or 4 plays?

On top of that, ICS has been a complaint about Civ going back about 15 years! I cannot imagine such a failure to be the product simply of rushing the game out the door.

I wonder: how much were hardcore fans actually driving the design process this time around? Or was everything guided by the wisdom of the marketing department, which thought that it should capitalize on the Civ Rev market?

I do have faith in the Civ community in modding this, however. Not so much in the original design team...

It's surprising to hear Sullla write that, because you had to spam cities to do well in Civ IV as well, and I never heard him make that criticism of IV. If you don't spam cities, then the AI will, and you will be hopefully outclassed in all areas.

 

[Louis XXIV]

The difference is you had to REX cities (and, even then, carefully to make sure your economy didn't tank). In Civ5, you can build cities very closely together and gain huge benefits.

 

[Aussie_Lurker]

It's surprising to hear Sullla write that, because you had to spam cities to do well in Civ IV as well, and I never heard him make that criticism of IV. If you don't spam cities, then the AI will, and you will be hopefully outclassed in all areas.

I'm sorry, but that is completely different from my own experience of Civ4. I've found myself with as few as 3 cities by the Medieval Period, yet am still level pegging with civs that are 2 to 3 times my size (even in Multiplayer). Though it might be true that larger empires can still win, Civ4 removed Infinite City Spread as a *guaranteed* route to victory (which it was in Civ1 to Civ3 &-apparently-is again in Civ5). In Civ4, I'd argue that it was the *quality* of your cities that mattered, not the raw amount!

Aussie.

 

[r_rolo1]

It's surprising to hear Sullla write that, because you had to spam cities to do well in Civ IV as well, and I never heard him make that criticism of IV. If you don't spam cities, then the AI will, and you will be hopefully outclassed in all areas.

Then i guess all the OCC-AW SG I played in civ IV that were won by conquest are a optical ilusion

 

[Louis XXIV]

I'm sorry, but that is completely different from my own experience of Civ4. I've found myself with as few as 3 cities by the Medieval Period, yet am still level pegging with civs that are 2 to 3 times my size (even in Multiplayer). Though it might be true that larger empires can still win, Civ4 removed Infinite City Spread as a *guaranteed* route to victory (which it was in Civ1 to Civ3 &-apparently-is again in Civ5). In Civ4, I'd argue that it was the *quality* of your cities that mattered, not the raw amount!

Aussie.

I feel very small empires are actually more viable in Civ5 than Civ4 with the social policies. However, it is dwarfed by ICS from what I've seen, so I guess it doesn't matter much.

 

[Aussie_Lurker]

I feel very small empires are actually more viable in Civ5 than Civ4 with the social policies. However, it is dwarfed by ICS from what I've seen, so I guess it doesn't matter much.

Except that Civics, too, had an empire size component to it-at least as far as I can recall-not a cost to switch, but definitely a cost to maintain. That is why I have an issue with Social Policies too-yes it can cost a bundle to acquire them but, once you do, you gain the benefits *forever* with no additional cost!

Aussie.

 

[charon2112]

I wish that in IV the quality of your cities meant something, but in my experience, if I was to build, say, three cities and then stop, the AI will spam a city anywhere there's a few empty tiles, even if the placement made no sense. Then I'd find myself completely surrounded and hopelessly out classed.

That's why I'm so glad that in V, you really can play with one or two "quality" cities and have a chance of winning (through culture, probably). That didn't exist in IV (to my knowledge).

I'm sorry, but that is completely different from my own experience of Civ4. I've found myself with as few as 3 cities by the Medieval Period, yet am still level pegging with civs that are 2 to 3 times my size (even in Multiplayer). Though it might be true that larger empires can still win, Civ4 removed Infinite City Spread as a *guaranteed* route to victory (which it was in Civ1 to Civ3 &-apparently-is again in Civ5). In Civ4, I'd argue that it was the *quality* of your cities that mattered, not the raw amount!

Aussie.

 

[Abegweit]

I wish that in IV the quality of your cities meant something, but in my experience, if I was to build, say, three cities and then stop, the AI will spam a city anywhere there's a few empty tiles, even if the placement made no sense. Then I'd find myself completely surrounded and hopelessly out classed.

That's why I'm so glad that in V, you really can play with one or two "quality" cities and have a chance of winning (through culture, probably). That didn't exist in IV (to my knowledge).

Really? I have won OCC conquest in Civ4 on Immortal. Others have done three city culture at the same level.

BTW, can you explain what the term "quality" (your quotes) means when applied to a Civ5 city? Aren't they all pretty much the same?

BTW 2, I have also done Immortal OCC conquest on Civ5. In Civ4, it took me thousands of years of city development before I was ready to go on the rampage. In Civ5, it just took me some horsemen. And I wasn't even playing the Greeks.

 

[lschnarch]

It's surprising to hear Sullla write that, because you had to spam cities to do well in Civ IV as well, and I never heard him make that criticism of IV. If you don't spam cities, then the AI will, and you will be hopefully outclassed in all areas.

I wish that in IV the quality of your cities meant something, but in my experience, if I was to build, say, three cities and then stop, the AI will spam a city anywhere there's a few empty tiles, even if the placement made no sense. Then I'd find myself completely surrounded and hopelessly out classed.

That's why I'm so glad that in V, you really can play with one or two "quality" cities and have a chance of winning (through culture, probably). That didn't exist in IV (to my knowledge).

Complete nonsense.
Unfortunately, statements like these are thrown into the discussion and then repeated all the time from all kind of self-proclaimed "defenders" who by such repeating just state to not having played the game.

In Civ4, it was all about correct city placement. And you had to know how many cities you could afford.
So it was about constant balancing of expansion and research, which was one effect to make the early game more interesting.

In Civ5 though you may place your cities almost everywhere, the closer the better.
Terrain has almost no meaning, nor have resources. You can even place cities in the middle of the desert, just make sure to have some maritime CS on your side.

 

[charon2112]

BTW, can you explain what the term "quality" (your quotes) means when applied to a Civ5 city? Aren't they all pretty much the same?

In the context of this post, "quality" really just meant large. But I disagree that all cities are the same, any more than all cities in IV were the same. You can specialize cities just as much in V...

 

[charon2112]

In Civ4, it was all about correct city placement. And you had to know how many cities you could afford. So it was about constant balancing of expansion and research, which was one effect to make the early game more interesting.

Same in V. But happiness is the expansion limiter instead of money. Which is fine, in my opinion.

 

[Bandobras Took]

Same in V. But happiness is the expansion limiter instead of money. Which is fine, in my opinion.

Not quite. Happiness was intended to be the expansion limiter, but doesn't live up to the role because of two problems:

1) High-level population is harder to get but causes just as much unhappiness; and
2) For some weird reason they stuck in a default ability to rush-buy buildings, which means happiness is as plentiful as your gold supply.

In Civ 4, money and research were directly tied -- found enough cities without tile improvements, and your gold and research were both in the pits.

Civ 4 wasn't about founding a great number of cities so much as it was controlling a competitive amount of workable tiles. The distinction is subtle but crucial.

 

[charon2112]

Not quite. Happiness was intended to be the expansion limiter, but doesn't live up to the role because of two problems:

1) High-level population is harder to get but causes just as much unhappiness; and
2) For some weird reason they stuck in a default ability to rush-buy buildings, which means happiness is as plentiful as your gold supply.

In Civ 4, money and research were directly tied -- found enough cities without tile improvements, and your gold and research were both in the pits.

Civ 4 wasn't about founding a great number of cities so much as it was controlling a competitive amount of workable tiles. The distinction is subtle but crucial.

I definitely agree that the money = research system of IV was superior...