The best things about CiV

[Horizons]

To me, buying stuff is what kills the game, now there's no point of focusing on production, just make a lot of trading posts, get a lot of money and buy whatever you want any time.

Did your enemy got a huge army next to your borders? No problem, go shopping and buy a nuke .

So I'm sticking with my whip, dear, I don't want to play The Sims.

Dude, buying stuff is super-duper expensive. It makes sense to have at least a couple of heavy-production cities for units (on standard maps). And then, yes, spam trading posts everywhere.

Sounds vaguely familiar right? In Civ4 the process was nearly identical (replace trading posts with cottages) and was known as 'specialization' and everyone said it was a great innovation.

 

[AFS]

But in Civ V production sucks, mines only give +1 to production and hills are scarce. It's much more effective to just trade post spam and buy your units while keeping a good population to have decent research. By the late game usually I got 400 gold per turn so basically I could buy tanks every three turns.

The process was the same in Civ IV, yeah, but the difference was that research and gold were dependant of the commerce, so if you wanted a lot of money you needed to cut off your research, that was the tradeoff. In V that doesn't happen and you can have a lot of research AND gold at the same time. With gold you can buy most buildings, units and pay city-states, and with that you got the game pretty much under control.

About slavery, yeah, it's overpowered, but wasn't effective all the time. Losing half the population in a city can hurt your economy a lot.

So yeah, even though I'm not a big fan of whipping I think it was better than just being able to buy whatever you want at any point of the game without penalty. The huge dependence of gold in Civ V it's what keeps me from enjoying the game.

 

[mekane]

But in Civ V production sucks, mines only give +1 to production and hills are scarce. It's much more effective to just trade post spam and buy your units while keeping a good population to have decent research. By the late game usually I got 400 gold per turn so basically I could buy tanks every three turns.

The process was the same in Civ IV, yeah, but the difference was that research and gold were dependant of the commerce, so if you wanted a lot of money you needed to cut off your research, that was the tradeoff. In V that doesn't happen and you can have a lot of research AND gold at the same time. With gold you can buy most buildings, units and pay city-states, and with that you got the game pretty much under control.

About slavery, yeah, it's overpowered, but wasn't effective all the time. Losing half the population in a city can hurt your economy a lot.

So yeah, even though I'm not a big fan of whipping I think it was better than just being able to buy whatever you want at any point of the game without penalty. The huge dependence of gold in Civ V it's what keeps me from enjoying the game.

From what I've read, most players maximize production, not gold, for their core cities (non puppets). apparently production is stronger for most of the game, especially after you get factories and railroads, and lumber mills give +1 production. i'm just a beginner but this seems to be very effective on the difficulty level i'm playing on. i don't like having to use 3 social policies on commerce just to grab the 25% reduction. I usually ICS/REX and need to get theocracy, and would then prefer the communism branch.

 

[spider1]

From the very first Civ released to play on DOS, each version was different, and the expansion packs added (sometimes) something new to do. But after a while, playing the same game gets old. Sure you can try different things, different civs, different game setups and the like, but after a while you like something new. Civ V is "new" in a very huge way because it changes so many things. It's nice to play something new in the Civ line that is still very much Civilization, gives me a nice enough challange that I don't win every single time out, and still allows for how I like to win: which is peacefull through science, culture or whatever. I have never really liked the war part of Civ. If I want to do war, I'll play an RTS, not a turn based game.

 

[Ricci]

It's not dumbed-down and thoughtless. In Civ4, 99% of the time you run slavery until forced to change because of a UN decision.

Dude, this quote renders inconsistent with your signature: "hardcore-gamer"

 

[Ricci]

Dude, buying stuff is super-duper expensive. It makes sense to have at least a couple of heavy-production cities for units (on standard maps). And then, yes, spam trading posts everywhere.

Sounds vaguely familiar right? In Civ4 the process was nearly identical (replace trading posts with cottages) and was known as 'specialization' and everyone said it was a great innovation.

Ok, I can see know what is happening, you never meant to say you knew cIV all that well, but probably you are hardcore just with the new game.
So, specialization was actually known to be the complete opposite economical form from cottages. It is very very rare/difficult to see a full 100% optimized specialized or cottage economy accomplished though; generally every gamer ended up instating a mixed economy among these two major forms and some others (enhanced trade, production economy, wonder economy.. etc)

 

[Thorite]

Hardcore or not there seems to be a lack of understanding of Civ4 and the concept of "tradeoff" and why that makes for interesting decisions.

Some people just want to have their cake and eat it too.

 

[Bushface]

"The best things about CiV" is the thread title.
There are no good things about CiV, therefore no better things and no best ones.
Possibly the least bad is the hex tiles, which can make slightly more interesting borders

 

[Horizons]

Ok, I can see know what is happening, you never meant to say you knew cIV all that well, but probably you are hardcore just with the new game.
So, specialization was actually known to be the complete opposite economical form from cottages. It is very very rare/difficult to see a full 100% optimized specialized or cottage economy accomplished though; generally every gamer ended up instating a mixed economy among these two major forms and some others (enhanced trade, production economy, wonder economy.. etc)

I always played Civ4 at Noble because I couldn't keep up with tech-trading AI. But I enjoyed, LOVE Civ4 for over four years.

By specialization I mean what Soren Johnson meant - city specialization. Some cities specialize in production, some in large population (in Civ5 this is for science as well as great people), and some with trade post spam.

Specialization is alive and well in Civ5.

And if you hate Civ5 that much and adore Civ4, feel free to go back to Civ4 and stop trolling on a Civ5 board.
Moderator Action: Accusations of trolling are seen as trolling itself.

 

[JohnnyW]

Dude don't be a pedant. I mean social policies.

In Civ4 you can either have bureaucracy OR freedom of speech. TOTALLY unrealistic because most modern democracies have BOTH.

So having Monarchy, Oligarchy, Representation, Republic, Theocracy, Democracy, Communism, and Autocracy all at the same time makes sense?


Moderator Action: The tone is a little much, please be respectful.

In Civ5 you don't have to choose either/or. You can build up a unique culture and politic for your nation without switching in and out of different systems whenever the need arises.

Anybody who thinks Civ4 civics is better than Civ5 policies is ... well ... misguided.

The fact that cultures cannot change over time is ridiculous, as is the ability to have all the govt types. But hey, I must be the misguided one.

You're arguing against civic balance. I'm not saying it was balanced, but it was clearly a better conceptual system than social policies. But hey, I guess I'm misguided again.

edit:

I always played Civ4 at Noble because I couldn't keep up with tech-trading AI.

Perhaps you shouldn't be claiming that there is only 1 viable strategy if your strategy can only get you that far into the game?

 

[Horizons]

So having Monarchy, Oligarchy, Representation, Republic, Theocracy, Democracy, Communism, and Autocracy all at the same time makes sense?

I should report you to the mods for your sarcastic and offensive post but instead I'll educate you a little.

Moderator Action: Whether you report it or not, it's not helpful to mention publicly that you "should" do so.

FIrst of all you can't have reprensetation/republic i.e. liberty or freedom policies as well as autocratic ones.

In the real world there are democracies that have monarchies - in many European countries.

In ancient Rome there was a Senate of the people AND a supreme ruler, the Emperor. Contradictory, right?


Theocracy makes sense for HUGE populations because otherwise if you have a high pop your empire will crumble to dust.

So dude, go and try playing Civ5 and get wise. This is just a friendly suggestion from me to you.

 

[JohnnyW]

I should report you to the mods for your sarcastic and offensive post but instead I'll educate you a little.

FUnny thing is I know everything you've posted below this.

FIrst of all you can't have reprensetation/republic i.e. liberty or freedom policies as well as autocratic ones.

So...what about the other like communism + landed elite? Or autocracy + oligarchy? You're missing my point that clear contradictory social policies can be utilized simultaneously.

So dude, go and try playing Civ5 and get wise. This is just a friendly suggestion from me to you.

I've played over 150 hours of civ5, and you don't seem very friendly at all.

But hey, I'm just misguided and unwise, right?

 

[Moss]

Moderator Action: Since you two can't seem to get along, thread is closed for a little while. I'll reopen it, but when it does get reopened, please quit the arguing.
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889

Moderator Action: Thread Reopened

 

[seriozha]

I just bought CIV 5 last week and it is the first time since civ 2 that i did not buy a civ title upon release. It had nothing to do with the game or the concepts more that the editor is a pain in the ass to use, yes i have figured out how to do what i want now, but it took almost a week of reading several websites to get a clear enough picture to figure out the convoluted steps one must do to play a map they just made. This is probably my biggest gripe with the game the rest of the stuff that is just the new vision for the series and i can get on board with that, but screw with my map editor and well i have problems.

I do like the city state concept which i have not totally figured out yet other than the tried and true roll the boys to kick thier gates down approach, which incedentally is my favorite. Yea i get yelled at alot.

The map has a more organic feel to it much more so than in the past and that is a bonus.

The social policy window is neat and really allows one to personalize a civ, although i can see in the future as i play more that some policy options will become standards regardless of the civ i play.

Was not real happy about the embarking option until i got used to it and now i am sold. Having to make transports to move units across had good points and bad, this is better. One still has to provide ample fleet coverage with out the annoying load and unload steps.

Having brought back ranged combat a big hooray goes out from this gamer. Gone are the stacks of death and good riddance to a poor machanic, but the stacking could be done a bit better. On some smaller maps i am having trouble finding places to place units even with the limited numbers of units one can make. Maybe there should be some sort of terrain feature like a fort where a few units could be stacked with the understanding that the entire stack of say 4 or 5 units would be vunlnerable to destruction if the primary unit is destroyed. Maybe a better option would be to allow limited stacking like one melee and one ranged to stack. For example an archer to stack on a swordsman with the swordsman providing the defensive for both, with the archer being destroyed if the swordsman is, but allowing the archer to provide ranged cover so both units work together in a truer combined arms approach.

I am still on the fence with the limited resources as in 5 or 6 coal from a source but it is probably a mechanic i just need to get used to having been spoiled with in the past just having an iron mine was all one needed to make unlimited swordsmen.

I liked the wonders and the functions much better from 4, but i really have to say that seeing Machu Pichu on a mountain top was/is pretty cool.

I do like how the map is more flexible as far as what the cities can work with addition of the 9 more workable hexes/squares a city can work makes it easier to meet the cities and my ever changing needs.

I am not a fan boy but with each new incarnation of the civs i have seen since i was a wee player back in the Civ 2 DOS days i have always found something to enjoy with each game and this is no different except for the map editor complexity. All in all i have had only 2 CTDs in the last week which is alot less than some other games i have played and no more an occurence than i had with Civ 4. This could be the fact that i do not use mods well not in the typical sense in that i change the game rules.

 

[(Alexandros)]

FIrst of all you can't have reprensetation/republic i.e. liberty or freedom policies as well as autocratic ones.

Yes, but you can have Monarchy and Communism together and also add a bit of Theocracy in the mix. Now, I'll let you get away with modern constitutional monarchies as a combination of democracy and monarchy (I shouldn't really, since they are merely democracies with fancy ceremonies), but I guarantee you, there has never been or ever will be a combination of communism/monarchy/theocracy. And I'm sure other combinations are mutually exclusive. The fact that you can't combine some policy branches is a good thing, but it also needs to be expanded to certain specific policies as well. Civ4 civics were not perfect sure, but Civ5 policies aren't more realistic no matter how you look at it.

And to answer to the thread's topic, I like the tactical element introduced with 1upt (although it could be improved in terms of moving troops around) and I adore limited resources! It really makes you think about how you're going to put them to better use. City States are a nice addition too, especially now that I use the City State Diplomacy mod.

 

[JoeBas]

Having brought back ranged combat a big hooray goes out from this gamer. Gone are the stacks of death and good riddance to a poor machanic, but the stacking could be done a bit better. On some smaller maps i am having trouble finding places to place units even with the limited numbers of units one can make. Maybe there should be some sort of terrain feature like a fort where a few units could be stacked with the understanding that the entire stack of say 4 or 5 units would be vunlnerable to destruction if the primary unit is destroyed. Maybe a better option would be to allow limited stacking like one melee and one ranged to stack. For example an archer to stack on a swordsman with the swordsman providing the defensive for both, with the archer being destroyed if the swordsman is, but allowing the archer to provide ranged cover so both units work together in a truer combined arms approach.

This would be ideal AFAIC... you can stack 1 melee, 1 ranged, and 1 fast horse, into a mini-combined-arms group. It takes 1MP to "attach/detatch" an element from your group, and the group fights with combined strength - true RANGED combat would be gone, but so would shooting over lakes/etc - the archers would continue to fire as long as the melees protect them, doing additional damage, but if the melees in front die they become vunerable. Basically, it would do away with a LOT of the cheese - anyone having single units (4 horsemen strategy) would be facing stronger stacks of combined arms, some with spears as their melee, and this would force combined arms, allow for more (I.E. cheaper) units (reduce maintenance costs to compensate), and emphasize the importance of having all the resources.

But as this is not currently IN the game, this is the wrong place for this.

 

[sharkles]

Haha I bet there are a lot of Americans who would call Europe Communist.
But anyway, I prefer the policies to the civics. It's better to continually upgrade your empire than to have to make an extreme trade off every time you switch civics.