First just want to say I've always enjoyed reading these forums. Picked up a lot of great strategies and ideas for different styles of play through. I used to hate the Incans in Civ 4 before figuring out how good they were here I'm a longtime player of IV and III and have been eagerly awaiting five.
With that preface said I'm gonna write a little on who I've played as, how it worked, what works well in the game, and of course what really doesn't work. So far I've won on King, Emperor, Immortal and Diety. You can check out my steam stats profile (ben_jackson)i'm the one in Texas, if you wanna verify the Diety win.
For the first few games I've played as my favorite Civ from IV, Rome. Luckily they don't disappoint in V either. The +25% production bonus to all your secondary cities in a game that lacks as much production as V is uncountably good. Legions and Ballistas are two of my favorite UU, they come at a perfect time (I b line to Ironworking most games only occasionly stoping to pick up Masonry along the way). The early powerful units usually let me knock out the nearest Civ, most times s two before a quick upgrade to Longswordmen. Domination victories on every Rome play except one where I got a culture victory, with 20 cities, on Prince (way way to easy). All throughout the game to make sure I'm using my UA, I purchase whatever building in Rome, then spam it with quicker production throughout the rest of my empire. This is essential for all gold producing buildings, and workshops to unlock Ironworks for Rome itself.
Got another King Victory playing as Egypt, this time just with high score. I built everyone wonder but two in the game, which i quickly took from Montezuma. Ended up winning with a high score a single turn short of completing the utopia project (Ya I was pissed). I got bored toward the modern era and wanted to nuke someone so started a war with Washington where I obliterated half of his cities for fun (Nukes look awesome).
Now on to my comments about the good and bad of the game.
The Good
1. Revamped Combat System- Thank god the Stacks of Death are gone. Combat in Civ 5 is fantastic. Between Great generals, Flanking, Range of Supporting units there are innumerable strategies to try out. This was the most needed revamp for the series, and is easily the most fun of the game.
2. Cities defend themselves- A useful addition, especially early game. It's nice to be able to explore without fear of barbarians ending you within the first 10 turns. Later sieges of strong cities on high difficulty require a decent amount of strategy. A fun change.
3. Navies Matter- I've had a few games where I've conquered entire civ's thanks to a powerful navy supporting a few powerful troops. Navies were all but useless in IV so this is a welcome change.
4. Social Policies-Fun little that really allow you to customize how your empire reacts throughout time. Really creates a lot of different ways to play the game.
5. Leaders speaking in their own language- This one is a little more aimed at me (I'm fluent in Latin and Ancient Greek) but it's really fun to hear the leaders speaking in their original languages rather than a fake regional accent. It adds a nice flavor to the game.
6. Happiness- Prevents over expansion and creates a nice needed balance to the game. Heard and read a lot of complaints about this but I really don't think its that bad except for exception 4 in the bad section.
The Bad
1. I cannot stress this enough. The designers have created a great system for combat that the AI is simply incapable of understanding or playing. I've noticed this on King through Diety difficulty. Way to often the AI will advance on me with Archers in front, lined up next to or in front of spearmen/swordman. My Praetorians make easy work every time. Even on Diety level when I was fighting Ghandi he kept flinging his War Elephants against my spearmen to their own destruction instead of staying out of range and weakening me with arrows. This has got to get fixed somehow, it's simply too easy to beat the AI as it stands militarily.
2. No endgame or Wonder videos. Is it really too much to ask when I'm shelling out 50 bucks to give me a 5-10 second video when I beat the game. It feels cheap. The wonders no longer inspire awe when you get them. It's boring, it's drab and the game has lost much of it's historical appeal because of it. The cities not changing from ancient to Renaissance also add to this affect.
3. Simply not enough resources/gold to maintain any sort of empire late game with maintenance costs. I've somewhat fixed this by switching to legendary starts which make the game much more enjoyable but even then, the AI and myself are all hemorrhaging gold from 1900 on. This has happened in test games I've played where I've had every monetary building possible, focused my other cities, and have a standard army compared to the rest of the AI. There simply isn't enough money to be had in the game. Either maintenance costs need to be lowered or tile bonuses need to be upped.
4. Why can't I purchase a courthouse. It's the only building in the game I can't for some reason. Make it expensive I don't care. If my empires economy is kicking I should be able to offset the initial happiness from conquering a city through economic means. I mean c'mon, you can buy just about anything else in the game.
5. Since the AI can't play the game at least give me a Multiplayer where I can play someone. Both games I've tried on MP so far have been dropped or glitched or screwed up within 100 turns. I trust this will be fixed by 2k/Firaxis.
6. I miss religion, it's too much a major part of history to remove from a historical game. I don't miss espionage.
7. Razing cities- I noticed this on my Egypt playthrough. While I was razing cities, I took 3 in a single turn they completely jacked up what I needed to the next social policy. This just seems unfair as It pretty much prevents a culture victory if you go on offensive wars to weaken aggressive neighbors. If I'm in the process of burning a city to the ground it shouldn't add to my culture points requirements. This cost me my culture win as Egypt, (sore win instead, I had double score of 4 remaining civs). The game shouldn't make non-military victories so dang hard to achieve.
That's pretty much the nuts and bolts of what I think. I'm not gonna nitpick on here like many. I'd give the game an 80/100. Maybe a 75/100. If they fix some of the biggest bugs and problems there's no reason this game can't easily surpass IV.
With that preface said I'm gonna write a little on who I've played as, how it worked, what works well in the game, and of course what really doesn't work. So far I've won on King, Emperor, Immortal and Diety. You can check out my steam stats profile (ben_jackson)i'm the one in Texas, if you wanna verify the Diety win.
For the first few games I've played as my favorite Civ from IV, Rome. Luckily they don't disappoint in V either. The +25% production bonus to all your secondary cities in a game that lacks as much production as V is uncountably good. Legions and Ballistas are two of my favorite UU, they come at a perfect time (I b line to Ironworking most games only occasionly stoping to pick up Masonry along the way). The early powerful units usually let me knock out the nearest Civ, most times s two before a quick upgrade to Longswordmen. Domination victories on every Rome play except one where I got a culture victory, with 20 cities, on Prince (way way to easy). All throughout the game to make sure I'm using my UA, I purchase whatever building in Rome, then spam it with quicker production throughout the rest of my empire. This is essential for all gold producing buildings, and workshops to unlock Ironworks for Rome itself.
Got another King Victory playing as Egypt, this time just with high score. I built everyone wonder but two in the game, which i quickly took from Montezuma. Ended up winning with a high score a single turn short of completing the utopia project (Ya I was pissed). I got bored toward the modern era and wanted to nuke someone so started a war with Washington where I obliterated half of his cities for fun (Nukes look awesome).
Now on to my comments about the good and bad of the game.
The Good
1. Revamped Combat System- Thank god the Stacks of Death are gone. Combat in Civ 5 is fantastic. Between Great generals, Flanking, Range of Supporting units there are innumerable strategies to try out. This was the most needed revamp for the series, and is easily the most fun of the game.
2. Cities defend themselves- A useful addition, especially early game. It's nice to be able to explore without fear of barbarians ending you within the first 10 turns. Later sieges of strong cities on high difficulty require a decent amount of strategy. A fun change.
3. Navies Matter- I've had a few games where I've conquered entire civ's thanks to a powerful navy supporting a few powerful troops. Navies were all but useless in IV so this is a welcome change.
4. Social Policies-Fun little that really allow you to customize how your empire reacts throughout time. Really creates a lot of different ways to play the game.
5. Leaders speaking in their own language- This one is a little more aimed at me (I'm fluent in Latin and Ancient Greek) but it's really fun to hear the leaders speaking in their original languages rather than a fake regional accent. It adds a nice flavor to the game.
6. Happiness- Prevents over expansion and creates a nice needed balance to the game. Heard and read a lot of complaints about this but I really don't think its that bad except for exception 4 in the bad section.
The Bad
1. I cannot stress this enough. The designers have created a great system for combat that the AI is simply incapable of understanding or playing. I've noticed this on King through Diety difficulty. Way to often the AI will advance on me with Archers in front, lined up next to or in front of spearmen/swordman. My Praetorians make easy work every time. Even on Diety level when I was fighting Ghandi he kept flinging his War Elephants against my spearmen to their own destruction instead of staying out of range and weakening me with arrows. This has got to get fixed somehow, it's simply too easy to beat the AI as it stands militarily.
2. No endgame or Wonder videos. Is it really too much to ask when I'm shelling out 50 bucks to give me a 5-10 second video when I beat the game. It feels cheap. The wonders no longer inspire awe when you get them. It's boring, it's drab and the game has lost much of it's historical appeal because of it. The cities not changing from ancient to Renaissance also add to this affect.
3. Simply not enough resources/gold to maintain any sort of empire late game with maintenance costs. I've somewhat fixed this by switching to legendary starts which make the game much more enjoyable but even then, the AI and myself are all hemorrhaging gold from 1900 on. This has happened in test games I've played where I've had every monetary building possible, focused my other cities, and have a standard army compared to the rest of the AI. There simply isn't enough money to be had in the game. Either maintenance costs need to be lowered or tile bonuses need to be upped.
4. Why can't I purchase a courthouse. It's the only building in the game I can't for some reason. Make it expensive I don't care. If my empires economy is kicking I should be able to offset the initial happiness from conquering a city through economic means. I mean c'mon, you can buy just about anything else in the game.
5. Since the AI can't play the game at least give me a Multiplayer where I can play someone. Both games I've tried on MP so far have been dropped or glitched or screwed up within 100 turns. I trust this will be fixed by 2k/Firaxis.
6. I miss religion, it's too much a major part of history to remove from a historical game. I don't miss espionage.
7. Razing cities- I noticed this on my Egypt playthrough. While I was razing cities, I took 3 in a single turn they completely jacked up what I needed to the next social policy. This just seems unfair as It pretty much prevents a culture victory if you go on offensive wars to weaken aggressive neighbors. If I'm in the process of burning a city to the ground it shouldn't add to my culture points requirements. This cost me my culture win as Egypt, (sore win instead, I had double score of 4 remaining civs). The game shouldn't make non-military victories so dang hard to achieve.
That's pretty much the nuts and bolts of what I think. I'm not gonna nitpick on here like many. I'd give the game an 80/100. Maybe a 75/100. If they fix some of the biggest bugs and problems there's no reason this game can't easily surpass IV.
