Civilization V

Building times and massive maintenance costs in Civ V are a huge fun killer.

Fortunately, there are mods already available that fix these things.
 
Well, you dont have big stacks of units any more so I dont find the maintenance that big of a deal.

Happiness on the other hand is a pain in the behind, especially if you are an expansionist/conqueror =(
 
Crimefighter said:
Well, you dont have big stacks of units any more so I dont find the maintenance that big of a deal.
Click to expand...

It is a big deal because buildings cost up to 3 gold each to maintain, and also you no longer have gold based on a commerce slider, meaning that you cant increase / decrease your gold output as needed.

In most cities, building just a few buildings ends up with that city costing more to maintain than the gold it produces, building maintenance costs are broken in Civ V.

Also, even though you dont hae huge stacks of armies even more, units also cost more gold to maintain than they ever had done before. I've seen my unit costs increase by something around 4-7 gold for each unit built, which is ridiculous compared to how much gold a city can actually produce.
 
bhavv said:
It is a big deal because buildings cost up to 3 gold each to maintain, and also you no longer have gold based on a commerce slider, meaning that you cant increase / decrease your gold output as needed.

In most cities, building just a few buildings ends up with that city costing more to maintain than the gold it produces, building maintenance costs are broken in Civ V.

Also, even though you dont hae huge stacks of armies even more, units also cost more gold to maintain than they ever had done before. I've seen my unit costs increase by something around 4-7 gold for each unit built, which is ridiculous compared to how much gold a city can actually produce.
Click to expand...

Well in Civ V so far, I have been setting up my economy and then matching my military maintenance to it, rather than the other way around. I also do this for buildings - I look at my gold/turn surplus first - and then see if I really need a building.

It also depends on what I am doing, e.g conquering or consolidating.

I would like an easy way to see how my next unit will cost in maintenance though, at present I just guess what it might as it seems to change throughout the game. At least with buildings you know how much they are going to cost you per turn.

edit: random question are the units that militaristic city states gift you maintenance free or do you have to pay to maintain them?
 
Last edited:
Is it not possible perhaps that you are not supposed to be able to do all that?

It just seems like your complaining its not possible to have an endgame set on conquering the world with a gigantic military force in an endless war that also allows you to build cultural and happiness buildings in great excess in all your cities while also spamming Great Persons, pushing for a tech advantage with lots of science, wonder spamming and trying to mass huge amounts of Culture purely to further your Social Policies. Ok the whole 'empire unhappiness' is a bit silly when your empire is suddenly brought down by a conquered city thats unhappy half the globe away but it just sounds like you do it anyway because you think it SHOULD be fine when it clearly isn't.

The main problem the policies have is that some are so generic nobody wants them for anything and some are obviously incredibly powerful and available as the first choice. That and of course you get maybe 15-20 culture boosts, enough to max 3 or 4 trees completely, but that mostly get spent on maxing 2 trees while another 3 get a couple of points. Great system but it just seems flawed in how its been set up.
 
So people are moaning that it's not possible to have huge armies and every building you want in your cities? It's simple: you have a choice to make - build tons of units, improve your cities heavily or have a measured approach based on your circumstances - or just improve at the game. I think the fact you can't change your civics, that you can't build huge armies and have every building you want means that you have to pick and choose rather than just doing whatever you want and be the best at everything.

I'm slowly getting better, increasing the difficulty and seeing my happiness control and money management improve from one game to the next and it's very satisfying.
 
People are moaning because around 80%+ of the buildings are not worth building due to their costs. It is actually better to build and disband units for the gold to spend on city states instead, and that is a broken mechanic if doing that is vastly better.

Compared to previous versions of Civ, building things in Civ V is incredibly slow and too expensive.

Pookie Bear said:
I think the fact you can't change your civics, that you can't build huge armies and have every building you want means that you have to pick and choose rather than just doing whatever you want and be the best at everything.
Click to expand...

Building up cities and infrastructure is a very enjoyable aspect to Civ for a lot of people, In Civ V is it completely rubbish as opposed to simply conquering every AI Civ with requiring no more than 5 units.

For people who actually dont play Civ as a war game, Civ V is very tedious compared to earlier versions.
 
Last edited:
Is this from the point of view of someone who gets Commerce maxed and things to increase happiness, etc, or from the point of view of someone who still tries to do everything and ignores those policy trees because they aren't as good as the others?

Ok so balance isn't perfect but theres time to sort that... i can see how 3 gold is a lot for stuff like the Colosseum but shouldn't you then not be building 1 in every city?
 
I havent played it yet, but I hope the emphasis hasn't tipped purely to war!

I tend to play a game built around commerce and setting up lucrative trades (whilst keeping friendly with as many civs as I can) to build an army in the latter stages to crush the few remaining civs. Sounds like that approach does not work so well in this one?
 
Bes said:
I havent played it yet, but I hope the emphasis hasn't tipped purely to war!

I tend to play a game built around commerce and setting up lucrative trades (whilst keeping friendly with as many civs as I can) to build an army in the latter stages to crush the few remaining civs. Sounds like that approach does not work so well in this one?
Click to expand...

Its the only approach that i have had to work, maybe i suck at it, i wont pretend im even a good player but once you begin to conquer the AI its like a snow ball effect, to maintain your money supply, because your own empire becomes so unhappy, you need the revenue from pillaging other cities.

Ive taken entire continents with 6 infantry/riflemen and 2 artillery pieces, previously they had 10s of units on my boarders harassing me, but when the war kicks off they seem to melt away or do the most suicidal attacks.

Dont ever ever bother to liberate anything but city states, raze everything to the ground cos you will never ever be able to afford to keep the spoils.

Im desperately still wanting to win a space race but it always ends in WW3.. lol
 
Bes said:
I havent played it yet, but I hope the emphasis hasn't tipped purely to war!

I tend to play a game built around commerce and setting up lucrative trades (whilst keeping friendly with as many civs as I can) to build an army in the latter stages to crush the few remaining civs. Sounds like that approach does not work so well in this one?
Click to expand...

The first part works really well, concentrating on commerce has worked for me although I havent played a game above King difficulty level yet - it may not work with more aggressive AI civs at the high difficulty levels.

Building up an army in the later stages only works to a point - as mentioned earlier the maintenance costs for military units increase exponentially so it can be hard/costly to have a big military. In saying that, if you have built up a great economy then you probably have the gold to be able to do it.

In a game I had as the greeks I was able to do that due to my own emphasis on commerce (this is also my style of play).

In my current game as the Chinese Im not liking it as much - the chinese traits are geared up for conquest and it just seems like my Civ is constantly poor and unhappy. Unhappy Civs get a -33% combat penalty for their units so it just doesnt seem to work very well when you are warmongering. I try to reduce unhappyness by puppeting conquered cities then annexing them later, but thats not too effective either.
 
Evilsod said:
Ok so balance isn't perfect but theres time to sort that... i can see how 3 gold is a lot for stuff like the Colosseum but shouldn't you then not be building 1 in every city?
Click to expand...

In order to get a culture win, you need to build every culture and happiness building that you possibly can to win, so I dont see how I'm not meant to build colosseums in every city when they would give me extra culture throuh mandate of heaven, and allow me to grow my cities up.

Happiness is very important in Civ V, you need it to grow your cities. 3 gold per colosseum, and 4 per theatre is just ridiculous. You also actually need a huge happiness excess if you ever want to trigger golden ages through the happiness bucket, but doing so ends up with your gold per turn quickly going very negative.

Also, if you want to go for a space race win, I'm pretty sure you are going to want to build the science improvements in as many cities as you can, but beyond the library, the rest are incredibly expensive to build and maintain, that again the most viable strategy even for a space race is to conquer as many cities as you can and then only use libraries and nothing else.

Also, your cities need to be building something. You cant just sit them there doing nothing, and only getting 10% of your production going into wealth is a complete joke. People are actually having their cities do nothing other than build the cheapest unit possible to disband for gold, because they get more benefit out of that than building any buildings and losing GP on maintenance, or from having so much production lost from building wealth.
 
Great point about the City Generating 10% wealth or science, i couldn't actually believe that when i first saw it. I surely think this is an over site that made it to live they must have missed a 0 off.

My largest city put onto wealth creation, my gold per turn went from 45 to 47 i actually laughed.
 
I think I'll need to play on smaller maps next time around, my latest epic Terra game has been... well, boring.

Two thing's I would like is for the interface to be smaller, and for the CIV's to appear in power order, like they should do.

Oh and one other thing, barbarians are pathetic, I used to fear them.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom