Civilization V

Tombstone said:
I agree, I much prefer the 1UPT system, but I wont boo the mod as more mods means more choices for players to play how they like, which can only be a good thing rather than a bad thing ;)
Click to expand...

Haha yeah not booing modding at all (always a little excited to see what people come up with) its just that specific element was one change to civ (of thing to bring back) that im really really enjoying (and forcing me to forget my civ4 tactics) ;)
 
Theres one thing incredibly broken with the 1UPT in Civ V, and that is how much dumber the AI are now that they cant attack you with massive stacks of doom.
 
The city states all declared war on me and the other empires are concerned over my war mongering , America likes me though :D

Will have nukes soon :eek:
 
Neil79 said:
The city states all declared war on me and the other empires are concerned over my war mongering , America likes me though
Click to expand...
I had a game last night (which I had to abandon) after everyone seemed to grow increasingly upset with me when it wasn't me starting the fights. They all jumped me and wiped me out. Sadly, during the course of my war with Hiawatha, he decided to offer me half his empire in exchange for peace (to be fair, it was a reasonable offer, I was kicking his arse!). I took the cities and my unhappiness flew through the roof. There was a knock-on effect on my money and before you know it, I had stagnating cities, no production, no money and my army disappearing due to not being able to pay upkeep. I got slapped silly.

For those who have continual happiness issues, I've found playing as Gandhi to be an effective counter-measure. His empire ability is very useful. My game is now going much better than it was when I was England - especially since naval abilities are of less use in this Civ.
 
Thats one thing else that annoys me about this is how rigidly you have to play or stick to the master plan... except war/domination.

Without the ability to swap your governmental structure i find it kinda very linear in game play now.
 
Pookie Bear said:
... especially since naval abilities are of less use in this Civ.
Click to expand...

Try playing an archipelago map. I did so much damage with my ships of the line :D

Went through Suleimans empire just knocking out coastal city after coastal city and moving a rifleman in just after the city was completely destroyed.
 
Efour2 said:
Thats one thing else that annoys me about this is how rigidly you have to play or stick to the master plan... except war/domination.

Without the ability to swap your governmental structure i find it kinda very linear in game play now.
Click to expand...

Isn't that the point? You're supposed to plan for the future and if you fail, your civ is one for the history books which is kinda what the game is about, surviving the test of time. While i see your point that you are kinda stuck if you take something and want to change later, the differences between Communism and Democracy could be transitioned, but removing an advantage like 'Spawn a Great General' or things that get you early game advantage after its become less use... the policy tree's aren't balanced for it.

And frankly if you think its linear now how much worse exactly would it become when you can respec? Instead of "i'll take this because its useful throughout" it just turns into "i'll take this for now and change it to this later on", with 'this' and 'that' being the same thing each time.
 
Darg said:
Try playing an archipelago map. I did so much damage with my ships of the line :D

Went through Suleimans empire just knocking out coastal city after coastal city and moving a rifleman in just after the city was completely destroyed.
Click to expand...
Yeah, I can see how that might be helpful :D but it's also a bit of a cheap shot, isn't it? I mean how the AI doesn't seem to use navy very effectively so far (having flashbacks to Empire Total War!).

Evilsod said:
Isn't that the point? You're supposed to plan for the future and if you fail, your civ is one for the history books which is kinda what the game is about, surviving the test of time. While i see your point that you are kinda stuck if you take something and want to change later, the differences between Communism and Democracy could be transitioned, but removing an advantage like 'Spawn a Great General' or things that get you early game advantage after its become less use... the policy tree's aren't balanced for it.

And frankly if you think its linear now how much worse exactly would it become when you can respec? Instead of "i'll take this because its useful throughout" it just turns into "i'll take this for now and change it to this later on", with 'this' and 'that' being the same thing each time.
Click to expand...
I can see how the pick and stick with it system is a good one. It's a huge change from how civics were handled before, but it does mean that those who choose a specific way of play are going to have that style of play defined for the length of their game. If you're going to choose bloodthirsty civics, then so be it, don't expect to suddenly turn into an angel and take advantage :D
 
I do agree but there has to be a better balance between fun and how it is.
too much is tied into them.
I miss the governments, "viva la revolution"
it is a very, very drastic change to the game.
Take Germany Italy and Spain all flirted with fascism for ~15 years, you wouldnt say they are all still inherently evil.
 
Last edited:
Efour2 said:
Germany Italy and Spain ... are all ... inherently evil.
Click to expand...
Outrageous! :D

I do agree that the old revolutions were fun, but it was simply too easy to swap about - the revolution itself was no real penalty. A couple turns of anarch and then all of a sudden you're a peace-loving hippy instead of the maniac who was moments ago waging bloody war with half the world.

I think to some extent it is also there to protect players. When you can't swap, it's in your mindset - if you pick and choose what you want, you're going to end up with lesser civics from multiple groups and that might weaken your empire.
 
Efour2 said:
I do agree but there has to be a better balance between fun and how it is.
too much is tied into them.
I miss the governments, "viva la revolution"
it is a very, very drastic change to the game.
Take Germany Italy and Spain all flirted with fascism for ~15 years, you wouldnt say they are all still inherently evil.
Click to expand...

Pookie Bear said:
Outrageous! :D

I do agree that the old revolutions were fun, but it was simply too easy to swap about - the revolution itself was no real penalty. A couple turns of anarch and then all of a sudden you're a peace-loving hippy instead of the maniac who was moments ago waging bloody war with half the world.

I think to some extent it is also there to protect players. When you can't swap, it's in your mindset - if you pick and choose what you want, you're going to end up with lesser civics from multiple groups and that might weaken your empire.
Click to expand...

Indeed. You could hardly call them balanced, and didn't 1 of the civs have a 'no anarchy' clause too? There was nothing really making you stick your choice of government style and there was no benefit for sticking with it. You got instant, full effects, from the get-go instead of it being a progression where'd you'd get better effects after adopting it for x turns. The policy thing may be a sudden change but sudden =/= bad. The only real problem with it is that the effects don't really seem to get stronger with more points invested since they're all over the place.
 
Evilsod said:
Indeed. You could hardly call them balanced, and didn't 1 of the civs have a 'no anarchy' clause too? There was nothing really making you stick your choice of government style and there was no benefit for sticking with it. You got instant, full effects, from the get-go instead of it being a progression where'd you'd get better effects after adopting it for x turns. The policy thing may be a sudden change but sudden =/= bad. The only real problem with it is that the effects don't really seem to get stronger with more points invested since they're all over the place.
Click to expand...

I know Hatshepsut had a no anarchy clause, which was quite handy so tended to play as her for a while.
 
Evilsod said:
Hitler united a broken country and started a war for the most hypocritical reasons in history. He also lost and commited suicide. All in under a decade. I wouldn't really call that 'great' nor something that anyone would like to remember. Just because it would be 'cool' to have Hitler leading Germany doesn't mean it should happen... theres something about leading Germany to conquer the world under Hitler that would just be kinda sickening if you somehow got pleasure in doing so.
Click to expand...

Your post and user name are poorly matched!

:)



just tried the demo I was late getting into civ4 and this seems so different but a lot simpler to access is this the general feeling here? I am in two minds to by or not or stick with IV as I haven't been playing that for very long.
 
Last edited:
4 is arguably the best rendition of all the 4 real civ games

Civ 5 is like starting all over again - lots changed it looks the same but really not the same
 
Efour2 said:
4 is arguably the best rendition of all the 4 real civ games

Civ 5 is like starting all over again - lots changed it looks the same but really not the same
Click to expand...

im leaning this way. I played Civ3 a hell of a lot more than Civ4, but not due to Civ4 being worse but simply because i didnt have the time anymore.

Some of my Grand Maps in Civ3 it took almost an hour per turn to keep everything in check (like WWII mod). Used to love bombarding the Civ down to no roads so he had no connections meaning he couldnt build anything. Sure it was overpowering but its basically what we did to Germany...

Civ4 didnt really have that, and i couldnt devote enough time to it, partly due to getting a real life.... sucks :( lol

Civ5 im liking, but this isnt a instant classic, so much so that i want to install Civ4 again.
 
Efour2 said:
4 is arguably the best rendition of all the 4 real civ games

Civ 5 is like starting all over again - lots changed it looks the same but really not the same
Click to expand...

I think each game has its own ideas and charms, iv avidly played 2,3 and 4 (gotten significantly more than my moneys worth from each one) and have very fond memories from playing any of them. 2 had the best sound track and presentation (wonder movies really) when 3 had the best overall sprawling empire experience (ie you could with a big enough map build an empire that cycled through the whole city name set then demolish everyone) when 4 had the most fun and diverse set of winning conditions.

5, in my view, is what civ as a series needs, a change towards playability but at the same time trying out ideas from other areas (like some things are ideas from revolution which I didnt enjoy much). Its taken me about 18 hours to understand how to play properly but iv found it much more satisfying not having to do the city rush from previous games as the civ happiness thing makes this inefficient. The dynamics of the tech tree and social policies are much more interesting too than previous civs (as hammering up the tech tree to develop democracy and sticking with it with minimal anarchy isn't as exciting). Finally I really like the one unit per square rule as it creates a more interesting war (along with limits to some unit types based on resources).

Only thing im not impressed by is the end to gaining money for failing to produce a wonder (along with no ability to understand what your opponent has researched) as it makes undertaking wonders too much of a risk at some points in the game (though I do understand the need to make wonders more of an achievement).

Generally (once the few bugs are sorted out) id put my neck out and say this is the best civ to play...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom