Or perhaps you could stop whining about how the AI is a little dodgy and play it WITHOUT abusing it? Honestly half the problems that people complain about are from intentionally abusing the teething problems with this new 'tactical' approach and no stacks of doom. Its like bhavv complaining about the slingshotting with Babylon and continueing to do it anyway...
Civilization V
- Thread starter Nieldo
- Start date
Or perhaps you could stop whining about how the AI is a little dodgy and play it WITHOUT abusing it? Honestly half the problems that people complain about are from intentionally abusing the teething problems with this new 'tactical' approach and no stacks of doom. Its like bhavv complaining about the slingshotting with Babylon and continueing to do it anyway...
I've actually found the release of Civ 5 to be pretty similar to Civ 4 (and the previous civs), massively high "official" reviews. Quite a few complaints on forums about bugs or game changes. Been kinda the same from what I can see. Civ 4 ushered those early issues away and with some mods/tweaks/expansions became a hugely superior game to its vanilla self. I've no doubt at all that Civ 5 will do exactly the same.
Having said that, I am already thoroughly enjoying Civ 5 as it is. Played 3 games so far, 1st was as Germany on Huge Earth Map, Emperor level, Standard gamespeed. 2nd was as Persia on Huge Earth Map, King Level, Standard gamespeed. My current is as Greece on Huge Earth Map, Emperor level, Epic gamespeed. Enjoyed all 3 of them so far, so already a hit for me and given its only likely to get even better then I'm a very happy bunny
Civ is also played competitively by a lot of people at Civfanatics, and I tend to try out the gauntlets and game of the months that they have. Having broken mechanics in place is unfair on people competing with one anoher when playing against the game.
However, I werent complaining about the babylon slingshot, I were just mentioning that Babylons UA is too powerful compared to the other Civs, and puts them too far ahead when used correctly, which was just a factual observance of Babylon. I'm not tehe only one complaining or mentioning this exploit, head over to civfanatics forum and see how broken other Civ veterans think it is as well.
A lot of people play Civ to compete with the fastest win times possible, and Babylon is much much better than the other Civs for that purpose.
Please, I wish that was possible. I dont even play Civ as a warmonger and avoid war whenever possible. But what do you think I'm going to do when an AI declares on me? I'm not exactly going to sit back and let them pillage my improvemnts and capture my cities, I'm going to try and defend myself and push them back.
Now this is the crazy part - I only have one or two cities, and an AI that has conquered my whole Island declares on me. All I have is a mere handful of <5 ranged units guarding my borders, plus a load of allied city states. As a result of the war, all my allied city states also declare war on this huge civ that has dominated a whole continent, and I just simply keep a few ranged units nearby to support them, and fire on any of the enemies units that get close.
I manage to completely decimate 10-20 AI units using just 3 or 4 archers / trebuchets / cannons. The allied city states lay waste to the AI attack forces with just 2 or 3 musketmen each. 5 turns later, this huge powerful civ comes crawling to me begging for peace, offering me all his / her gold, resources, and even a city even though I've not even gone into his borders or attacked any of his cities, but rather simply defend my cities and my allied city states.
How can you tell me not to abuse that amount of ridiculously stupid AI? I dont even have to try to do anything to make it happen, the AI is incredibly dumb, attacks me, and then surrenders and gives me everything because I pwn him with a few ranged units and maybe even some allied city states.
Heres a screenshot of this very last game:
You can see how huge the yellow empire is (Askia). I took Athens very early in the game because Aexander attacked one of my cultural city states, so I went to war and too out Athens to stop him getting to powerful. After that, Askia slowly swallowed up the rest of Greece, then India, and then Iroquis, and there was no one left but him and me. Then he declares war on my only Maritime city state (No way I can lose hat or my Cities starve), so I start moving in my Camel archers, initially simply intending to block him from attacking the city state. Two turns later, he declares on me.
I rush buy a trebuchet and garrison it in Athens, followed up by two longswordsman rush buys. I see a military city state that I havnt allied yet, and pay it 1000 gold, so it allies and attacks Aski, as well as 3 other nearby city states, all of which just have a few musketmen. I march in my longswordmen around Athens / Rio de Janerio and Bucharest backed up by 3 camel archers, and lay waste to armies of Askias Longswordsmen, UUs (some kind of horse unit), and some trebuchets using my camel archers. Askia attacks my longswordsmen and kills one, so I rush another, but my camels remain untouched and take out 5-10 of his units in no time, while the city states manage to beat everything he throws at them with just 2-3 musketmen each. All the feeble units he sent to attack Athens were destroyed simply with using the city bombard and the trebuchet garrisined inside.
About 5 turns later, Askia surrenders and hands me over loads of gold and resources just for peace. Later on I got gifted a horseman and cannon from the now allied military city state (replaced my trebuchet, and upgraded the horsie to another Camel Archer, and then bought a third longsword to make a fortress wall around Athens).
Now you know what I find even more shocking about this? How did Askia with such a lame AI destroy and take over all the other Civs so easily, yet get owned by a few city states and camel archers? Just how BAD was the AI on those other civs?
In fact, in every game I play, the AI is so UNBELIEVABLY bad, that one AI civ ALWAYS gobbles up and conquers he rest with complete ease and no difficulty at all. Then when that Civ comes to me with its now huge empire and massive army, it cant even get past a few archers
What exactly do you expect me to do to avoid exploiting the AI when it comes to me begging to be exploited?
Last edited:
@bhavv
I wish I had that sort of luck, in my first game as Germany (Emperor, Standard), the AI (China) just steamrolled me when he declared war on me, he charged in with a stonk load of units and pulverised everything I had. The same thing happened to me in my second game as Persia (King, Standard), I was doing much better this time around but when England turned on me he charged in with god knows how many units and wiped the floor with me.
I'm hoping to fair a bit better in my 3rd game as Greece (Emperor, Epic). Though I must admit that Persia is beginning to look a little scary on my borders
Could they not avoid the broken Babylonians in these online games by simply not allowing anyone to play the Babylonians until they are fixed or modded? Seems a straight forward solution that would ensure that nobody ends up being fair/unfair.
I wish I had that sort of luck, in my first game as Germany (Emperor, Standard), the AI (China) just steamrolled me when he declared war on me, he charged in with a stonk load of units and pulverised everything I had. The same thing happened to me in my second game as Persia (King, Standard), I was doing much better this time around but when England turned on me he charged in with god knows how many units and wiped the floor with me.
I'm hoping to fair a bit better in my 3rd game as Greece (Emperor, Epic). Though I must admit that Persia is beginning to look a little scary on my borders
Could they not avoid the broken Babylonians in these online games by simply not allowing anyone to play the Babylonians until they are fixed or modded? Seems a straight forward solution that would ensure that nobody ends up being fair/unfair.
You really dont need any luck, just play as Babylon, England, China or Arabia for the Imba ranged UU and you can hold out against almost anything with them. One mistake a lot of players make is using melee units. Dont take the war outside of your borders, turtle up with ranged / siege units and the AI wont manage to touch you. As anyone else, try the same thing with standard archers / crossbows and then siege weapons.
^^ Actually, you need melee units in front of your archers, but leave them fortified and dont attack with them. Their zone of control stops your ranged units behind from getting touched.
Later on in the game, if you simply prioritize getting to Dynamite first and get a few artillery out, invincibility to the AI is easy to achieve in the modern era as well.
As for the second part, that is likely what will happen, just as Inca were banned from Civ IV gauntlets. However, in the beta gauntlet game, they decided to specify that you had to play as Arabia, so if they simply specify which Civ to play instead, then it is also fine as everyone is competing with the same Civ.
I remember much earlier on in this thread, someone told me that turtling would be hard in Civ V. Its not, turtling is incredibly powerful and you can take out far many more units than what you have when done right.
Last edited:
I always play as a random civ, nice to get a little surprise
I certainly am not going to pick a civ if I know for certain that its one which will be imbalanced in my favour. Would be a little like starting chess with an extra queen just because I could I love turtling, my favourite way to play, turtle and avoid war as much as possible. Sadly it didnt help me much when those AI nations came at me with 50 units hehe. The spanking I got in my first proper game made me drop from Emperor to King , admittedly I faired a bit better on King and felt happy to pop it back up to Emperor for my first Epic game. Once this one is done I will give a Marathon game a go and then a Snail game. Theres a Glacial but I'm not sure how long it would take me to play 9000 turns.
Last edited:
Oh, well, emperor might explain it, I'm playing on King and its nice and easy 
Actually, King is the same difficulty as Prince was in Civ IV (one up from normal), and I mainly played Civ IV on Monarch, so I should be playing Civ V on Emperor too.
Is still lame that the AI needs massive cheats to beat the human player though, on a completely equal footing, they are hopeless.
Actually, King is the same difficulty as Prince was in Civ IV (one up from normal), and I mainly played Civ IV on Monarch, so I should be playing Civ V on Emperor too.
Is still lame that the AI needs massive cheats to beat the human player though, on a completely equal footing, they are hopeless.
Last edited:
Oh, well, emperor might explain it, I'm playing on King and its nice and easy
Actually, King is the same difficulty as Prince was in Civ IV (one up from normal), and I mainly played Civ IV on Monarch, so I should be playing Civ V on Emperor too.
Yeah I'm enjoying Emperor...had a lot of fun as Germany and enjoying Greece at the moment too. Still too few turns for me on Epic (only 750) though, so looking forward to Marathon (1500) or Snail (3000).
I kind of expect it really, cant think of too many games in the last 3 decades which has had AI on a completely equal footing and done well
I just want the monthly civfanatics games and strategy clubs to start running, I need them. Random play is too boring compared to organised games.
I get pwned in Age of Empires II on normal difficulty. But only until I get my massive longbow army built
Me likes Longbows and ranged combat. The Longbows in Age of Empires II were just uber awesome.
I kind of expect it really, cant think of too many games in the last 3 decades which has had AI on a completely equal footing and done well
I get pwned in Age of Empires II on normal difficulty. But only until I get my massive longbow army built
Me likes Longbows and ranged combat. The Longbows in Age of Empires II were just uber awesome.
I pretty much only play against the AI, except for LAN games with mates at my house. Too many ***** online for me to bother wanting to interact with them
I pretty much only play against the AI, except for LAN games with mates at my house. Too many ***** online for me to bother wanting to interact with them
They are single player games!
Like the first beta one here:
http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=385143
You play against the AI just using a set based of conditions, or on the same map, and compare how you did with other people =D
Its fun.
Prince difficulty?? Seriously ? Hehe, I hope thats just for the first one.
Still not interested really, I find that competitiveness online tends to lead to folks (particularly the really nerdy) taking things way too seriously and compiling spreadsheets and going into massive diatribes, creating drama and so forth and just basically sucking all of the nice simple fun out of a game for me. Besides, I'm not hugely fussed about how I did compared to other people, only whether I am enjoying myself
I'm well aware that civ is played competitively both singleplayer and multiplayer, but i'm also sure that the really competitive ones will be restricting broken civs from playing like you mentioned. Its early days for the game and while i may not be getting the full game for a couple of months (unfortunately) i can't say if the AI can get better. I've been looking around civfanatics and there are a few comments about parallels with other 1UPT games where the AI simply can't handle the tactics because it doesn't plan ahead, it just does things. Seems quite accurate or they wouldn't choose the option of 'Ctrl+A, right click base' to put it in RTS terms.
But there are also so many ridiculous knee-jerk reaction posts about how broken the game is and how its not Civ IV... the AI just can't handle defensive play and it really doesn't seem too well versed on ranged units unfortunately. So surely the most obvious solution is to avoid using ranged units? After all unless you get a perfect land setup with a mountain range and lakes/oceans you can't pull a 300 on them even with melee units. Just to see if it makes it any more competitive against the AI.
<-------- Guilty of that
I think that people report flaws in the game in the hope that they will get fixed. Civ IV has been out for ages now and is already fully patched up and sorted out, so comparing the two games is stupid yes, but I'm not doing that.
My games crash when I try to load them while playing, so I complain about that too. Is the solution to this not to load games then and make sure I play through a whole game at once all the time?
One thing I cant stand about the UA's is that you have really powerful ones like Babylon and Persia, and then the ottomons have a 50% chance of capturing barbarian ships ..... :x
Sulieman needs a major UA buff.
Last edited:
<-------- Guilty of that
Heheh, well everyone likes and finds enjoyment in different things, whats good for you might not be for me and vice versa. Nothing bad about it, just different tastes and aims
Difficulty doesnt matter, its a time race against other people.
Try getting a BC space victory in Civ IV on Settler difficulty
Its been done by a few people, but I cant
With Civ IV, they usually had major and minor challenges each month, the major is around Immortal difficulty (sometimes emperor or diety), and the minor is usually up to Prince difficulty and a lot easier.
I would try, look at other peoples scores, and then silently rage and hang my head in shame
Last edited:
Thats true, as its a race I dont suppose the difficulty matters.
I would try, look at other peoples scores, and then silently rage and hang my head in shame
Whereas I wouldnt care