Civilization V + DLC's, G&K, BNW - Page 19

FindingPride

United States1001 Posts

September 25 2010 20:03 GMT

#361

after playing all the civs i can safely say this one just blows them all away for me.
The interface is so much easier. I have such an easier time looking at the tech trees much faster. Love the civics. LOVE the race traits. tbh I can't find anything bad about the game right now. The city states are just amazing as well
EDIT:- How can i check the relations between other civs?

mierin

United States4943 Posts

September 25 2010 20:21 GMT

#362

Cities are so much easier to kill now (and puppets...holy shit what an advantage). No more 5 catapult / 10 swordsmen stacks just to take out a city with 5 archers and walls.

Butcherski

Poland446 Posts

September 25 2010 20:30 GMT

#363

On September 25 2010 16:48 sob3k wrote:
lolwtf, I got this game and I start it up, I've never played Civ before, I have NO fucking idea what I'm doing. I start up the tutorial so I can figure out what the shit I am supposed to do, and nothing happens, they just throw me in a game with some dudes and everything is silent....

My brain is just full of fuck.

When you choose to play tutorial there are 6 choices i think - first one is " learn as you play" and you choose it so :D
Below that there are 5 other tutorial that are actually somewhat helpful. Do them first then try starting a new game. Also you can learn alot from forums and the best civ forums is http://www.civfanatics.com/.

I still remember when i played civ4 and was doing pretty good on warlord then when i found those forums and read that every population = 1 citizen = one worked tile :O My mind was blown. You woint get quality information from the game itself just read the forums.

Trok67

France384 Posts

September 25 2010 21:53 GMT

#364

I am a bit disappointed about the diplomacy AI in this game. I was hoping they would have fixed that, but i just got into a game, where suddenly 6 out of my 8 oppenents decided to declare war against me the same turn...

Percutio

United States1672 Posts

September 26 2010 03:24 GMT

#365

I never got into Civilization before, but I tried it today and I've been loving it.

On my second run through the demo I actually managed to kill off Rome and Germany before my 100th turn.

Deathstar

9150 Posts

September 26 2010 05:02 GMT

#366

I played 2 games to get the feeling of the game, and there are some things that really irked me. As you expand and settle more cities, your unhappiness increases and your social policies # increases. Anyone else find this ridiculous? I also don't like how the tiles are randomly chosen by cities to pour culture points into. I miss the fat cross and border pops. At first, I liked the idea of one unit per tile. It sounded great. However, it makes waging battles more awkward. I know they wanted to remove the stack of dooms, but forcing one unit per tile reduces the variety of your army. I'm not sure how I feel about archers shooting over one tile, and cities being able to shoot infinitely over several tiles. There are some pluses though, like better graphics.

I'll play more games but Civ V isn't giving the same enjoyment Civ IV gave. The novelty wore off within minutes.

edit: There are a lot of leaders that benefit an aggressive playstyle so I'll give them a try. China fighting!

Ryalnos

United States1946 Posts

September 26 2010 05:21 GMT

#367

On September 26 2010 14:02 Deathstar wrote:
I played 2 games to get the feeling of the game, and there are some things that really irked me. As you expand and settle more cities, your unhappiness increases and your social policies # increases. Anyone else find this ridiculous? I also don't like how the tiles are randomly chosen by cities to pour culture points into. I miss the fat cross and border pops. At first, I liked the idea of one unit per tile. It sounded great. However, it makes waging battles more awkward. I know they wanted to remove the stack of dooms, but forcing one unit per tile reduces the variety of your army. I'm not sure how I feel about archers shooting over one tile, and cities being able to shoot infinitely over several tiles. There are some pluses though, like better graphics.

I'll play more games but Civ V isn't giving the same enjoyment Civ IV gave. The novelty wore off within minutes.

I agree that the 'randomly' chosen tiles are somewhat annoying (though the choices are usually pretty good - cities will rush for important resources, etc, it would still be nice to have control over it).

I disagree with you strongly on social policies/happiness. These two mechanics allow it to be viable to have fewer, more efficient cities. It's also nice that it actually matters when you have an abundance of happiness (rather than the meagre 'we love the <ruler>' days in Civ IV). For example, I like the piety social policy that gives you 50% of your happiness bonus as culture, and also that you can pick up golden ages relatively often if you have a big overflow.

snotboogie

Australia3550 Posts

September 26 2010 05:32 GMT

#368

I'm pretty much a Civ noob but I think I've found the most imba tile on the Earth tileset. It's modern day Iraq. No wonder Mesopotamia was the cradle of civilization.

Look at all that production from the rivers (Hydro Plant) and the coast. Holy moly. I built the Taj Mahal in 6 turns. I love you, Shanghai-Iraq.

Victory:

Deathstar

9150 Posts

September 26 2010 05:56 GMT

#369

On September 26 2010 14:21 Ryalnos wrote:

Show nested quote +

I actually enjoyed managing wealth between beakers and ensuring that I don't get raped by maintenance cost. The happiness mechanic had to be made global so I can't kill off my population anymore (well also because it's removed entirely) and the social policies are too restrictive. In Civ IV, you were able to switch between war mode, econ mode, or culture mode as long as you were able to endure a few turns of anarchy or saved leaders for golden age. The game is just so different. It feels bland in a way. But again, I only played 2 games so I'll try to enter play more with an open mind.

Also, the we love the ruler days removed maintenance cost for a turn. It's pretty useful if you're on a tight budget, but gold now is so easily attained. It blows my mind how easy it is to accumulate gold.

edit: And really, does this game really look that much better than Civ IV with Blue Marble mod? I dunno. I'm tired and hating on Civ V for some reason.

edit2: Okay so there is some form of maintenance, but it's from every single building you make. .............................

nttea

Sweden4353 Posts

September 26 2010 06:20 GMT

#370

Only played one game so far, but it got boring when i ended up waaay ahead of everyone else so im ramping up the difficulty a bit :p really like the game though it seems to lack the depth and complexity of civ4 which made it fun to play for sooo long, so while im enjoying myself right now i imagine i will get tired of this faster than i did civ4. Only time will tell though

Deathstar

9150 Posts

September 26 2010 06:27 GMT

#371

On September 26 2010 15:20 nttea wrote:
Only played one game so far, but it got boring when i ended up waaay ahead of everyone else so im ramping up the difficulty a bit :p really like the game though it seems to lack the depth and complexity of civ4 which made it fun to play for sooo long, so while im enjoying myself right now i imagine i will get tired of this faster than i did civ4. Only time will tell though

There's also less civilizations and leader combinations so add that with the lack of depth and it's only inevitable that this game will get stale. I didn't uninstall civ4 so I can go back anytime, but I wished I didn't have this feeling in the first place.

Keilah

731 Posts

September 26 2010 07:07 GMT

#372

My biggest problem with civ4, and most turn based empire building games, is that the game is almost always effectively decided in 1/3 of the time it takes to actually achieve victory. That leads to the final 2/3 of playtime being dull and uninteresting.

Does civ5 suffer from this as well?

crate

United States2474 Posts

September 26 2010 07:13 GMT

#373

@Deathstar: There isn't a huge difference between 18 and 26 leaders (vanilla Civ4 to vanilla Civ5 (counting Babylon)), especially since the Civ5 leaders have more variation in their traits. There were only 16 civs in vanilla Civ4 if I counted correctly....

I think the AI feels even worse in Civ5 than before because it's utterly inept at the new combat. In Civ4, at least it could make a huge stack and if it was big enough you just died regardless of what you could throw at it. In Civ5 there's much more opportunity for a small but well-controlled army to take down a large, poorly-controlled army. The combat has much more potential to be fun than in previous Civ games ... but I am left wondering if the AI will suck much of that fun out. (I'm not sure this is a fault of the AI design team; I don't know that anyone has created a good TBS AI, and Civ is more complicated than most of the other games with similar combat in that it's not just about combat. So I am left wishing for patches to improve the AI but not very hopeful.)

The one other major gripe I have right now (apart from the performance being kind of disappointing, but I'm hoping patches improve that) is that diplomacy is dishearteningly opaque. I'm okay with not having Civ4's numbers, but as far as I can see there's no way to determine what one AI leader feels about another, and there's very little feedback in general in diplomacy, and that's just inexcusable.

On the whole I like the game though. I always had the most fun in Civ in going to war, and despite its flaws Civ5 makes that part much more fun.

whatusername

Canada1181 Posts

September 26 2010 09:11 GMT

#374

Hey, how does that game run when you're practically on the minimum reqs? The reqs are ridiculous for a game like this

e4e5nf3

Canada599 Posts

September 26 2010 09:28 GMT

#375

That tactical AI is pretty bad indeed. Other than the first game I've never felt that "oh shit, I think I'll lose this war" feeling. Even outnumbered I can still manhandle the AI because it does stupid things like sending range right to the front line to get massacred, and it can't mount a proper sea to land invasion even though land units can essentially walk on water now. And this is on Emperor (two levels above the normal setting, Prince). In Civ4 I was just a lowly Noble player so I was surprised I was able to breeze my way through the 6th level of difficulty on Civ5.

And I'm not the only one experiencing this. The civfanatic forums are full of posts from people disappointed with the AI. It seems to me Firaxis rushed this game out way too fast. I hope we don't have to wait a year before they fix this in an expansion. (Actually, we might.. Civ4's AI didn't get a significant boost until the 2nd expansion, BTS. And even then it wasn't perfect. Thank god for modders).

DwD

Sweden8621 Posts

September 26 2010 09:33 GMT

#376

I play on min settings and just as your turn starts late in the game there is some lagg if a lot of stuff happened or completed the same turn.

Other than that its fine

I've only played 1 game and I won it easily by spacerace.. was dissapointed with no cinematic or at least a proper congratulation for the victory.. I only played Civ3 prior to this game and Im pretty sure it had a cinematic.

I played on the difficulty that is set when you load the game.. I had about 5 of those giant death robots tons of tanks, nukes, stealthbombers and attack helicopters and the opponents had at max 1 infantry.. tons of pikemens lol.

ShadowDrgn

United States2497 Posts

September 26 2010 09:47 GMT

#377

The AI is definitely pathetic and multiplayer is practically an afterthought. Other than those things, it's an awesome game. They're hopefully going to fix the issues and bugs with multiplayer soon, but might have to wait for an expansion before any good AI upgrades.

writer22816

United States5775 Posts

September 26 2010 13:53 GMT

#378

So I've played a couple dozen turns and the game seems pretty good. I had trouble getting into Civ4 but this game seems a lot easier (hardcore fans will probably say that it is dumbed-down, heh). The citizens just seem to be really happy no matter what I do and tile buying is pretty neat. One thing I noticed is that we don't need roads to connect special resources to our city anymore? Instead it seems that roads are only needed to connect city to city.

miniwheats

Canada187 Posts

September 26 2010 14:00 GMT

#379

On September 26 2010 18:47 ShadowDrgn wrote:
The AI is definitely pathetic and multiplayer is practically an afterthought. Other than those things, it's an awesome game.

I have to ask... what else is there? Playing just to make a nice city?

LaughingTulkas

United States1107 Posts

September 26 2010 14:18 GMT

#380

On September 26 2010 22:53 writer22816 wrote:
So I've played a couple dozen turns and the game seems pretty good. I had trouble getting into Civ4 but this game seems a lot easier (hardcore fans will probably say that it is dumbed-down, heh). The citizens just seem to be really happy no matter what I do and tile buying is pretty neat. One thing I noticed is that we don't need roads to connect special resources to our city anymore? Instead it seems that roads are only needed to connect city to city.

Ya quotes like this make me not want to buy the game. I've been a civ fanatic since civ II, and as far as I'm concerned there were only minor improvements needed in civ4 to make it the perfect game, and most of those were covered by the mod community. I'm holding off on buying civ5 because I'm getting scared i'm going to be vastly disappointed.

Now I know what all the good BW players were feeling like, my favorite game is getting dumbed down for casuals. QQ, lol.

Prev 1 17 18 19 20 21 192 Next

Please or register to reply.

Civilization V + DLC's, G&K, BNW - Page 19

Completed

Ongoing

Upcoming