|
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.
Holy shit, is this true?! I still make roads to every resource =(
Anyway, I also feel like the game got easier. I also noticed you don't have to expand whore everywhere. You can keep up with big empires while having just a select few cities yourself. In civ 4 I expanded everywhere, to get the good tiles and a strong empire. Here, I built 6 cities, conquered 4 and Washington, was still even with me on tech/wealth with his 4 cities on prince...
The scale of the game seems to have been numbed down, along with the speed.
I also feel like the cities "expand" themselves too slow(the influence thingy). At least a lot slower than civ 4.
But I like the new combat D: IMO a very good improvement over doom stacks.
I have mixed feeling about the tile buying mechanic. On one hand it's great to claim a mine or other resource for a low price, on the other hand sometimes the prices are ridiculous and outrageous.
|
My guess is that it's easier because the AI doesn't cheat as extravagantly as it did in Civ4 (and previous Civ games). On Emperor I was keeping pace in tech with a smaller empire; that's just flat-out impossible if the AI cheats as much as it does in Civ4.
I don't really think the AI feels any dumber or otherwise easier than before (though like I already said the new combat system lets you exploit it more; doubly so since there are fewer units overall and thus the AI doesn't get to abuse the nearly-free upgrades it got on higher difficulties in Civ4 if it gets something similar in Civ5). It's merely a numbers tweak to make it feel as uphill as Civ4 imo.
|
So for the people that seek to win through domination, it's possible if you just utterly ignore happiness. Aside from a slightly inefficient army (this disadvantage can be mitigated with a higher tech army), you're free to conquer nonstop until 100 unhappiness.
On September 27 2010 00:42 crate wrote:
My guess is that it's easier because the AI doesn't cheat as extravagantly as it did in Civ4 (and previous Civ games). On Emperor I was keeping pace in tech with a smaller empire; that's just flat-out impossible if the AI cheats as much as it does in Civ4.
I don't really think the AI feels any dumber or otherwise easier than before (though like I already said the new combat system lets you exploit it more; doubly so since there are fewer units overall and thus the AI doesn't get to abuse the nearly-free upgrades it got on higher difficulties in Civ4 if it gets something similar in Civ5). It's merely a numbers tweak to make it feel as uphill as Civ4 imo.
The AI gets more bonuses. This happened on every difficulty past noble. Why are you thinking of it as cheating when it's necessary to make the game remotely challenging?
|
On September 27 2010 01:04 Deathstar wrote:Show nested quote +On September 27 2010 00:42 crate wrote:
My guess is that it's easier because the AI doesn't cheat as extravagantly as it did in Civ4 (and previous Civ games). On Emperor I was keeping pace in tech with a smaller empire; that's just flat-out impossible if the AI cheats as much as it does in Civ4.
I don't really think the AI feels any dumber or otherwise easier than before (though like I already said the new combat system lets you exploit it more; doubly so since there are fewer units overall and thus the AI doesn't get to abuse the nearly-free upgrades it got on higher difficulties in Civ4 if it gets something similar in Civ5). It's merely a numbers tweak to make it feel as uphill as Civ4 imo. The AI gets more bonuses. This happened on every difficulty past noble. Why are you thinking of it as cheating when it's necessary to make the game remotely challenging?
I don't think the Civ5 bonuses are as big as the Civ4 ones, that's what I'm saying. It really doesn't matter what I call it, lol.
Or do you have some numbers that say otherwise?
|
On September 27 2010 01:06 crate wrote:Show nested quote +On September 27 2010 01:04 Deathstar wrote:On September 27 2010 00:42 crate wrote:
My guess is that it's easier because the AI doesn't cheat as extravagantly as it did in Civ4 (and previous Civ games). On Emperor I was keeping pace in tech with a smaller empire; that's just flat-out impossible if the AI cheats as much as it does in Civ4.
I don't really think the AI feels any dumber or otherwise easier than before (though like I already said the new combat system lets you exploit it more; doubly so since there are fewer units overall and thus the AI doesn't get to abuse the nearly-free upgrades it got on higher difficulties in Civ4 if it gets something similar in Civ5). It's merely a numbers tweak to make it feel as uphill as Civ4 imo. The AI gets more bonuses. This happened on every difficulty past noble. Why are you thinking of it as cheating when it's necessary to make the game remotely challenging? I don't think the Civ5 bonuses are as big as the Civ4 ones, that's what I'm saying. It really doesn't matter what I call it, lol. Or do you have some numbers that say otherwise?
I think they are the same as in civ 4, except in civ 5 the AI scales up in intelligence with difficulty and in civ 4 it's always as smart it just gets more stuff the higher difficulty it is.
|
What do you mean by intelligence? They're more aggressive or is there some better coding that's placed on higher difficulties?
On September 27 2010 01:06 crate wrote:Show nested quote +On September 27 2010 01:04 Deathstar wrote:On September 27 2010 00:42 crate wrote:
My guess is that it's easier because the AI doesn't cheat as extravagantly as it did in Civ4 (and previous Civ games). On Emperor I was keeping pace in tech with a smaller empire; that's just flat-out impossible if the AI cheats as much as it does in Civ4.
I don't really think the AI feels any dumber or otherwise easier than before (though like I already said the new combat system lets you exploit it more; doubly so since there are fewer units overall and thus the AI doesn't get to abuse the nearly-free upgrades it got on higher difficulties in Civ4 if it gets something similar in Civ5). It's merely a numbers tweak to make it feel as uphill as Civ4 imo. The AI gets more bonuses. This happened on every difficulty past noble. Why are you thinking of it as cheating when it's necessary to make the game remotely challenging? I don't think the Civ5 bonuses are as big as the Civ4 ones, that's what I'm saying. It really doesn't matter what I call it, lol. Or do you have some numbers that say otherwise?
I was talking about Civ4. I dunno what the advantages are for AIs on Civ5 lol. Maybe 2 warriors and 2 settlers on much higher difficulties, and less happiness bonus for you? However, 1 unit per tile + stupid combat AI makes fighting AIs, no matter how high the difficulty, a simple process.
|
This is honestly game breaking for me if there isn't a way to disable this.
It is the most annoying fucking thing in the world, late game, that the game automatically without my orders tussles the camera away from me and shoots it to every single fucking point on the map where the slightest fucking thing is going on. Or that I need to give EVERY SINGLE UNIT I own an order before I can go onto the next turn. Oh, and if there is any battle at all whatsoever (even if it includes two people that I am not allies or against to) it FORCES me to watch the entire battle and every single one they do.
Please tell me there is a way to turn this crap off.
|
On September 27 2010 06:51 Fruscainte wrote:
This is honestly game breaking for me if there isn't a way to disable this.
It is the most annoying fucking thing in the world, late game, that the game automatically without my orders tussles the camera away from me and shoots it to every single fucking point on the map where the slightest fucking thing is going on. Or that I need to give EVERY SINGLE UNIT I own an order before I can go onto the next turn. Oh, and if there is any battle at all whatsoever (even if it includes two people that I am not allies or against to) it FORCES me to watch the entire battle and every single one they do.
Please tell me there is a way to turn this crap off.
I think you can only turn it off in advanced settings, which is before you start your game. It'll be on quick battles.
|
On September 27 2010 06:51 Fruscainte wrote:
This is honestly game breaking for me if there isn't a way to disable this.
It is the most annoying fucking thing in the world, late game, that the game automatically without my orders tussles the camera away from me and shoots it to every single fucking point on the map where the slightest fucking thing is going on. Or that I need to give EVERY SINGLE UNIT I own an order before I can go onto the next turn. Oh, and if there is any battle at all whatsoever (even if it includes two people that I am not allies or against to) it FORCES me to watch the entire battle and every single one they do.
Please tell me there is a way to turn this crap off.
Civ4 learned from Civ3 and included options for quick moves, watch offensive and/or defensive attacks, watch enemy moves, watch friendly moves, etc.
I'm not sure why options actually DISAPPEARED in Civ5. Even graphic options are limited now, in Civ4 right out of the box you had the ability to turn off animations, disable effects, turn off combat zoom. Little tweaks that could improve performance. In Civ5 there's none of that..
|
Quick combat still exists, but its not a client-side setting- its a game-side setting. Check under the advanced options when you start a game and you'll see "quick combat". Its stupid that it's there, but it exists, so just turn it on. Multiplayer has it on by default.
Having to give every unit an order is sort of annoying, but at least you can do it without getting interrupted by pop-ups like in Civ4. Haven't played a game with Turn-timer yet so I don't know how convenient or inconvenient it becomes later on.
|
On September 27 2010 07:12 Nokarot wrote:
Quick combat still exists, but its not a client-side setting- its a game-side setting. Check under the advanced options when you start a game and you'll see "quick combat". Its stupid that it's there, but it exists, so just turn it on. Multiplayer has it on by default.
Having to give every unit an order is sort of annoying, but at least you can do it without getting interrupted by pop-ups like in Civ4. Haven't played a game with Turn-timer yet so I don't know how convenient or inconvenient it becomes later on.
It's retarded. I conquered Montezuma and Elizabeth, so I had like 30 workers and 20 cities and...just Jesus fucking Christ. Yeah, I could put them on automate but it still found reasons to make my camera jump around more than a fat joggers tits.
|
the thing that pisses me off the most is if you put a unit on automated explore it fucking goes through city state territory and they start hating you because of trespassing...
|
Has anyone had problems with multiplayer games? It took me and 2 friends about 45 minutes to get a 3v3 against 3 AI going last night. One of my friends constantly had trouble playing his turns out. Then about 90 turns in there was a random loading screen, and one of my friends insisted he was playing as my Civ. The game is fun but these bugs are pretty bad. 
|
Well. for me, it's the first Civilization that I play and it's really good.
I started a game at easy (just to see how you play) and it's pretty cool. They only thing I hate is when suddently, you got liek 6-7 nation that turn madness on you. Even when I didn't even saw the land of one and they are liek MILES away, they declare war on me for no reason :\
|
Went to bed at 7am last night, but I did manage to finish a game! Cultural victory with Gandhi in year 2035, about 400 turns into the game. Took me a good 9 hours to finish it from start to end.
I'm fearing this game will rape my sleep for months to come: 
|
Civ 5 seems interesting at first. But I'm bored after 3 games.
It has many flaws that I cant list all here. AI combat is a joke, they put their archer in the front line to go one on one with your sword man.
Domination victory is very easy. Took Religion and civic out of the game and replace its with social policy is a bad decision.
Not that I dont like the Social Policy idea, but it needs some tweak. I feel like I have to tech 2 tech-tree now. Social policy makes the game very linear, you chose some thing, then its permanent. Take all the fun out of switching civics in Civ 4.
I will still play it, and hope Firaxis patch the AI soon.
|
On September 27 2010 21:37 FaCE_1 wrote:
Well. for me, it's the first Civilization that I play and it's really good.
I started a game at easy (just to see how you play) and it's pretty cool. They only thing I hate is when suddently, you got liek 6-7 nation that turn madness on you. Even when I didn't even saw the land of one and they are liek MILES away, they declare war on me for no reason :\
You should build some combat units to scare other civs away. If you only focusing on developing cities and teching w/o an army, they will attack you eventually.
When they show up on your screen making comment that you have a weak army, its time to prepare for war, you dont build combat units after that. There is a very high chance that they will declare.
One important tech you want to have is Iron Working, it reveals iron on the map and enable you to build swordman which is very powerful.
Try to be an ally on a Military state, they will give you a unit in 20 turn or so.
Marine time state is very good too. Be an ally of it and your city will grow fast.
|
yeah this game is ok at first, but after couple games it doesn't seem as fun/challenging to me than civ 4. I was an emperor player in civ 4 and i noticed emperor is much easier in this game. the barbs are a joke seriously, the spawn rate is quite low and 1 warrior can take out 2 barb warriors/settlements. No distance from palace maintenance tax, no commerce and etc. yay for dumbing down games for more casual players...-.-
and to FaCE_1, you got declared on possibly due to your leader's base peace weight in a game with lots of warmongers, or you probably didn't play diplo right(which is very important in civ), and once 1/2 civs declare the other ones took the opportunity to do so as well.
|
I've finished 4 games (lost 1) and still find myself having a lot of fun. Right now I'm just going for all the Steam achievements.
|
On September 27 2010 23:49 Caphe wrote:
Took Religion ... out of the game and replace its with social policy is a bad decision.
Religion in Civ4 was retarded. Founding any of them (except Taoism--and then just to ensure you get a free ride to Liberalism) was a trap. You just adopt whichever religion your scariest neighbors have and you get mostly a free ride diplomatically, and you absolutely cannot choose to adopt a different religion because it will screw you over diplomatically and then you lose (unless you're playing on a difficulty where you can get away with bad diplo).
There may have been ways to fix it up, but honestly I'm happier with no religion than I am with Civ4 religion. Particularly since in Civ4 you just ended up sticking with no religion half the time anyway unless you were Spiritual (or liked having huge hostile stacks marching against you).
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
