|
On September 28 2010 04:19 crate wrote:Show nested quote +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).
Religion is supposed to be a diplomatic tool, with some side bonuses if you have the proper civics. There would be a buddhist bloc on one continent and a jewish bloc on another continent. Sure, the people on your continent may have some personal grievances against you like border tension and captured spies, but you also have a commonality and a common foe. I don't know. I really liked religion in the game, except when it was abused (lolol apostlic palace).
|
going to be streaming some civ 5 now. :D help me decide my civs fate.
|
So i hate to go into multiplayer blind in similar to how you should play sc2 campain before going online. But i just cant beat the computer. Yea so epic sized maps might end in fail very often but atleast its fucking hillarious ;D
I still cant beat the game trough conquest, its like you attack one guy and some other computer sneaks up behind you so midway into the war he flanks from the rear. XD coastal city is imba nice ;D
|
On September 28 2010 14:38 Madkipz wrote:
So i hate to go into multiplayer blind in similar to how you should play sc2 campain before going online. But i just cant beat the computer. Yea so epic sized maps might end in fail very often but atleast its fucking hillarious ;D
I still cant beat the game trough conquest, its like you attack one guy and some other computer sneaks up behind you so midway into the war he flanks from the rear. XD coastal city is imba nice ;D
What difficulty level you're playing in? I dont know about any others above King, but at least in King domination victory seems easier than it was in Civ4(Prince level).
In Civ 4 you have to take the entire Civ out but in Civ5 you only need to take the capital. When you go to war, just go straigh to the capital, you may have to take out some cities that in your way, raze them all, just keep the capital. Then make peace, if you dont have a good condition on the negotiation table, kill some more of his unit untill he offer you a large sum of gold and luxury resource for peace.
Dont go on war with one nation too long since it may trigger a backstab for other nations.
|
Am I pretty noob or within 2 hours of gameplay u actually accomply pretty much NOTHING /
I mean I just dont know what else I could do to get the game going faster, it´s not like sc2 with its bos =x
|
Anyone else having the random issue with like 4-5 players randomly deciding to kill you around the Bronze era? It's happened a few games in a row, not that its causing me to lose or anything but its annoying an put me pretty far behind culture/tech wise.
|
On September 29 2010 11:07 noD wrote:
Am I pretty noob or within 2 hours of gameplay u actually accomply pretty much NOTHING /
I mean I just dont know what else I could do to get the game going faster, it´s not like sc2 with its bos =x
in one hour i had taken out 2 civilizations and allied 4 city states on standard time settings. i'd reccomend playing on quick if you want a faster game.
|
|
|
On September 29 2010 11:14 GodIsNotHere wrote:
Anyone else having the random issue with like 4-5 players randomly deciding to kill you around the Bronze era? It's happened a few games in a row, not that its causing me to lose or anything but its annoying an put me pretty far behind culture/tech wise.
it depends on what you do, always try to team them up with you instead either by donating money per turn, costly trade agreements and handing them strategic resources that you can make do without like horses or iron. What happens is if you spawn in a nice place you can get away with nearly not having anything because nobody wants to attack you. Worked on prince level difficulty so take it with a grain of salt.
Indian war elephants are fucking amazing early game. DO NOT piss off ghandi the Ai for that guy just hurts.
Also, if you intend to get away with very little going into the HONOR social policy helps alot. The extra damage versus barbarians, the great general to get a fast golden age, before happieness golden age comes along is great for making early money and double experience on top of that is like icing on a very good cake. Rest of the honor policies are mediocre at best. 15% extra unit efficiency can be good but the rest is shit.
Piety is great though, 2 extra policies is KILLER. Basically you can get piety for extra happieness and it eventually pays for itself by giving you a pair of social policy points. xD
|
On September 29 2010 11:14 GodIsNotHere wrote:
Piety is great though, 2 extra policies is KILLER. Basically you can get piety for extra happieness and it eventually pays for itself by giving you a pair of social policy points. xD
Technically, it's one extra policy.
|
Thing about Piety is that Rationalism is also an amazing policy branch, and they're mutually exclusive. That's not to say that Piety isn't good (certainly it has great synergy with Persia's UA, and obviously is better than Rationalism for culture victory, for example), but the existence of Rationalism makes it far from a no-brainer decision.
|
On September 28 2010 14:38 Madkipz wrote:
So i hate to go into multiplayer blind in similar to how you should play sc2 campain before going online. But i just cant beat the computer. Yea so epic sized maps might end in fail very often but atleast its fucking hillarious ;D
I still cant beat the game trough conquest, its like you attack one guy and some other computer sneaks up behind you so midway into the war he flanks from the rear. XD coastal city is imba nice ;D
meh.. I'm not even a fan of playing MP civilization games. Civ is all about single player for me. I can have just as much if not more fun in single player... just getting lost in your own world not having to worry about other players and also not having the pressure that comes with playing MP..
I know a lot of other people too who pretty much play Civ for the singeplayer aspect. Personally I'd reccomend sticking to just single player in Civ and playing SC2 when your in the mood for high level multiplayer competition... Civilization is an incredible single player game, especially with all the MODS, and SC2 is an incredible multiplayer game... just my opinion.
I just hope they fix the AI issues with Civ 5 soon, I'm sure they will and if they don't someone will create a MOD =D
|
Kind of bummed that there are fewer Civs to play, hopefully that will change with the xpac that I'm sure is already being developed.
|
So I've tried to play several games and realize that like over an hour in game, nothing has happened and I quit from boredom. I was really hating the game at this point. It wasn't until I forced myself to play one complete game when I realized this game is fucking awesome, if you can get by the first 100 or so turns stuff actually happens!.
A little recap of my game playing as Japan:
After expanding and hosting 3 cities Rome decided to declare war on me. What followed was a 3 hour bout back and back trading the same cities over and over, once I finally got ahead against Rome, the nearby England declared war on me. Now I was fighting a 2 front war and dealing with the english during the longbow era IS HARD. Fuckers can shoot 3 tiles out. Realizing Rome poised no threat to me at the time as her armies were crushed, we made peace and I focused on England.
After about 100 turns I break england and then she surrenders 4 freaking cities to me and this is one screen that sucks: The Annex/Raze/Puppet screen, it doesn't explain at all what the city has making the choice much less strategic. The only reason I was able to defeat England is because I had a great number of horses, my cavalry quickly overwhelmed the longbowmen. England being dead I decided to sit back and recover from war when ROME RETURNED TO ATTACK ME. Another slug match for 2 hours where it was really give or take and I eventually overpowered Rome.
Now during all this warring all other Empires but England(now basically dead) and Germany were dead. Germany was on a different continent so having to amass a naval army was key. I got a frigate early and sent them to scout Germany, and yeah it seems Germany had no great wars and was so far in tech my puny wooden ships were nothing against BATTLESHIPS. This game is basically over, I may be able to defeat Germany but most likely a culture win etc.
My experience from this game greatly help me pick and choose the necessary buildings the only question I have, is it worth making each city specialize in something(neglecting strategic/luxury resource tiles and focus on a pure science city or pure gold city? Or is better to always make your cities somewhat balanced.
|
On October 01 2010 21:23 genwar wrote:
After about 100 turns I break england and then she surrenders 4 freaking cities to me and this is one screen that sucks: The Annex/Raze/Puppet screen, it doesn't explain at all what the city has making the choice much less strategic.
Yeah, I thought that at first but actually you just pick puppet every time, as you can annex the city later if you want, or annex then raze it by going into the city screen.
Personally I just gear all my cities to make money/produce units, and so don't really build any buildings with maintenance costs apart from the library and monument (and happiness buildings when needed). That's 'cos I'm usually persuing a very aggressive strategy, and let my puppets give me research and culture (so I have to pay for all the crap buildings they make).
|
Bahaha i played a game as Persia. His trait is Golden Ages last 50% longer. Got the Chichen Itza (another 50% increase to Golden Ages), Piety Policy where triggering golden ages cost 20% less, Taj Majal (Golden Age trigger). Once Taj Majal finished, my Golden Age was 44 turns. I popped the Great Artist+Great General i had saved to feed that into 70+ turns of Golden Age.
Switched everything to war production to get shitloads of Calvary. Was allied to 5-6 city states due to all my cash, then declared war on all 5 civs (was playing on small map). I crushed all 5 civs singlehandedly (great generals+unit promotions+4 movement on Calvary attack and retreats owns) and finally got my Augustus Caesar rank in domination.
I kept feeding my golden ages with great people, and still had 3 ready when I beat the game with 49 turns still left on Golden Age. Granted it was on Prince difficulty but man Persia is pretty sick.
|
Genwar, I would suggest one production heavy city for wonders and buildings (usually my capital). 1 city for churning out military units, and the rest of cities focus on straight up Trading Posts everywhere. See if you can find a nice flat place with river and grassland, and spam those suckers everywhere. City Growth is never an issue because I use my money to ally city states, which gives you a shitload of food, culture, and tech (with the patronage civic policy).
I wouldnt be surprised if they patch maritime city states cuz the food bonus they give you is sick. For laughs, pick Siam and max out the patronage tree. Ally like 2 or 3 maritime states and 1 or 2 culture states. I had close to +18 food in my capital and double the population of any other civ at one point with no granary or food buildings and +10 or so on all my other cities.
|
Not grassland, river plains is the best tile in this game. The reason is that you get golden ages way more often than in previous Civ games. The best tiles are the ones with both production and gold as a golden age gives +1 to both.
I don't really see the complaints about the lack of civs in this game compared to Civ 4. The unique abilities of civs in this game are way more unique than just the combination of traits in Civ 4.
My two biggest complaints with this game are:
1. The first hundred turns or so are extremely slow. Between having to build more early units because of barbs and the increased costs of workers and settlers, it takes way too long to get a second city. I find that ancient to early medieval unique units to be pretty terrible since I barely have enough cities to make them. The ancient ones are actually a bit more useful since it takes a long time to get a city with iron unless I get lucky with one.
2. There's way too many penalties for growing cities and building more cities. The developers tried really hard to make small empires match up decently with large ones, and it's really stupid. Building a new city makes it harder to get more social policies. There are also only a grand total of 12 happiness you can get from buildings per city (15 with horses/ivory nearby), so any city larger than population 12 is a happiness sink. I like to play with more cities than what this game gives.
|
Assuming you bought the game you can just go mods > online and pick all the mods you like, there are already some. When i play i play witih like 7 mods on.
I would recommend the "economy mod" , ups production and slowers tech so that by the time you build a unit it has not already become outteched.
And for me personally i also use the "no mantaining costs" for building, because they are not worth building otherwise...
...well, just pick the mods you want, you can activate as manay as you want @ the same time.
mods cannot be used for mp yet.
|
I have been a civ-fanatic since Civ 1 and Civ 4 is just an amazing game. I have played atleast 1000 of hours of Civ 4, so I was eager to play Civ 5. But, the game is so bad...
Nothing remains of the true Civ feeling, and I have started playing Civ 4 again. When Civ 4 was released I switched from Civ 3 and I never looked back since Civ 4 was better than Civ 3. But Civ 5 is the biggest let down I have experienced in the sequel-department.
I hope someone can tell me I am wrong and make me try it out more. I have played around 1500 turns or so on some campaigns, but the feeling wont come. 
I adress you here that are true Civ die hard fans, am I wrong? Is it actually good?
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
