| Forum Index > General Games |
|
pokeyAA
United States936 Posts
I however do dislike the diplomacy a bit (AI is wonky), feel unit maintenance is a bit too high, and how production got nerfed. But I feel that once the game gets modded/patched, it'd own. Most people that complain now just don't like change and having to come up with different strategies etc. I'm planning to download the economy mod myself as Teijing suggested | ||
|
andrewlt
United States7702 Posts
On October 02 2010 02:38 Teejing wrote: 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 might try the economy mod. That's actually a problem I've noticed. Production comes too slow, especially at the beginning, and tech comes in way too fast. I'm usually almost done with ancient age before I get my second city and almost into medieval when I get my third. | ||
|
Incognitodies
United Kingdom184 Posts
On October 02 2010 03:38 HowardRoark wrote: I adress you here that are true Civ die hard fans, am I wrong? Is it actually good? Well for me civ is a combination of 2 big parts: War: The combat is far improved over civ 4. Stack of doom was so tedious especially late game, and there were never any tactics in the previous game, whoever produced the most won. 1 unit per tile and hex based combat is more fun, more strategic and a refreshing change. However there are a few minor flaws in the combat system (endless instant healing promotions is lol), and one really major flaw. The AI. The combat AI in this game is simply put absolutely horrendous. It moves siege weapons right next to your units for no reason. It doesn't use great generals at all. It doesn't seem to consider whether a space is dangerous or not at all when moving. I have never lost a single city to an AI, and I don't see it happening any time soon. Don't expect a quick fix or a mod to improve this very soon, as completely rewriting tactical AI is a task of some magnitude. Peace: The peace game in civ 5 pretty much sucks compared to it's predecessor. There aren't really many desicions to be made, and no matter what you do it just seems you will be so disadvantaged compared to more war like states. You are given a load of buildings, but you can't build hardly anything because you will just be dragged under by matienance later in the game. Building science is a waste of time, and building wealth is just a complete joke so don't expect any advantage there. So what do you do? You build wonders you don't really want (most of them are pretty lack luster) because there is nothing else to build. One of the most important and thought provoking decisions in civ 4 was where and when to place your next city. A difference of 1 space either way could make a massive difference. In this game it doesn't seem like it really matters. You just expand whenever you have the happiness to allow you to, that is if you don't care about the fact you will be heavily penalised for having many cities by the game. I don't hate civ 5 as much as you might think after reading all that, I do like the fact that it is different. I didn't want civ 4.1, I had already played civ 4 to death and back (it's probably my most played game of all time if you include all the mods). I like the hexes far more than squares, and the combat means that I probably won't want to go back to civ 4 in a hurry. However, the game doesn't seem to have anything like the staying power of the previous game. I'm already absolutely thrashing the game on Emperor difficulting, and I've just started my 7th game single player game which I've set to Immortal. So after about 10 games ill probably be done playing with the AI until the game is changed, or some mods come out or w/e. The multiplayer I've only played a couple of games so far so I can't really comment yet, and that's probably where I'll do most of my playing of this game, playing with my friends every so often (I don't really care much for playing 2-4+ hour long games like civ with random ppl). I just think for a more refined game based on the hex system we will probably have to wait for the expansion at the very least, but probably civ 6. | ||
|
andrewlt
United States7702 Posts
| ||
|
catamorphist
United States297 Posts
On October 02 2010 04:51 Incognitodies wrote: You are given a load of buildings, but you can't build hardly anything because you will just be dragged under by matienance later in the game. Building science is a waste of time, and building wealth is just a complete joke so don't expect any advantage there. So what do you do? You build wonders you don't really want (most of them are pretty lack luster) because there is nothing else to build. One of the most important and thought provoking decisions in civ 4 was where and when to place your next city. A difference of 1 space either way could make a massive difference. In this game it doesn't seem like it really matters. You just expand whenever you have the happiness to allow you to, that is if you don't care about the fact you will be heavily penalised for having many cities by the game. This is straight up nonsensical. Since happiness and culture apply to the whole empire, since happiness doesn't "cap out", and since science is tied to population rather than tile output, there are far more useful buildings to build than in Civ 4; every cultural and happiness building is worth building everywhere, unless you're building more important structures or units. Your statement about maintenance makes no sense. 2 or 3 gold per turn is generally worth much less to you than (for example) 4 additional happies, 2 food/turn, or 3 culture/turn. You also totally failed to justify your remark about expansion, which makes equally little sense to me. In Civ 4, all you had to do was build a monument or a missionary, or produce culture with hammers, and your city would have its entire workable radius -- that's 20 tiles! -- available in 5 turns. In this game, your city will be restricted to the 6 tiles surrounding it for quite a while, until you pay cash for more tiles or wait dozens of turns for cultural expansion. How can you say that city placement matters less when your initial city placement restricts your options so much more? | ||
|
andrewlt
United States7702 Posts
| ||
|
D10
Brazil3409 Posts
I also wanted years to go by slower. | ||
|
BeMannerDuPenner
Germany5638 Posts
but want to add some more non domination victorys are pretty dull. diplomatic victory is actually wealth victory. buy all city states over 1 turn before the vote and win the game. sience victory requires a huge population which requires huge amount of citys. which is usually only possible by taking over 1-2 AIs. also needs lots of gold to keep up research agreements. the game balancing and some mechanics and lack of options really are annoying. its still a great game and if already spent like 30 hours on it but its just lacking abit. | ||
|
D10
Brazil3409 Posts
| ||
|
e4e5nf3
Canada599 Posts
This may explain why it seems like players are playing a beta rather than a full game. Here is the article... | ||
|
HowardRoark
1146 Posts
| ||
|
Incognitodies
United Kingdom184 Posts
On October 02 2010 05:55 catamorphist wrote: This is straight up nonsensical. Since happiness and culture apply to the whole empire, since happiness doesn't "cap out", and since science is tied to population rather than tile output, there are far more useful buildings to build than in Civ 4; every cultural and happiness building is worth building everywhere, unless you're building more important structures or units. Your statement about maintenance makes no sense. 2 or 3 gold per turn is generally worth much less to you than (for example) 4 additional happies, 2 food/turn, or 3 culture/turn. You also totally failed to justify your remark about expansion, which makes equally little sense to me. In Civ 4, all you had to do was build a monument or a missionary, or produce culture with hammers, and your city would have its entire workable radius -- that's 20 tiles! -- available in 5 turns. In this game, your city will be restricted to the 6 tiles surrounding it for quite a while, until you pay cash for more tiles or wait dozens of turns for cultural expansion. How can you say that city placement matters less when your initial city placement restricts your options so much more? Gold is very important in this game, and maintnance costs really add up if you want to have a decent army later in the game. It's far better to pay off a state for food or culture than buy the buildings anyway. I guess my main problem is that you don't feel like you get enough benefit for playing peace. In civ 4, if you built a libraries at the cost of building troops early on it would give you a tech advantage. If you take the risk and get away with it (don't get declared war on) you are likely to be ahead in tech. In this game the benefit seems to be hardly there at all. I spent all this time building a temple AND I have to pay 2g a turn for it? No thanks. Regarding placement, I guess it feels less important because your city doesn't grow as fast so you aren't using all the tiles as quickly. Buying extra tiles really is very cheap so it's not like you have to wait a dozen turns or w/e unless you want the whole radius. Plus the fact you don't really have to worry about fitting the maximum amount of cities in a defined space, distance from capital, how can I maximise the city when it hits high pop later in the game. Maybe it's just been the games I've played, but most of the time the spot for my next city has been fairly obvious. | ||
|
summerloud
Austria1201 Posts
unfortunately im pretty underwhelmed by civ 5, i thought they would have improved gameplay more in all those years. luxury and stratetic resources are nice, but at the core its still the same old formula id really loved to see them take some more chances and try out different approaches, especially with combat. like combat taking place in sub-turns when you are at war, and involving more units. it always felt kind of weird to me that it takes 200 years to build a unit of archers and then 100 years to move them to another city to wage war :/, would be much more realistic and thus immersive if strategic city building and tactical combat would take place on two different time-lines but maybe thats just me, i guess the game is all nice and shiny, thereis not really anything wrong with it (apart from the usual stupid ai, is it really that hard to make good ai for tbs games?), i was just expecting more innovation. also this game totally failed to addict me, dont feel like continuing the game ive started at all, id rather fire up my old alpha centauri installation and play that instead edit: like some ppl mentioned, hex system is really really nice, i wonder why it took so long for them to realize hex is superior to squares in every possible way  | ||
|
Ryalnos
United States1946 Posts
On October 02 2010 09:20 summerloud wrote: unfortunately im pretty underwhelmed by civ 5, i thought they would have improved gameplay more in all those years. luxury and stratetic resources are nice, but at the core its still the same old formula Eh? They changed a lot for this iteration. | ||
|
{CC}StealthBlue
United States41117 Posts
| ||
GTR
51705 Posts
is it just me or combat/movement gets really tedious after a while? | ||
|
DannyJ
United States5110 Posts
On October 02 2010 12:30 GTR wrote: never really got into any of the civ games, so this is the first game i've invested legit time into. is it just me or combat/movement gets really tedious after a while? Yeah it's odd, I like alot of turn based strats games, and love historically based games, but I've never at all found the appeal of Civ games. I tried to play civ 4, and did for a while, but it just got super uninteresting. I'm not sure why. I think i find them kind of characterless, if that makes sense. I don't feel like my empire is really alive or growing. The world itself seems so boring, as do the units. I think i also don't like how it so quickly advances through ages, it makes it feel like you really aren't in any point of history. Oh well, at least all this Civ talk made me go back and play Empire: Total War. What a great game. I just bought the Napoleon expansion and it's great. | ||
|
skindzer
Chile5114 Posts
Ive never played a game so addictive as Civilization. | ||
|
{CC}StealthBlue
United States41117 Posts
What pisses me off is this no map exchange thus fog of war is still constant even with modern tech. I just invaded Persia and boom have taken all of the mainland and lo and behold they are still not conquered so here I am having to roam the oceans in hopes of finding the lone city still holding out. /rant | ||
|
Fruscainte
4596 Posts
On October 03 2010 13:12 {CC}StealthBlue wrote: Rant: What pisses me off is this no map exchange thus fog of war is still constant even with modern tech. I just invaded Persia and boom have taken all of the mainland and lo and behold they are still not conquered so here I am having to roam the oceans in hopes of finding the lone city still holding out. /rant Yeah, what's with the lack of Satellite-esque technology? | ||
| ||
|
|
CranKy Ducklings
WardiTV Invitational
AI Arena Tournament
BSL Open Qualifier
Sparkling Tuna Cup
OSC
IPSL
BSL Open Qualifier
WardiTV Weekly
IntoTheTV X SOOP
[ Show More ] |
|
|
EPT
