|
Here is my 3 paragraph strategy guide:
Always use citizens and have them work tiles if possible, if not you can (and will often want to in the mid-late game) turn them into specialists which can give unique bonuses. You want to work tiles with your citizens to get resources.
The key things to get are Food, Shields (Hammers), and Gold from cities. Treat these things like Gas and minerals. What you focus on is dependant on what you are trying to do - focus on food if you want to grow, production if you want to go to war, etc. there is a lot of guessing going on when you first are learning the game but it gets easier as you play a few full ones. Pick a style of victory to go for, and do it! For example, I might play as France and get only 4-5 cities focused on growth and enough production to make a lot of culture buildings, then try to balance keeping up in technology and army so I don't get crushed with rushing for culture. Obviously you will need a balance of all things to do any victory, but you can play with different combos.
For example, if I were playing as Japan and shooting for domination, I might start by growing 3 or 4 solid cities, with 2 focused on growth (these could be located near food resources or near rivers or ocean) and 2 dedicated more to production (located near hills, iron or horses).
Then I'd rush to iron working for samurai and try to kill my weakest neighbor.
Hopefully this will go well and give me enough of an advantage to hunker down, get my happiness and food,science,culture infrastructure back up.
then I'd attack someone else, rinse and repeat.
But no matter what you do, managing your cities well is key
On June 25 2012 06:18 TheChostoProject wrote:
Are cottages/villages/whatever the thing that makes gold is called worth it?
Or should i just farm?
It depends, usually in the early game its better to grow but at some point you see diminishing returns because happiness will limit your growth. Its best to try and keep a balance if you aren't sure what to do. I sometimes specialize my cities, for example I might name one "Science Land" that is focused on getting buildings like The Great Library, National College, Oxford U, and good production later on for spaceship parts.
|
On June 25 2012 06:18 TheChostoProject wrote:
Are cottages/villages/whatever the thing that makes gold is called worth it?
Or should i just farm?
Trade posts make gold. As a general rule, though, don't bother making trade posts except in puppet cities. You always want your core cities to be high production / high pop growth (ie, high science) cities, which trade posts don't help.
|
On June 25 2012 06:31 Nyxisto wrote:
Hey , i'm very new to the game and would like if someone could give me a little bit of starting help, as i'm a bit confused what to do in the beginning.
So i started as japan and i want to win a domination victory, i built a scout and a worker and after that went for a settler, and together with the one form the liberty perk i got two additional cities. I'm now trying to get samurais and then i want to start capturing some nations.
Is this a viable approach to it? Because i read alot about getting some world wonders fast on one city and then going for additional cities.
would love some help,
Nyx
If you're going for domination, what you're doing may be good enough on an appropriate difficulty (which is...?). Generally, if you're new and going for dom, just avoid the wonders as they don't help particularly for these purposes. Try and go for two or three cities, learn the good spots and you want one which has good production (resources/tiles which require mines,pastures and quarries). Throw a rax in there and just pump units from it (couple archers and a couple siege units).
Go for Honour as your policy tree to get a good feel for how combat works. Specialise your promotions over generalising and beat the shit out of everyone.
Good luck!
|
Just got my copy, can't wait to play!
|
How do you beat musketman? What's their weakness?
|
You beat musketmen with range, the ranged attack system was never really properly worked out, meaning you can easily conquer the world till immortal/deity by just abusing this trick, just make sure you know how many moves your opponent can make, keep your rangers well protected and make use of terrain.
Another important thing to know for rangers, promotions, always take either 3x rough or 3x flat terran upgrades, after this you'll unlock the advanced promotions, including extra range, an extra attack per round and extra vision. Needless to say, this should help you snowball your army even better.
That being said, this game is a massively dumbed down Civ game with a retarded AI, no real bonusses for playing peaceful and a very singular focus on killing your opponent, if I wanted to do that I would just play SC2.
Really hoping G&K will bring some depth, but Jon Schaffer (the guy who designed the Civ5 core) seems to have fucked up this franchise even more then Dustin Browder did for SC2.
|
Sorry, I'm playing multiplayer ):
|
Who wants to make a teamliquid civ 5 multiplayer game?
|
On June 25 2012 12:01 Scootaloo wrote:
You beat musketmen with range, the ranged attack system was never really properly worked out, meaning you can easily conquer the world till immortal/deity by just abusing this trick, just make sure you know how many moves your opponent can make, keep your rangers well protected and make use of terrain.
Another important thing to know for rangers, promotions, always take either 3x rough or 3x flat terran upgrades, after this you'll unlock the advanced promotions, including extra range, an extra attack per round and extra vision. Needless to say, this should help you snowball your army even better.
That being said, this game is a massively dumbed down Civ game with a retarded AI, no real bonusses for playing peaceful and a very singular focus on killing your opponent, if I wanted to do that I would just play SC2.
Really hoping G&K will bring some depth, but Jon Schaffer (the guy who designed the Civ5 core) seems to have fucked up this franchise even more then Dustin Browder did for SC2.
I really don't know what people mean when they say Civ 5 is "dumbed down". Having played the shit of Civ 3 and Civ 4, I just dunno. I just don't remember Civ 4 being so much "deeper". Also, the Civ AI has ALWAYS been retarded lol.
|
On June 25 2012 13:05 Entropic wrote:Show nested quote +On June 25 2012 12:01 Scootaloo wrote:
You beat musketmen with range, the ranged attack system was never really properly worked out, meaning you can easily conquer the world till immortal/deity by just abusing this trick, just make sure you know how many moves your opponent can make, keep your rangers well protected and make use of terrain.
Another important thing to know for rangers, promotions, always take either 3x rough or 3x flat terran upgrades, after this you'll unlock the advanced promotions, including extra range, an extra attack per round and extra vision. Needless to say, this should help you snowball your army even better.
That being said, this game is a massively dumbed down Civ game with a retarded AI, no real bonusses for playing peaceful and a very singular focus on killing your opponent, if I wanted to do that I would just play SC2.
Really hoping G&K will bring some depth, but Jon Schaffer (the guy who designed the Civ5 core) seems to have fucked up this franchise even more then Dustin Browder did for SC2.
I really don't know what people mean when they say Civ 5 is "dumbed down". Having played the shit of Civ 3 and Civ 4, I just dunno. I just don't remember Civ 4 being so much "deeper". Also, the Civ AI has ALWAYS been retarded lol.
positive associate with a deep past. I was just playing around with Alpha Centuari and while the game is awesome, some things are just as imba and the ai is just as dumb. The only thing I sort of agree with is the range thing, because any kind of horse archer unit is ridiculously OP. Especially once you get to the +1 range thing.
|
On June 25 2012 13:23 Sub40APM wrote:Show nested quote +On June 25 2012 13:05 Entropic wrote:On June 25 2012 12:01 Scootaloo wrote:
You beat musketmen with range, the ranged attack system was never really properly worked out, meaning you can easily conquer the world till immortal/deity by just abusing this trick, just make sure you know how many moves your opponent can make, keep your rangers well protected and make use of terrain.
Another important thing to know for rangers, promotions, always take either 3x rough or 3x flat terran upgrades, after this you'll unlock the advanced promotions, including extra range, an extra attack per round and extra vision. Needless to say, this should help you snowball your army even better.
That being said, this game is a massively dumbed down Civ game with a retarded AI, no real bonusses for playing peaceful and a very singular focus on killing your opponent, if I wanted to do that I would just play SC2.
Really hoping G&K will bring some depth, but Jon Schaffer (the guy who designed the Civ5 core) seems to have fucked up this franchise even more then Dustin Browder did for SC2.
I really don't know what people mean when they say Civ 5 is "dumbed down". Having played the shit of Civ 3 and Civ 4, I just dunno. I just don't remember Civ 4 being so much "deeper". Also, the Civ AI has ALWAYS been retarded lol. positive associate with a deep past. I was just playing around with Alpha Centuari and while the game is awesome, some things are just as imba and the ai is just as dumb. The only thing I sort of agree with is the range thing, because any kind of horse archer unit is ridiculously OP. Especially once you get to the +1 range thing.
Agree, we tend to remember stuff like "Oh MoO2 is the deepest game ever made!" and then you go back and play it, and it's like...oh yeah, they've improved on TBS titles since then. Or you think to yourself "Mega Man 2 is the hardest game ever made!" and then you go back and play it, clear the entire game without breaking a sweat, because you're not 7 years old anymore. Civ5 is fine. It has its flaws but so does Civ4.
Re: Some other questions that I'm too lazy to quote here
Trading posts are generally best in puppet cities where you don't care about growth. I don't usually TP any of my main cities, it's almost always better to make farms or mines and then run specialists if you don't have enough good tiles.
Samurai are perfectly good units to build towards, but you'll need catapults to take a city most likely, unless you go for the samurai very, very quickly or you're playing on a very low difficulty. Samurai rush is a pretty standard strat for Japan so it sounds like you're on the right track.
|
On June 25 2012 05:19 Torte de Lini wrote:
Is thre any point to not using citizens? I have 11 citizens, 9 are on tiles and one is a specialist for the amphitheater, that means I should have one left, no? If I didn't use it, is it worthwhile? Or should I use all my citizens?
You want to have citizens doing something at all times.
In past games, Civ has very much been a game of micro-managin city production--tweaking citizens and production to get ahead as quickly as possible. I haven't tried G+Ks yet, but in Civ V vanilla, you can pretty much just leave the citizen allocation to the AI and you'll do just fine. On the super hard difficulties it's sometimes more necessary to customize your production numbers, but on Prince and lower leaving it to the AI is probably preferable.
|
I think religion is cool, but in the end, it just becomes obsolete and is just another currency to buy more stuff.
I think converting people to different religions doesn't play as significant of a factor as I would have hoped ):
|
Played a full game, start to finish with two friends and with nukes and everything going on.
Religion played less and less of an important role as the game progresses further into the modern era.
Espionage too, takes like 50 million turns to move (1 turn), gather intel (30 turns), take something (50 turns), etc. etc.
The staging the coup is pretty pointless and none of us relied on City-states except to further expand.
Religion was fun, but pretty one-sided as I had +90 faith and just kept buying missionaries to further increase my pressure. If I tried to do it next to their city, they just kill it. Converting cities over to your religion is a pretty bare concept that loses its fun really early and doesn't really add another dimension to the game, just another racetrack to the courses of buying great people or buildings. All religions can be the same as you customize it accordingly, but even then, no real variety or interest as Religion is just another grounds to further increase your other values.
Naval battles are way better.
Musketmen and beyond is still somewhat the same with some bridged units (great war infantry/bombers, etc.).
Nice touch-ups in some areas, visuals and additional parts to the game. Wonders have been way better cleaned up (hanging gardens was so OP) and the policies are looking better (autocracy still crap and navigation is poop too).
Great people cleaned up: Great Scient. can't give any free techs, just finishes the one you are currently researching. No Golden Age on Military men and Aritsts aren't dicks.
I played Byzantines for the record. We were three and the game took 10 hours straight (8PM to 10AM) and my friend won by Science Victory (it was close and I simultaneously nuked my friends with 5 nukes).
|
On June 25 2012 14:15 Cel.erity wrote:
Trading posts are generally best in puppet cities where you don't care about growth. I don't usually TP any of my main cities, it's almost always better to make farms or mines and then run specialists if you don't have enough good tiles.
Why is that? You don't like gold? What is the best way to be gold focus?
|
On June 25 2012 17:43 furymonkey wrote:Show nested quote +On June 25 2012 14:15 Cel.erity wrote:
Trading posts are generally best in puppet cities where you don't care about growth. I don't usually TP any of my main cities, it's almost always better to make farms or mines and then run specialists if you don't have enough good tiles.
Why is that? You don't like gold? What is the best way to be gold focus?
Because you want your core cities to be as tall and as strong as possible. Puppets are by nature just consumers of happiness, you want to keep their pops low for that purpose and the best way to do that is just to TP everything. These cities will not produce units for you, therefore production is almost irrelevant. Food is irrelevant because you cant assign specialists (to my knowledge) and the only real benefit they bring is science (which pop is good for but not worth the decrease in happy), supplimentary happiness/culture/faith from buildings and gold which can otherwise be tough to find.
In a nutshell, there are much more efficient things to do with a core city than gold focus.
The best way to be gold focus is to settle as many luxuries as possible and sell them off to AIs efficiently
|
On June 25 2012 07:35 TheFish7 wrote:
For example, if I were playing as Japan and shooting for domination, I might start by growing 3 or 4 solid cities, with 2 focused on growth (these could be located near food resources or near rivers or ocean) and 2 dedicated more to production (located near hills, iron or horses).
The problem I have when trying to build focused cities is that the ones that aren't focused on growth don't have enough citizens to be useful for anything else.
So I end up getting all the food buildings/improvements on all my cities. Do you build only the basic food buildings/improvements in the science/production focused cities? Or do you skip the food buildings/improvements and go straight for science/production?
|
On June 25 2012 13:05 Entropic wrote:Show nested quote +On June 25 2012 12:01 Scootaloo wrote:
You beat musketmen with range, the ranged attack system was never really properly worked out, meaning you can easily conquer the world till immortal/deity by just abusing this trick, just make sure you know how many moves your opponent can make, keep your rangers well protected and make use of terrain.
Another important thing to know for rangers, promotions, always take either 3x rough or 3x flat terran upgrades, after this you'll unlock the advanced promotions, including extra range, an extra attack per round and extra vision. Needless to say, this should help you snowball your army even better.
That being said, this game is a massively dumbed down Civ game with a retarded AI, no real bonusses for playing peaceful and a very singular focus on killing your opponent, if I wanted to do that I would just play SC2.
Really hoping G&K will bring some depth, but Jon Schaffer (the guy who designed the Civ5 core) seems to have fucked up this franchise even more then Dustin Browder did for SC2.
I really don't know what people mean when they say Civ 5 is "dumbed down". Having played the shit of Civ 3 and Civ 4, I just dunno. I just don't remember Civ 4 being so much "deeper". Also, the Civ AI has ALWAYS been retarded lol.
On June 25 2012 13:05 Entropic wrote:
I really don't know what people mean when they say Civ 5 is "dumbed down". Having played the shit of Civ 3 and Civ 4, I just dunno. I just don't remember Civ 4 being so much "deeper". Also, the Civ AI has ALWAYS been retarded lol.
Then let me enlighten you:
In Civ4 you actually had benefits from good relations, where right now there are only some slight trading benefits, there where a multitude in Civ4, from map vision to friendship pacts that actually worked (right now it' 50/50 whether or not they backstab) to tech trading (I suppose the research agreement is close but dumbed down, far less versatility) to religion, which unlike their current plans, which look like just another bland benefit cultural tree was mostly a political tool.
1 unit per tile made the AI far worse at it's job not to mention that programming a smart AI for a hexagonal grid with as much variables as here is close to impossible right now without the budget of a small country. At least in Civ4 the AI knew how to make a doomstack which you needed to fear, in Civ5 it just sends it's units in a long stream that with the use of rangers can be murdered without sustaining any casualties, I like having more strategic control then I had with doomstacks, but I hate being the only one who knows how they work.
Science and policies are incredibly simple compared to it's predecessor, whereas most policies where double edged swords and as you could not freely keep the previous one it allowed for more flexible play and greater versatility. No policy has a downside in Civ5, and a lot of them are very bland and give a basic bonus to any style of play, there are really only a couple optimal strategies concerning policies, and the
tech tree was slashed in half and again, far less specific bonusses, so retards to dumb to think about their choices won't get screwed too hard.
Far less luxury and strategic resources, and the trading and stronger bonusses of food resources was completely cut.
The AI is fucking homocidal, they will consistently start wars with either you or eachother, if you play higher difficulties practically always you because they base their chances on army score, which as the only changes between difficulties is how much bonus resources and units the AI gets means its unavoidable.
For them warring is normal because with the strength of cities and the AI's inability to conduct a siege they will never actually capture anything, when you actually show them how to do it and capture more then 2 cities you will basicly be branded a warmonger until the end of time, making it impossible to conduct any diplomacy and usually forcing a pile up to take you down, something which they will never do to another AI opponent.
Their way of balancing for a really shitty AI is insane resource bonusses, absurd aggressiveness and singling out the player.
Happiness hilariously enough only really affects the player because the AI on ALL difficulties plays with the happiness you would get if you played the easiest mode (chieftain iirc?). The only reason for this is that they where unable or too lazy to write an AI that could actually manage these things, apart from building their unique buildings they really have no clue what to prioritize.
If you play Civ4 after Civ5 you'll have no idea what you're missing because you'll likely be emulating the incredibly war heavy Civ5 approach, the other way around though and you'll see that they effectively killed most strategies on any difficulty above emperor.
That being said I did spend a lot of time playing Civ5, it just takes a bit to start realizing how shallow it really is, when you're still playing your first game as the Aztecs, at least the differentiation of nationalities is very well done, and you're still enjoying the pretty graphics compared to Civ4 it's not that pressing (although I personally find the choice of art deco + dwarf people rather fugly).
As a final note, did I mention what a badly programmed resource hogging piece of malware it really is? Try playing a game beyond turn 250, or loading up a save around there, it's not even that the AI has so much to do, most of them are usually dead at this point, it's that the shitty game renders the entire map at ALL times, all the while dumping your memory banks full of crap, causing the rather common crashes.
|
On June 25 2012 17:43 furymonkey wrote:Show nested quote +On June 25 2012 14:15 Cel.erity wrote:
Trading posts are generally best in puppet cities where you don't care about growth. I don't usually TP any of my main cities, it's almost always better to make farms or mines and then run specialists if you don't have enough good tiles.
Why is that? You don't like gold? What is the best way to be gold focus?
Most of your gold revenue is going to come from trade routes, high population in your cities, and the tiles worked (regardless of how they are improved). Trade posts don't really add that much in the big scheme of things. However, they come with the distinct cost of lowering the production and/or population growth in your cities, which are far more important. If you want to make a lot of money, you either need to have a large puppet empire (conquer people and build trade posts in conquered cities) or you need to have a lot of resources that you can sell (the Arabs are particularly good at this).
|
On June 26 2012 01:15 Scootaloo wrote:
Science and policies are incredibly simple compared to it's predecessor, whereas most policies where double edged swords and as you could not freely keep the previous one it allowed for more flexible play and greater versatility. No policy has a downside in Civ5, and a lot of them are very bland and give a basic bonus to any style of play, there are really only a couple optimal strategies concerning policies, and the
tech tree was slashed in half and again, far less specific bonusses, so retards to dumb to think about their choices won't get screwed too hard.
No policies in Civ4 had downsides (unless that was added in an expansion. Vanilla Civ4 was all I played). The "downside" of a policy was implicit: by selecting one, you weren't selecting its alternatives. So you picked the one you needed at the time.
Personally, I'd say that the problem with Civ5 is that they created gameplay that's great for humans but terrible for AIs. I'm glad to see stacks of doom going away, but their first step upon instituting this new gameplay should have been developing an AI that could make reasonable army composition decisions.
Ultimately, I see Civ5 like Civ3 and Civ1: bold experiments where some things work, and some things don't. It took Civ2 to perfect the ideas of Civ1, and Civ4 to perfect the ideas of Civ3. And I imagine Civ6 will make some of Civ5's underdeveloped concepts actually work.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
