EPTDid one unit per tile AI finally get respectable?
Are city-states still extremely abusable?
Has the game been optimized at all to run better (especially between turns)?
Civilization V + DLC's, G&K, BNW - Page 64
| Forum Index > General Games |
|
Mazer
Canada1086 Posts
Did one unit per tile AI finally get respectable? Are city-states still extremely abusable? Has the game been optimized at all to run better (especially between turns)? | ||
|
RoyGBiv_13
United States1275 Posts
On July 21 2012 03:32 Mazer wrote: So, I guess this Steam Sale is a good chance to catch up on the DLCs/expansion but I was pretty disappointed with Civ V for the first 3 months that it was out. I'm a little unsure if I want to pony up the $30 or w/e. I've just gone back to play Civ IV whenever I got the Civ itch. Did one unit per tile AI finally get respectable? No, well.... Not really, no (Although I dissent on the general opinion and believe that the AI unit control is fine in most cases, but abusable in a few) Are city-states still extremely abusable? City states are much, much, much better. Their entire interaction feels complete. Has the game been optimized at all to run better (especially between turns)? YES OH GOD FINALLY! this was what stopped me from playing civ V mostly, and its mostly fixed. Still a few strange behaviours here and there, and sometimes it will hang, but much less often and much quicker in general. | ||
|
Mazer
Canada1086 Posts
On July 21 2012 03:45 RoyGBiv_13 wrote: No, well.... Not really, no (Although I dissent on the general opinion and believe that the AI unit control is fine in most cases, but abusable in a few) City states are much, much, much better. Their entire interaction feels complete. YES OH GOD FINALLY! this was what stopped me from playing civ V mostly, and its mostly fixed. Still a few strange behaviours here and there, and sometimes it will hang, but much less often and much quicker in general. Ah, that's good to hear. Those were my three biggest gripes with the game back then. Guess I'll give it a another go. Thanks ;p | ||
|
Synwave
United States2803 Posts
On July 21 2012 06:36 Mazer wrote: Ah, that's good to hear. Those were my three biggest gripes with the game back then. Guess I'll give it a another go. Thanks ;p I want to 2nd this I have a rather old quad core and a rather new graphics card. The game runs WAY faster than it used to especially during turns where the cpu is figuring out what the AI should do. It's not fast on my system but its much much faster that it used to be. I now blame my mobo+cpu instead of shoddy programming  | ||
|
jinorazi
Korea (South)4948 Posts
| ||
|
TheFish7
United States2824 Posts
| ||
|
iGrok
United States5142 Posts
Basically, they serve as a money drain if you aren't going for Diplo victory. | ||
|
{CC}StealthBlue
United States41117 Posts
On July 24 2012 06:13 iGrok wrote: Either make friends with all of them (expensive) or kill all of them (expensive). Basically, they serve as a money drain if you aren't going for Diplo victory. Unless your Austira then befirend them then absorb them. | ||
|
ToT)OjKa(
Korea (South)2437 Posts
I went back to playing Immortal because Deity is just not really fun. I can survive but then I don't really do shit for awhile and then PIKEMEN EVERYWHERE. I wish the tech tree took a bit longer. I don't really want to play on the longer game modes (although I might try it) but I like to see old armies of warriors and archers and spearmen and chariot archers and specialist troops. Too fast come swordsmen and then PIKEMEN, PIKEMEN EVERYWHERE. Things just go obsolete too fast in my opinion. Is the tech tree too linear? I'm not really that knowledgeable about builds and what not but rushing to Civil Service or University seems to always be the case. I dunno, just doesn't seem that much room to maneuver with old school armies. Most of the time it seems pointless to get horses because of spearmen and you might as well get them without the hassle of iron for a quick pikemen, although Samurais are pretty beast. Maybe I just need to play more flat, open maps. I currently play Continents and I used to do Continents Plus but all the city states were just crammed around on tiny speckles of land. At least in my Japanese game when the mother fucking Ottos came at me through Sydney, I rigged those bitchin' elections and threw gold at them and the Ottos got fucked from both sides. Civs I tend to play are Aztecs (culture killing is pretty good all game and even later when you get more versus higher tech stuff), maybe Japan, I played a game as Carthage but that was kinda easy. Dem free harbours man... Unless you're doing that 4-city Traditional build, do most people go Honour tree? Best Special unit/building? I got a bit bored with espionage until I started rigging elections. That shit is cool but you should be able to do more with spies like in Civ 2 or Master of Orion 2. I fucking love the crab luxury tile. Don't know why... | ||
|
{CC}StealthBlue
United States41117 Posts
Honestly why can't Paradox make a Civ series or Sid come back? | ||
|
Sub40APM
6336 Posts
| ||
|
NicolBolas
United States1388 Posts
On July 28 2012 08:16 {CC}StealthBlue wrote: I am a bit dissapointed and am finding myself playing BtS more than G&K. More resources to trade, Civics, multiple leaders with traits that affect gameplay. Espionage and Religion actually played a deeper role in the game as well. Honestly why can't Paradox make a Civ series or Sid come back? How much did Sid have to do with Civ IV? I have the making-of disk for Civ IV, and there was little mention made of his involvement. Personally, I always hated religion in Civ IV (way too much management to make it useful), and was very glad to see it gone in Civ V. I haven't picked up G&K, but the presence of a religion system puts me off of it. | ||
|
Mondieu
Romania803 Posts
| ||
|
Breach_hu
Hungary2431 Posts
| ||
|
ain
Germany786 Posts
| ||
|
NicolBolas
United States1388 Posts
On July 28 2012 19:32 Mondieu wrote: So you hate religion that badly ? :O or just in civ games ? ^_^ In Civ IV. It's just annoying to try to keep up with these things and make them useful for your empire. You have to keep producing missionaries so that the right religions get spread so that you get the proper bonuses. If a wrong religion comes into your cities, regarldess of whether anyone put it there or not, it starts becoming a burden to you as it can make other nations hate you. Etc. It's a system that's annoying and tedious to deal with, while simultaneously hurting your empire without any real way to stop it or defend against it once you become infected. It forces you to research otherwise worthless techs first, because then you get to found a religion which gives you advantages. In short, trying to make religion work for you is painful and annoying, but you can't ignore religion either because the game is designed for it to be an essential part of the game, like food production and such. People will want you to join their religions or they'll kill you, and once you do, that'll piss someone else off. Etc. I haven't tried G&K's version, but as long as it's less tedious than the Civ IV version, it'll be better. | ||
|
Candadar
2049 Posts
On July 29 2012 08:42 NicolBolas wrote: In Civ IV. It's just annoying to try to keep up with these things and make them useful for your empire. You have to keep producing missionaries so that the right religions get spread so that you get the proper bonuses. If a wrong religion comes into your cities, regarldess of whether anyone put it there or not, it starts becoming a burden to you as it can make other nations hate you. Etc. It's a system that's annoying and tedious to deal with, while simultaneously hurting your empire without any real way to stop it or defend against it once you become infected. It forces you to research otherwise worthless techs first, because then you get to found a religion which gives you advantages. In short, trying to make religion work for you is painful and annoying, but you can't ignore religion either because the game is designed for it to be an essential part of the game, like food production and such. People will want you to join their religions or they'll kill you, and once you do, that'll piss someone else off. Etc. I haven't tried G&K's version, but as long as it's less tedious than the Civ IV version, it'll be better. I fucking love G&K version, infinitely better than Civ IV's in my opinion. | ||
|
ain
Germany786 Posts
In my experience actively going for religion is a bad ideamost of the time or unless you're celts, byzantium or ethiopia. | ||
|
Kurumi
Poland6130 Posts
On July 29 2012 08:42 NicolBolas wrote: In Civ IV. It's just annoying to try to keep up with these things and make them useful for your empire. You have to keep producing missionaries so that the right religions get spread so that you get the proper bonuses. If a wrong religion comes into your cities, regarldess of whether anyone put it there or not, it starts becoming a burden to you as it can make other nations hate you. Etc. It's a system that's annoying and tedious to deal with, while simultaneously hurting your empire without any real way to stop it or defend against it once you become infected. It forces you to research otherwise worthless techs first, because then you get to found a religion which gives you advantages. In short, trying to make religion work for you is painful and annoying, but you can't ignore religion either because the game is designed for it to be an essential part of the game, like food production and such. People will want you to join their religions or they'll kill you, and once you do, that'll piss someone else off. Etc. I haven't tried G&K's version, but as long as it's less tedious than the Civ IV version, it'll be better. People won't hate you or like you in Civ IV unless you adopt a religion. | ||
|
TheFish7
United States2824 Posts
On July 29 2012 09:10 ain wrote: You can pretty much ignore religion. I only go for one if the costs are very low, e.g. I have a natural wonder, a religious cs or found some faith in a hut. In that case you have a good shot at getting an advantage from your religion while keeping the opportunity cost low. In my experience actively going for religion is a bad ideamost of the time or unless you're celts, byzantium or ethiopia. Some civs are better at getting religion early on in the game. for the other civs it doesnt make sense to go for faith until later. I would include the Mayans on the list of ones that it does make sense - because of their unique building that gives +2faith+2 science. Religion is also more useful for peaceful victory strategies than for strategies that involve a lot of warfare. | ||
| ||
