Civilization V + DLC's, G&K, BNW - Page 89

On February 19 2013 05:15 Sufficiency wrote:


But only if you see it first.

On February 19 2013 06:03 xDaunt wrote:

Yeah, I hate El Dorado and the Fountain of Youth. They make games too random. I always turn off ancient ruins for the same reason.

On February 19 2013 06:20 Sufficiency wrote:


But the randomness makes the game more fun. IMO the whole reason why this game is more fun than HoMM is due to this.

On February 19 2013 12:13 Charger wrote:
Does anyone play multiplayer? I'm just learning the game so I'm certainly not about to jump into a random game but if multiplayer is fun I'd like to play with some TLers sometime.

On February 23 2013 16:23 screamingpalm wrote:
I had logged over 1000 hours on this game, really fun. Hit a wall where I found Immortal too easy and Deity too hard. Would like to try multiplayer with that robot program from civfanatics site sometime, sounds like it could be fun?

On February 23 2013 16:23 screamingpalm wrote:
I had logged over 1000 hours on this game, really fun. Hit a wall where I found Immortal too easy and Deity too hard. Would like to try multiplayer with that robot program from civfanatics site sometime, sounds like it could be fun?

On January 29 2013 16:54 Sufficiency wrote:
Tier list revised....



God Tier (borderline broken, extremely powerful and versatile): Ethiopia (Steles OP), Maya (Pyramids OP), Arabia (Trade Routes gold bonus, Camel Archers do more damage than Knights and they are ranged), China (Cho-ko-nu attacks twice, 30% Great General Bonus instead of 15%)
1st Tier (depends slightly on starting location and other various random factors, but they are in general fairly strong): Dutch (Polders OP), Russia (double strategic resources to fight people or sell for $$$), Huns (Battle Ram is broken and Horse Archer does not require horses; +1 production from patures is very strong... if you spawn near a lot of them), Siam (UA is OP)
2nd Tier (fairly decent, but they are arguably not as good as the 1st Tier ones): Aztec, France, Egypt, Rome, Persia, Songhai, Iroquois, India, Greece, Mongol
3rd Tier (these civs are not that bad, but they are somewhat situational or depends greatly on RNG): America, Spain, Germany
4th Tier (these civs are fairly weak and underwhelming): Byzantine (good luck getting what you want for your religion), Celts (just play Ethiopia), Sweden (good luck keeping all your friends happy and not backstabbing you), Japan (UA almost useless beyong the first 50 turns, UUs are underwhelming).

On March 15 2012 16:56 FecalFrown wrote:
Does anything else think that Culture is very weak in Civ 5? If you try to win via culture have to sacrifice so much to do it.

Science and military victories go hand in hand, because often the person who is ahead in science will win military battles as well (The higher tech units CRUSH lower tech ones, swarming vs them just gives them xp). You are also encouraged to expand to win in these ways, because more expansion means more science and gold which means more military which means more expansion.

Culture is the exact opposite. Investing in culture means you CANT expand, so all of the above is moot. In addition, the bonuses for culture are pretty weak. Great your borders expand faster. That's useless because your city will not grow nearly fast enough to have citizens to work all the extra tiles you've accrued. Faster social policies is pretty horrible too. An entire tree dedicated to gaining culture faster? You gain culture faster so you can other social policies faster.... uhh why not just spend the points in another tree where they will actually benefit your actual play, not this abstract 'culture' that will EVENTUALLY win you the game, if you manage to hold out for 500 turns while having sub par technology (and thus military), and few cities.

Sorry for the rant, it just seems like a glaring design flaw to make a victory condition based on a closed loop of getting culture for the sake of getting culture..

On April 26 2012 02:54 Bleak wrote:
I am so addicted to this game, I love playing it. 250 hours so far and not regretting even one second of it.

On February 25 2013 19:15 Sufficiency wrote:
I swear, just for having Hiawatha in the game makes it 100% harder.

On February 26 2013 02:04 xDaunt wrote:

Yeah, Hiawatha is always a pain in the ass. The other leader who has been a bitch in my recent games is Pachuti. He's a wonder-whore, and he expands like crazy.

On February 26 2013 08:07 riyanme wrote:


Strange, I have no problems on Hiawatha. But I really hate the huns when it bombared me freely with bombers as I attacked Dido whom I had a war right from turn 20. What mode/settings do you usually play on?

immortal, standard, no ruins, raging barbarians, pangea
and
emperor, small, no ruins, raging barbarians, pangea

i prefer raging barbarians to add up the insane difficulties, disabled the ruins for OP against higher difficulty settings. i go on domination and cultural victories as my main strat. razing cities here and there, be friending city states.

On February 26 2013 08:15 xDaunt wrote:

I always do immortal / standard / no ruins / regular barbarians / pangaea. My understanding is that raging barbarians makes the game easier because it so significantly slows down the AI's.

The Huns are a really nasty early game neighbor because their ancient era units are bullshit. However, I don't think that I have ever seen the Huns take over the mid game/late game with a large sprawling empire. The AI's that expand like crazy are usually the ones that cause the most problems because they quickly run away in tech with their huge population base (and AI bonuses).