EPT[Civ V] Succession Game #1 - Page 2
| Forum Index > General Games |
|
Taurent
Canada401 Posts
| ||
|
AntiLegend
Germany247 Posts
I've played some Civ3&4, and although i never played on a higher level than prince (and wasn't overly successful there), but i think i have enough common sense to not ruin our empire  | ||
|
hasuprotoss
United States4611 Posts
| ||
|
catabowl
United States815 Posts
| ||
|
Fruscainte
4596 Posts
On September 22 2010 10:02 catabowl wrote: Hey guys, I'd love to do a succession game with you but is Civ 5 worth it so far? I'm still playing CIV 4. :p Oh my God, yesssssss I nearly shat myself when I could actually use my archers to assault a city safely from two tiles away while my Legionnaires did work up front. The combat is far more intricate and strategic, not just stack 50 tanks and basically 1a into your opponents tile of equal number of tanks and hope for the RNG to win. Stuff like flanks, outranging, etc. actually come into account in battles. As well as terrain, so forth. It's so amazing. Other than that, it might as well be Civ 4. Roads take significantly longer to build though, I've noticed. As well with the addition of city states, it adds a whole new flavor to the game. | ||
|
Nokarot
United States1410 Posts
I loved Civ4, don't get me wrong.. but this is a breath of fresh air. I wouldn't even compare the two games if they didn't have "civ-like" franchise elements. They are completely different games, and thus, if anything, that means its worth a try. | ||
|
Fruscainte
4596 Posts
On September 22 2010 11:22 Nokarot wrote: Yeah, I think its a lot better than Civ 4 because you need actual 'strategy'. Units are far from expendable- each one counts for quite a lot. Losing a unit is like a kick to the face, so the tactics are so much more involved. Civ 4 combat was simple, and if you brokered enough techs you may as well not even bother with it, and just win diplomatically or something. Here, I feel you actually have to work for things. I loved Civ4, don't get me wrong.. but this is a breath of fresh air. I wouldn't even compare the two games if they didn't have "civ-like" franchise elements. They are completely different games, and thus, if anything, that means its worth a try. Exactly, I hate to reiterate but it's apple and oranges, this and Civ 4. Both require different skill sets in my opinion in two different respects. Every unit counts so much, I have to repeat that because it's so freaking true. Late game, it's not 50 tanks and 50 helicopter stacks fighting each other. It's more like, I'll have a city and you'll have a city so I'll send 5-6 battleships to bombard, and 3 tanks with 4 infantry groups with an artillery to push. While you'll put three artillery's by a ledge with some tanks on high ground, and get an aircraft carrier to attack my battleships. I mean, it's so much smaller scale and everything has to be doing something. And there is even attack bonuses, as I've stated, if you flank your enemies or have high ground, etc. No amount of infantry will beat a tank on a hill that is fortified, I guarantee you that.  EDIT: Wow, I just found out something nifty. Roads, as I've said, take significantly longer to build. Just to build from my main to my second town, it took like 20 turns to build a connecting road. But what I just found out is, you can build "trade posts" throughout your area and if you connect your towns roads to it, that's all you need. Like I put one square in the middle of my little zone, and built smaller roads to the trade post that only took like 5 turns to make and it was far more efficient in the long run. Civ 4 is still in my top 5 favorite games, in fact I'm still playing it. I played a quick game where I just legion rushed people as Rome and got a quick Dom victory on Settler (just for the lolz) and now I'm continuing my Civ 4 game from last night. They're both completely different games, essentially, and that's just my take on it. | ||
|
Phos
Iceland106 Posts
| ||
|
prOxi.Beater
Denmark626 Posts
I voted random/regular on almost everything, but I kind of regret not voting for earth on map-type. | ||
|
Fruscainte
4596 Posts
| ||
|
Nokarot
United States1410 Posts
On September 22 2010 11:36 Phos wrote: anyone streaming some civ gameplay? I was for the last 4 hours, haha.. Taking a break now, though. Will be doing more tomorrow, be on the look out. I've found the right settings to allow a smooth stream/recording of the first turns of our succession game, as well. Actually, I think we might have enough people to get this started pretty early if we'd like, assuming the first ~7 or so people (who would take until at least Friday I imagine, for the rest to come in) have unlocked their games already. Thoughts? edit: Poll removed. Game will start tomorrow- let me know when is most convenient if you wanted to watch! | ||
|
HansMoleman
United States343 Posts
| ||
|
D10
Brazil3409 Posts
I want in this time ... my steam account is dedevv but ill only be able to start playing friday | ||
|
prOxi.Beater
Denmark626 Posts
| ||
|
WarChimp
Australia943 Posts
| ||
|
ComusLoM
Norway3547 Posts
| ||
|
Nokarot
United States1410 Posts
| ||
plated.rawr
Norway1675 Posts
| ||
|
Rho_
United States971 Posts
| ||
|
Nokarot
United States1410 Posts
What's the time difference between me (gmt -5) and any Europeans interested in watching the first ~40 turns on the stream? I'll run the stream whenever is convenient for most participants who are interested in watching, and maybe participating via chat for any big, important early decisions, and to celebrate as we see which Civ we end up randoming! | ||
| ||
