-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
Civilization V Brave New World |OT| More than Content Tourism
- Thread starter Fragamemnon
- Start date
The religion doesn't have any pressure boosting beliefs, and when you hover over a city it says if the pressure is added to by a trade route or not. Hopefully if you stream a game soon you will focus on your own religion! I haven't played civ5 since vanilla release so I'm still learning GnK mechanics that other people already know by now...
Yep Maya or Inca.
Fragamemnon
Member
Leaning toward Inca, because I love the way their real defining characteristic-the hill and mountain bias-isn't even mentioned in their Civilopedia entry. You can do a lot with a ton of hammers, and BNW makes it much easier to deal with their pre-Feritiziler food issues.
threetri333
Banned
Has it been agreed what the top 5 CIV in BNW? I can say Babylon is one of them. What do you think?
Question:
If I buy CIV V, can I live out my dream of making an N-Korea like-nation in online multiplayer? I would put all financial priority on military at all times, and put all technological resources behind acquiring nukes a.s.a.p. I would also try to befriend a powerful ally to protect me and be relatively secluded.
I had an epic game a long time ago in CIV IV where I did something similar. I nuked one of the superpowers after sending backdoor diplomatic requests for resources. I was of course taken out in the span of 5 turns by pretty much everyone's military forces. Before I died, I tried to send a nuke to the arctic to try to induce global warming at least.
So is multiplayer here still going strong? And are nukes powerful weapons? Would I succeed if I tried to play out this fantasy, or is this a crazy game strategy in CIV V?
If I buy CIV V, can I live out my dream of making an N-Korea like-nation in online multiplayer? I would put all financial priority on military at all times, and put all technological resources behind acquiring nukes a.s.a.p. I would also try to befriend a powerful ally to protect me and be relatively secluded.
I had an epic game a long time ago in CIV IV where I did something similar. I nuked one of the superpowers after sending backdoor diplomatic requests for resources. I was of course taken out in the span of 5 turns by pretty much everyone's military forces. Before I died, I tried to send a nuke to the arctic to try to induce global warming at least.
So is multiplayer here still going strong? And are nukes powerful weapons? Would I succeed if I tried to play out this fantasy, or is this a crazy game strategy in CIV V?
Siam and Greece for sure
Fragamemnon
Member
China, Babylon, Arabia, then two of Inca, Venice and Korea
The first three are just insanely strong in particular.
Most games end with concession w/ a clear runaway well before the Atomic era, as I understand it. I don't think Civ V is the game you are looking for if you want this particular experience.
Do you always go for Consulates? I've only done Patronage when city states are a big plan of my game plan (Austria, Greece) but after how well the Greek game went I'm thinking of doing it more often.
Well, in single player he can be a NK 'rogue' state if he wants.
Nah. Not the same when trolling/attacking actual people with this.
Ah well, time to find another strategy game where I can play this out. If anyone has any suggestions feel free to reply or P. M. me.
Fragamemnon
Member
Almost every game. The first point into Patronage is also very useful so that you can secure your bordering city-states, which is a very big deal. They act as powerful allies due to their army sizes throughout the game and will interfere and harass a CIv you are at war with.
Even if you are playing a culture game, unlocking Aesthetics ASAP isn't a big deal and it's worth putting the points into Patronage for the passive benefits.
Honestly pledge to protect probably needs some kind of nerf. It's not consulates that are the problem, it's both pledge and consulates that cause issues.
Psychoward
Banned
For a Portugal diplomatic victory and/or an English domination victory, would you guys recommend Continents or Large Islands?
Fragamemnon
Member
Not out yet, but check out paradox's East vs. West:
http://forum.paradoxplaza.com/forum...0-East-vs-West-Developer-diary-7-The-Big-Bang
Realize what you are looking for is also going to likely require a group of people who also are into some kind of roleplay, which is another reason to recc Paradox over Civ in this case.
Diplo - continents. You can get most of your needed votes via local CS plus the city states on islands, making genghis/austra/venice less of a problem.
Domination - Large islands, since it all but assures all capitols will be coastal.
Hahaha, for clarification, I'm not looking for some kind of weird "roleplay." It's solely for my own amusement, requiring no-one else to participate, which I do sometimes in multiplayer games for fun. But thanks for the recommendation, I'll check it out.
Love the fact we can't even come close to agreeing which are the top 5 nations... 
Personally I don't think Babylon is that strong - it hasn't been really since G&K when they nerfed the scientist rate and introduced composite bowmen. Babylon's strength really went down hill when everyone gained access to early game strong ranged units.
Personally, my top 5 would be:
Mayan
Inca
Mongols
Assyria
and on non-Pangea maps, England.
Mayan's have easily one of the best unique buildings in the game, as well as a unique ability that encourages you to go wide and build lots - it all just works together really well.
Incans are just super strong - their ability makes warfare much easier for them, they have a lot more money to hand due to their unique ability, and hill farms are obscene in the right spots.
Mongols have the best land unit in the game, narrowly ahead of the Cho-Ko-Nu and the Longbowmen, and really should just conquer the world whenever you play them. They are probably the best civ in the game for domination.
Assyria - new civ so less sure, but their siege tower feels unbelievably strong and the ability to steal techs on conquest compliments it amazingly. Unlike other war civs you can stay level on tech whilst devouring your enemies.
England - Longbowmen alone are one of the best units in the game, but on any map with water (i.e. continents, islands, archipelago etc) the English are without question the supreme naval power. Ships of the Line!
Personally I don't think Babylon is that strong - it hasn't been really since G&K when they nerfed the scientist rate and introduced composite bowmen. Babylon's strength really went down hill when everyone gained access to early game strong ranged units.
Personally, my top 5 would be:
Mayan
Inca
Mongols
Assyria
and on non-Pangea maps, England.
Mayan's have easily one of the best unique buildings in the game, as well as a unique ability that encourages you to go wide and build lots - it all just works together really well.
Incans are just super strong - their ability makes warfare much easier for them, they have a lot more money to hand due to their unique ability, and hill farms are obscene in the right spots.
Mongols have the best land unit in the game, narrowly ahead of the Cho-Ko-Nu and the Longbowmen, and really should just conquer the world whenever you play them. They are probably the best civ in the game for domination.
Assyria - new civ so less sure, but their siege tower feels unbelievably strong and the ability to steal techs on conquest compliments it amazingly. Unlike other war civs you can stay level on tech whilst devouring your enemies.
England - Longbowmen alone are one of the best units in the game, but on any map with water (i.e. continents, islands, archipelago etc) the English are without question the supreme naval power. Ships of the Line!
I can't say for sure that you'd get to nukes ahead of everyone else, but there are definitely ways to be the crazy recluse that's hard to dislodge. Ethiopia, using great generals to make citadels, China, Autocracy, etc.
Not to mention a ton of defensive buildings and wonders (Great Wall, some Japanese castle that escapes me, Great Firewall, Babylon and its Wall replacement).
Not to mention a ton of defensive buildings and wonders (Great Wall, some Japanese castle that escapes me, Great Firewall, Babylon and its Wall replacement).
Recent game as Washington I kept my defenses up so, even with Atilla directly to the north of me, we were like best buddies all game. He accepted Scientology, followed my coattails into Freedom... and started mashing all of my rivals for me whenever he was feeling antsy. Good times.
Weirdly, he didn't start expanding aggressively until the late Renaissance, though. Really calm Classical Era.
True story: I've "won" several wars with opposing nations with just one archer stationed in my city. Turtle power.
Robert at Zeboyd Games
Banned
I'd put Spain as one of the top civs as well. If you manage to find an early natural wonder, you can get some truly explosive starts with them and in the mid-game, their Conquistador is quite versatile and can act as an invader (no penalty for City Attacks), enhanced scout (free +2 to visibility, 4 movement, and embarked defense) or enhanced settler (can settle cities on other continents & doesn't cost any more to buy with gold than a regular settler despite all the other advantages).
Both.
Most likely a little bit of both.
He wanted to go to war with the Huns, didn't have an army so he asked you to help out.
I'm pretty sure the AI isn't devious enough to "trick" you into it in a major way (say, knowing the Huns would stomp you into the ground while leaving him unharmed) but it wanted to punish the Huns for some kind of perceived transgression.
That's just based on play experience. No idea for sure, but the AI doesn't have all that much depth to it.
Basically their abilities look really weak but actually work well together across a wide variety of scenarios.
Firstly, you pay a lot less for roads - that gives you more money. Money powers the game so whatever you are planning to do, the Inca are good.
Secondly, movement on hills is great. It enables even your basic units to move faster and gives you an advantage in any area with hills.
Thirdly, hill farms rock. They are as good as farms on hills without any mountains at all, and once you have mountains nearby they enable high food, high productivity tiles from the very beginning of the game. Tiles with 5 food and 2 industry are freaking amazing and will enable your cities to grow to vast sizes very early on.
Their unique unit, the slingers, suck to be honest with you but many players claim they are powerful with their retreat option. Either way, the other bonuses are so good and work together so well that they are a really powerful nation whichever victory type you choose.
Rentahamster
Rodent Whores
Probably. There aren't enough tradeoffs to using it. I feel like it's just something you do, and that it doesn't really have any weight.
The diplo hit to other civs by telling them to "get over it" when they bully a protected city state isn't that large.
You can "pledge to protect" them, and if another civ starts bombing them, you can sit back, not do shit, and they don't care.
I feel like that quest where "so and so demanded tribute from us, so please denounce them" should always pop up for everyone, and the first civ to fulfill that quest gets a +25 influence resting point. If you pledged to protect, but failed to denounce, you get -60 influence.
If a civ starts to physically attack another civ that you pledged to protect, a quest asking you to declare war on the aggressor civ should pop up for everyone. First civ to declare war on the aggressor civ gets a +50 resting influence point. If you had pledged to protect, but failed to declare war (even if you were not the first to declare, you can still declare later, within, let's say, 10 turns) then you get -120 influence. Denouncing the civ instead of declaring war would result in a neutral outcome, but would spare you the negative influence effects of not declaring war.
Malmorian
Member
- My name is Malmorian
- Hi, Malmorian
- ...and I am a CIv addict
Seriously though I've probably logged in over 700+ hours between vanilla and the expansions...and i'm not proud haha. I have been known to take time off work if i'm on a good roll, and yet I keep coming back for every version and expansion. Should probably start buying stock at this point
- Hi, Malmorian
- ...and I am a CIv addict
Seriously though I've probably logged in over 700+ hours between vanilla and the expansions...and i'm not proud haha. I have been known to take time off work if i'm on a good roll, and yet I keep coming back for every version and expansion. Should probably start buying stock at this point
Psychoward
Banned
For a Venice diplomatic victory would you go Liberty or Tradition?
Robert at Zeboyd Games
Banned
Piety is pretty boring early on since most of the tree doesn't do anything until you actually have a religion. Organized religion makes it easier to get your pantheon & religion faster, reformation bonuses can be really good (I especially like the +2 Tourism/purchased faith building & the Buy any specialist with faith once you reach the Industrial era bonuses), and getting a free prophet upon completion is nice.
You'll pretty much always want to get Organized Religion first. After that, if you're planning on using your first prophet to create a holy site or going to build some early temples, go for Theocracy first, otherwise go for Reformation (getting Mandate of Heaven before Religious Tolerance).
Fragamemnon
Member
I posted this a couple of days ago. It's my favorite BNW opening for Immortal or Deity.
http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=503931
Note you don't have to be aggressive with it, but I firmly believe that passive Civ play is a huge trap for higher difficultly and even just warring to get a huge pile of cash and a decent puppet to later annex is usually worth it early on.
What he said.
I still can't understand if i'm bad at Liberty or 'peaceful' liberty is straight-out bad.
Frag?
Fragamemnon
Member
Peaceful liberty isn't bad, but where liberty peaceful really get hung up on is science. You don't have the innate growth of cities,especially your NC capital and your "free" GP still notches up the first counter of GP costs so your first GSci is 200 points instead of 100.
This is mainly due to over expansion (think 3-4 city liberty, not to 5 right off the bat unless you get lucky with a good CS and have LOTS of premier land) and not securing sufficient variety of luxury resources for the cities you are claiming. It is also tied to slower coastal starts and other margin placement were the much slower border growth from liberty winds up eating your earned gold just to claim reasonable tiles to work.
A successful liberty start is all about getting *good* spots quickly, with high yield tiles near the city plop-down and both quantity and variety of luxuries. You can later expand into the merely "good" spots later.
The reason why it transitions so well into warfare is that you will likely forward settle into an AI or have an AI forward settle into you. On the higher difficulties you benefit greatly from having your neighbor become crippled and getting other neighbors to beat on them early along with you. You can then just expand more w/o repercussion later. It's aggressive and not passive. It's hard to be aggressive w/ the AI w/ tradition without lots of bribes.
In my last game I played - I went science victory since the idea of a deity domination war w/ a huge Shaka and Atilla made me phyically ill, I wound up w/ 10 cities total, 2 puppeted capitols. I settled four cities off the bad, took one more in an early war, settled another 2 in medieval, and then took the two caps late game and just used border expansion and some great general citadels to keep the AI shit towns to a minimum. That's a reasonable pace for liberty expansion, and even then I overextended my happiness too much.
edit: Learning how many citizens you need to work and how much expected happiness your are going to have/need to have as a rough estimate for what you are going to want to need in the next 50-75 turns is something you can really do to step up your game, period. You don't see it on let's plays but it's a short off the hand calculation that really pays off when planning out your early empire. Later on you an use city states and more advanced trading to help out.
This is mainly due to over expansion (think 3-4 city liberty, not to 5 right off the bat unless you get lucky with a good CS and have LOTS of premier land) and not securing sufficient variety of luxury resources for the cities you are claiming. It is also tied to slower coastal starts and other margin placement were the much slower border growth from liberty winds up eating your earned gold just to claim reasonable tiles to work.
A successful liberty start is all about getting *good* spots quickly, with high yield tiles near the city plop-down and both quantity and variety of luxuries. You can later expand into the merely "good" spots later.
The reason why it transitions so well into warfare is that you will likely forward settle into an AI or have an AI forward settle into you. On the higher difficulties you benefit greatly from having your neighbor become crippled and getting other neighbors to beat on them early along with you. You can then just expand more w/o repercussion later. It's aggressive and not passive. It's hard to be aggressive w/ the AI w/ tradition without lots of bribes.
In my last game I played - I went science victory since the idea of a deity domination war w/ a huge Shaka and Atilla made me phyically ill, I wound up w/ 10 cities total, 2 puppeted capitols. I settled four cities off the bad, took one more in an early war, settled another 2 in medieval, and then took the two caps late game and just used border expansion and some great general citadels to keep the AI shit towns to a minimum. That's a reasonable pace for liberty expansion, and even then I overextended my happiness too much.
edit: Learning how many citizens you need to work and how much expected happiness your are going to have/need to have as a rough estimate for what you are going to want to need in the next 50-75 turns is something you can really do to step up your game, period. You don't see it on let's plays but it's a short off the hand calculation that really pays off when planning out your early empire. Later on you an use city states and more advanced trading to help out.
Honestly, i have no problems with happiness gouging.
having 10 cities, 4 of which conquered, is not what i'd consider peaceful though =\
Rentahamster
Rodent Whores
Nuke yourself
It's a matter of not settling too many cities or having them grow too fast before you can acquire more sources of happiness. If you know that you are going to get a certain amount of happiness via social policies, lux trading, or buildings, go ahead and ramp up growth. If not, keep your tiles production or gold focused.
Nuke yourself
It's a matter of not settling too many cities or having them grow too fast before you can acquire more sources of happiness. If you know that you are going to get a certain amount of happiness via social policies, lux trading, or buildings, go ahead and ramp up growth. If not, keep your tiles production or gold focused.
Oh right duh, more micro on the "focus" setting. Thanks, need to remember to do that earlier.
lol, that's horrible. I'd never do that personally.
Fragamemnon
Member
That's pretty tame by my standards. I haven't played any of the real warmonger civs since the expansion outside of Isabella (who really wants to go to war if you win the natural wonder slot machine).
edit: I miss Civ IV Isabella so much. She was just bananas crazy.
Rentahamster
Rodent Whores
lol @ how all the civs go to "afraid" status once you build a nuke. Finally, they treat me with respect!
hypersheep
Member
Playing Venice on Large Islands + Autocracy is fun. Spent the entire game last place in terms of score but then I then I got myself to battleships and just went on a conquering spree. Took the capitals of Hiawatha, Babylon, and the Maya before I won through diplomacy. Everybody hated me except for Ethiopia, who was my autocracy bro.
Fragamemnon
Member
going live w/ deity inca for a couple of hours or so before bed:
twitch.tv/rloutlaw
twitch.tv/rloutlaw
ErasureAcer
Banned
Cuzco is almost dead. Ahhhh!
Psychoward
Banned
For the first two or so games after I bought Civ V, I thought unhappiness from population only came when I was overpopulated, so I always checked the avoid growth button, no matter how low the population was :/. Good thing I was playing on Warlord or Chieftain at the time.
Also, thinking of going Poland my next game, since they're pretty versatile in terms of victory conditions, does anyone have any reccomendations? I was thinking maybe culture and blaze through Tradition, Patronage and Aesthetics. Also, it seems to me that Pangea is much easier than Continents for a culture game, since you have every civ discovered before getting Caravels. Is that right?
hypersheep
Member
The answer for Poland is always Space, because POLAND CAN INTO SPACE!