Support NeoGAF

[XiaNaphryz]

I know a lot of people can look at it that way and be fine with it, but it really bothers me. I don't want to win or lose based on luck in a strategy game. At least it's not Company of Heroes levels of random :lol

If you have an issue with it, then take more time to reduce the chance of luck affecting you. Use promoted units with the appropriate combat bonus applicable to what you're attacking, get other units nearby to get a flanking bonus, soften the target up beforehand with ranged units, etc etc.

 

[delirium]

WTF, Chrome reported something here (probably an avatar) as an attack site.

Also, I went to find a Kmart to buy Civ with the $20 GC and found out the nearest Kmart is 200 miles away. FUCK ME.

 

[Macattk15]

I have this same problem. Workaround is to use the arrow keys, but I'd rather be able to mouse to the edge of the screen.

That is what I thought I would have to do, but it is still annoying since I seemingly have a habit of trying to scroll with the mouse.

 

[toxicgonzo]

I'm have dual monitors. Monitor on the left shows my desktop, monitor on the right is playing Civilization V.

Problem is, I cannot scroll to the left in the game by dragging my mouse over to that side of the screen because the mouse pointer just moves onto my desktop as if I was playing in a windowed mode.

I have fullscreen checked, I don't know why it is doing this. Anyone know?

I have this problem too but I use the arrow keys when I get stuck.

Edit:Beaten

 

[Cday]

what difficulty is that?

Prince

 

[Mengy]

1UP/Tom Chick just gave it a C - http://www.1up.com/do/reviewPage?cId=3181540

:|

I played the game for 9 hours last night, and even though I enjoyed it immensely I have to admit I noticed all of the points he raises, and honestly I sort of feel the same way. I like the game, but the diplomacy feels very shallow and not strategic, and the social policies do just feel like a second tech tree. They seem to me like very good concepts that just need fleshing out. Hopefully patches (or expansions) do just that.

But for the time being I like the game. The hex maps and new combat model are fantastic improvements. All we need is some better AI and UI improvements along with help in the diplomacy department and this game would be leagues above any other Civilization game ever. I'll keep playing it for awhile, but I do think it won't hold my attention like Civ 4 BTS did. I do know that I'm keeping Civ4 installed and I'm sure I'll go back to playing that at some point, if only to compare the two. Besides, Starcraft 2 still has me by the balls.

I'm not sorry I bought it, that's for sure.

 

[ConfusingJazz]

I know a lot of people can look at it that way and be fine with it, but it really bothers me. I don't want to win or lose based on luck in a strategy game. At least it's not Company of Heroes levels of random :lol

Damn kids complaining about slight variations of randomness with closely related units. Back in my day, we played original Civ, and to knock off a phalanx from a mountain, it wasn't unheard of to sacrifice a tank or two, and we liked it!

 

[n8]

So I downloaded the demo and all the text is garbled and squished. Tried reinstalling it, nothing.

Any fixes?

 

[Spl1nter]

1UP/Tom Chick just gave it a C - http://www.1up.com/do/reviewPage?cId=3181540

:|

Part about social policies, lump sum numbers and civilization diversity is so true. The civilizations feel so similar. Game is a lot of fun but the feature set feels held back and mundane.

 

[Haly]

Ysia, the randomness might be because of the difficulty. When i played a game on Chieftain none of my battle had any randomness, at least, none that I could detect.

Damn kids complaining about slight variations of randomness with closely related units. Back in my day, we played original Civ, and to knock off a phalanx from a mountain, it wasn't unheard of to sacrifice a tank or two, and we liked it!

Damn kids relying on randomness to make a game seem more exciting than it really is. Why, in my ancestor's day they only had white pebbles, black pebbles and a 19x19 grid. None of these fancy hexes and unit types and terrain advantages, and they liked it!

 

[KaYotiX]

Eh, give Firaxis time to roll out patches also. I know Civ 4 wasnt the greatest game of Civ untill a few years later after expansions.

I still fucking love Civ V though, AMAZING game!!!

 

[Instro]

WTF, Chrome reported something here (probably an avatar) as an attack site.

Also, I went to find a Kmart to buy Civ with the $20 GC and found out the nearest Kmart is 200 miles away. FUCK ME.

Someone is being careless with where they are getting their avatar from I guess. Happens often enough you'd think everyone would know by now.

 

[iam220]

Part about social policies, lump sum numbers and civilization diversity is so true. The civilizations feel so similar. Game is a lot of fun but the feature set feels held back and mundane.

Personally, I like the social policies and feel that civilization diversity comes from how you play the game and not what civics or religions you choose. That said, those are totally valid complaints. The problem that I have with that 'review' is that it concentrates almost solely on the negatives. Making it seem like its entire purpose is to generate buzz/controversy.

Damn kids complaining about slight variations of randomness with closely related units. Back in my day, we played original Civ, and to knock off a phalanx from a mountain, it wasn't unheard of to sacrifice a tank or two, and we liked it!

:lol

 

[alanias]

Part about social policies, lump sum numbers and civilization diversity is so true. The civilizations feel so similar. Game is a lot of fun but the feature set feels held back and mundane.

I disagree. While it's not as flexible as Civics it's still pretty well implemented. There are three tree per an era, and each tree reflects your decisions during that era permanently. In a way it means MORE than the Civics cause you can't just flip back and forth based on what day of the week it is or whether you are having a war or not. You have to make a decision, and stick with it.

I also disagree with the Civs feeling similar. If anything they are more different than they were in Civ 4. Instead of just choosing based on Cultural, Spiritual, Expansionist etc and special units each Civ has a special trait that completely changes how they play. Japanese wars play out very differently because of the Bushido trait for example.

 

[BradleyUK]

I just need some advice about this laptop I want to buy and will it run Civilization V?

Click Here

 

[Deleted member 17706]

Personally, I like the social policies and feel that civilization diversity comes from how you play the game and not what civics or religions you choose. That said, those are totally valid complaints. The problem that I have with that 'review' is that it concentrates almost solely on the negatives. Making it seem like its entire purpose is to generate buzz/controversy.



:lol

How does your style of play make other Civilizations feel diverse?

In Civ IV, your religion and Civic greatly affected how other civilizations would treat you. This just doesn't exist anymore, since Civics are replaced with a talent tree and religion is gone.

Anyway, the game is still great, and the review in question spent the first couple of paragraphs talking about how addicting and amazingly paced it is. The problem is that the faults are just too large too ignore if this game is supposed to be the successor to Civilization IV (as it's name would imply).

 

[Gaborn]

I have this same problem. Workaround is to use the arrow keys, but I'd rather be able to mouse to the edge of the screen.

Change your freaking avatar please, it's linked to a malware site:

Warning: Visiting this site may harm your computer!
The website at mynameisearlkress.com appears to host malware – software that can hurt your computer or otherwise operate without your consent. Just visiting a site that hosts malware can infect your computer.
For detailed information about the problems with this site, visit the Google Safe Browsing diagnostic page for mynameisearlkress.com.
Learn more about how to protect yourself from harmful software online.
I understand that visiting this site may harm my computer.

Safe Browsing
Diagnostic page for mynameisearlkress.com/weblog

What is the current listing status for mynameisearlkress.com/weblog?
Site is listed as suspicious - visiting this web site may harm your computer.

Part of this site was listed for suspicious activity 1 time(s) over the past 90 days.

What happened when Google visited this site?
Of the 4 pages we tested on the site over the past 90 days, 1 page(s) resulted in malicious software being downloaded and installed without user consent. The last time Google visited this site was on 2010-09-18, and the last time suspicious content was found on this site was on 2010-09-13.
Malicious software is hosted on 1 domain(s), including mirymir1.co.cc/.

2 domain(s) appear to be functioning as intermediaries for distributing malware to visitors of this site, including umniktds.ws/, onlline.info/.

This site was hosted on 1 network(s) including AS26347 (DREAMHOST).

Has this site acted as an intermediary resulting in further distribution of malware?
Over the past 90 days, mynameisearlkress.com/weblog did not appear to function as an intermediary for the infection of any sites.

Has this site hosted malware?
No, this site has not hosted malicious software over the past 90 days.

How did this happen?
In some cases, third parties can add malicious code to legitimate sites, which would cause us to show the warning message.Safe Browsing
Diagnostic page for mynameisearlkress.com/weblog

What is the current listing status for mynameisearlkress.com/weblog?
Site is listed as suspicious - visiting this web site may harm your computer.

Part of this site was listed for suspicious activity 1 time(s) over the past 90 days.

What happened when Google visited this site?
Of the 4 pages we tested on the site over the past 90 days, 1 page(s) resulted in malicious software being downloaded and installed without user consent. The last time Google visited this site was on 2010-09-18, and the last time suspicious content was found on this site was on 2010-09-13.
Malicious software is hosted on 1 domain(s), including mirymir1.co.cc/.

2 domain(s) appear to be functioning as intermediaries for distributing malware to visitors of this site, including umniktds.ws/, onlline.info/.

This site was hosted on 1 network(s) including AS26347 (DREAMHOST).

Has this site acted as an intermediary resulting in further distribution of malware?
Over the past 90 days, mynameisearlkress.com/weblog did not appear to function as an intermediary for the infection of any sites.

Has this site hosted malware?
No, this site has not hosted malicious software over the past 90 days.

How did this happen?
In some cases, third parties can add malicious code to legitimate sites, which would cause us to show the warning message.

 

[JoeMartin]

Personally, I like the social policies and feel that civilization diversity comes from how you play the game and not what civics or religions you choose. That said, those are totally valid complaints. The problem that I have with that 'review' is that it concentrates almost solely on the negatives. Making it seem like its entire purpose is to generate buzz/controversy.

There is not one illegitimate criticism in that review. And it's probably the best 'review' out there. Yes the game is pretty, yes there's some fancy new features - we've seen it all and had it all that beat into our heads from the media over the last few months - he doesn't need to talk about that. This review gets down to what Civ's really about (at least what it should be about) and he's right on a good 95% of his points.

 

[XiaNaphryz]

So I downloaded the demo and all the text is garbled and squished. Tried reinstalling it, nothing.

Any fixes?

Driver update?

There is not one illegitimate criticism in that review. And it's probably the best 'review' out there. Yes the game is pretty, yes there's some fancy new features - we've seen it all and had it all that beat into our heads from the media over the last few months - he doesn't need to talk about that. This review gets down to what Civ's really about (at least what it should be about) and he's right on a good 95% of his points.

Yeah, his gripes are legitimate. It's just a matter of how much would you knock the score down because of them. Some people may not be as bothered as much as others.

 

[Jibber Hack]

I'm playing it around all my activities, trying to get everything down, but I just say that so far I agree with Tom Chick. Can't wait for the first expansion, lol.

 

[Spire]

WTF, Chrome reported something here (probably an avatar) as an attack site.

Same here. Someone needs to fix their fucking avatar.

 

[MmmSkyscraper]

I burned my lunch because I was too busy playing to take it out of the oven. Fuck this game.

:lol

 

[Deleted member 17706]

Driver update?


Yeah, his gripes are legitimate. It's just a matter of how much would you knock the score down because of them. Some people may not be as bothered as much as others.

Who cares about other people? Reviews are, by nature, completely subjective. Sure some points of criticism can be objective, but the overall review is just one person's opinion. It would be idiotic to try and review a game from the perspective of whoever the perceived target audience is.

 

[Jibber Hack]

Derp. Game keep s crashing for me now when using strategic view.

 

[XiaNaphryz]

Who cares about other people?

I'm not saying that Chick's review should have been done from a different perspective, just that another reviewer can probably right the exact same review but end up with a different final score is all. I don't agree with the assertion that the review was done just to generate buzz at all.

Looking at just at the score isn't a good thing to do anyway, you need to read the entire review and come up with your own final grade based on what you read. If it turned out differently than the reviewer, so be it.

 

[iam220]

How does your style of play make other Civilizations feel diverse?

In Civ IV, your religion and Civic greatly affected how other civilizations would treat you. This just doesn't exist anymore, since Civics are replaced with a talent tree and religion is gone.

The way you play the game determines how other civs treat you. This has been true for all civilizations of course. Now there is just no longer any religious or civic modifiers to how other nations view you. Really don't see how it suddenly strips civilizations of their diversity.

I can see how it limits your options, you can no longer be a pacifists with great culture and then turn into a war mongering nazis within a few turns, but I actually like that.

Anyway, the game is still great, and the review in question spent the first couple of paragraphs talking about how addicting and amazingly paced it is. The problem is that the faults are just too large too ignore if this game is supposed to be the successor to Civilization IV (as it's name would imply).

That's really the problem I have with the review, he spends 10% of the review praising the game for its awesomeness and then 90% picking on and exaggerating its faults. It just seemed like he came up with the rating first and then wrote the review to try and fit it.

 

[Griffin]

I just need some advice about this laptop I want to buy and will it run Civilization V?

Click Here

I'm quite sure you can run it on low. I have a HD 4670 with about the same specs and it runs fluent on low with highest resolution (I haven't tried running it on a higher setting).

 

[Bossman]

Tom was overcritical in his review. If all reviewers always focused on negatives and not on positives, games would never get very high scores because even the best games have dozens of problems.

 

[XiaNaphryz]

I'm quite sure you can run it on low. I have a HD 4670 with about the same specs and it runs fluent on low with highest resolution (I haven't tried running it on a higher setting).

Yeah, just turn down the detail settings and stick to DX9 mode.

 

[JoeMartin]

Tom was overcritical in his review. If all reviewers always focused on negatives and not on positives, games would never get very high scores because even the best games have dozens of problems.

This is the fifth game in the iteration. It's got pedigree, and there's things that aren't unreasonable to expect from the fifth game from the same developers and it doesn't deliver on them.

Most of the negatives ironically stem from their attempt to streamline the game and make it more friendly. My biggest gripe with the game is that they've made it frustratingly more difficult to get access to pertinent information (and in some cases omitting it altogether) , making the game feel much more strategically barren, like I don't have the ability to manipulate things I should be able to. The whole game just somehow feels more limited in scope.

Everything is just a little too neat. And while I'm almost positive the game with improve with time and manhours from the mod community, we're talking about the game as it is now, not a year or two out.

 

[owlbeak]

Question: I've played Civ games before, but not seriously and never been as interested in one as I am with this. I plan on buying it as soon as I have some cash, but I am curious: is it possible to play as a (mostly) peaceful civilization who's focus is on economy and culture? I'd like to win the game by winning the space race. Most other civ building games you have random civilizations declaring war on you for NO reason whatsoever and you're constantly fighting off idiotic attackers and can't fund research.

Please tell me I don't have to worry about that in Civ5? I'm sure occasionally you'll have raiders/barbarians occasionally, but as you get more advanced, is it really a big problem?

 

[Quixzlizx]

I know a lot of people can look at it that way and be fine with it, but it really bothers me. I don't want to win or lose based on luck in a strategy game. At least it's not Company of Heroes levels of random :lol

Never play Civ 4 if something as niggling as that small skirmish bothers you. Armored personnel carriers (modern technology) can die in droves while assaulting a city defended by a single spearman, and there is no inherent city "attack power" in Civ 4.

 

[Deleted member 17706]

Question: I've played Civ games before, but not seriously and never been as interested in one as I am with this. I plan on buying it as soon as I have some cash, but I am curious: is it possible to play as a (mostly) peaceful civilization who's focus is on economy and culture? I'd like to win the game by winning the space race. Most other civ building games you have random civilizations declaring war on you for NO reason whatsoever and you're constantly fighting off idiotic attackers and can't fund research.

Please tell me I don't have to worry about that in Civ5? I'm sure occasionally you'll have raiders/barbarians occasionally, but as you get more advanced, is it really a big problem?

No reason whatsoever? They want your land and resources.

 

[Cday]

Question: I've played Civ games before, but not seriously and never been as interested in one as I am with this. I plan on buying it as soon as I have some cash, but I am curious: is it possible to play as a (mostly) peaceful civilization who's focus is on economy and culture? I'd like to win the game by winning the space race. Most other civ building games you have random civilizations declaring war on you for NO reason whatsoever and you're constantly fighting off idiotic attackers and can't fund research.

Please tell me I don't have to worry about that in Civ5? I'm sure occasionally you'll have raiders/barbarians occasionally, but as you get more advanced, is it really a big problem?

Yes it's possible but you'll have to have a military or someone is bound to declare war on you because they see you as an easy target. If you form a defensive pact that will deter others as well but if the Civ you form the pact with gets attacked you'll automatically declare war.

Science production isn't affected if you're in a war unless they take one of your cities or are standing on a tile that produces science.

 

[birdchili]

No reason whatsoever? They want your land and resources.

... and they're complete asses.

especially Alexander. and Napolean. i tried to reason with those stinky pigdogs.

 

[Spl1nter]

The way you play the game determines how other civs treat you. This has been true for all civilizations of course. Now there is just no longer any religious or civic modifiers to how other nations view you. Really don't see how it suddenly strips civilizations of their diversity.

I can see how it limits your options, you can no longer be a pacifists with great culture and then turn into a war mongering nazis within a few turns, but I actually like that.

The problem with the system is that the game is a simulation of a civilization through time. Social policies change over time, government changes over time. That has all been taken away.

Also I never said civilizations lack diversity in comparison to civ4. Overall they lack diversity because its extremely difficult to tell there motives and goals in the game. There is no information showing what they are trying to achieve. I have no idea if Gandhi is going for a military victory or cultural victory.

 

[SnakeswithLasers]

I got a Great General pretty early on (went with the Honor policy that grants them...I think) and I'm not sure how to use him properly. I'd like to just "attach" him to my barbarian hunting unit (a single warrior), but I can't figure out how to just get him to move WITH the unit--instead, he moves faster and wanders off on his own, getting killed in the process. Am I stuck with manually moving them each turn?

 

[zoku88]

But, you can change social policies over time, but you can't do it abruptly like you could in Civ IV.

 

[JumpJeff84]

Bought this today. First time Civ player. So far it's intimidating, despite how 'friendly' they've made it for first timers. If I set my workers to 'auto build', will that be a pretty safe way to start out?

Any tips if I wanna focus on military might? I'd like to reap and pillage my way through the land.

 

[Spl1nter]

But, you can change social policies over time, but you can't do it abruptly like you could in Civ IV.

You cannot change social policy overtime unless there is a respec option that I am unaware of. You can add social policy, that is completely different.

Let me just point out that in history for example when the French revolution was occuring through its various phases there are times when everything was thrown out from the previous government. When Russia became a communist state there sure were not a long of Nobles still around, everything changed overtime.

Why should the decision I made in 2000 BC be in immutable property of my civilization in 1800 AD, the idea is just preposterous.

 

[alanias]

But, you can change social policies over time, but you can't do it abruptly like you could in Civ IV.

Exactly. It was really easy in Civ IV to game the system. You could tweak you Civics, eat a few turns of revolution, and tada, you are now ready to enact a holy war! Civ V makes your skill tree decisions really matter.

 

[zoku88]

You cannot change social policy overtime unless there is a respec option that I am unaware of. You can add social policy, that is completely different.

Let me just point out that in history for example when the French revolution was occuring through its various phases there are times when everything was thrown out from the previous government. When Russia became a communist state there sure were not a long of Nobles still around, everything changed overtime.

Why should the decision I made in 2000 BC be in immutable property of my civilization in 1800 AD, the idea is just preposterous.

That's like cherrypicking. Most changes are indeed gradual.

But yea, in this game, you can actually throw out social trees (switch to an incompatible one). Though, you don't get your upgrades back.

 

[delirium]

You cannot change social policy overtime unless there is a respec option that I am unaware of. You can add social policy, that is completely different.

Let me just point out that in history for example when the French revolution was occuring through its various phases there are times when everything was thrown out from the previous government. When Russia became a communist state there sure were not a long of Nobles still around, everything changed overtime.

Why should the decision I made in 2000 BC be in immutable property of my civilization in 1800 AD, the idea is just preposterous.

Because social policy just doesn't represent government, it represents a people's culture. The French might have had a revolution but there are several aspects of their culture that did not change when they went from a monarchy to a republic. Same with the Russians.

 

[Mandoric]

Wow, the demo doesn't just crash during the opening cinematic, it takes my computer with it. The only Apolyton thread on it is for borderline/under spec video cards and I'm pretty sure a 5770 isn't.

Oh well, plenty of things out this month anyway, I'll jump on at 1.01. :lol

 

[XiaNaphryz]

You cannot change social policy overtime unless there is a respec option that I am unaware of. You can add social policy, that is completely different.

Pretty sure you can switch to a social tree that was blocked off when you took the other one. You're right in that you don't respec the points, you just start from scratch on the other branch. If you switch back again, though, are the points invested originally still there?

Wow, the demo doesn't just crash during the opening cinematic, it takes my computer with it. The only Apolyton thread on it is for borderline/under spec video cards and I'm pretty sure a 5770 isn't.

Oh well, plenty of things out this month anyway, I'll jump on at 1.01. :lol

Were you trying to launch in DX9 or 10/11 mode? Are your video drivers updated?

 

[Spl1nter]

Because social policy just doesn't represent government, it represents a people's culture. The French might have had a revolution but there are several aspects of their culture that did not change when they went from a monarchy to a republic. Same with the Russians.

And do you think that there culture is the same as it was 2000 years ago? While changes in culture are gradual they are quite significant. Also one should not confuse social policy with culture. They are two different aspects of a 'civilization'

Once again looking at the French revolution we are talking about a complete societal change. From autocratic, absolute monarchy to individual liberty, freedom and republic. That way that effects the lives of individual persons is drastic.

 

[iam220]

The problem with the system is that the game is a simulation of a civilization through time. Social policies change over time, government changes over time. That has all been taken away.

I don't view at as a simulation at all. I mean the game IS called civilization, so I don't want to see pixies or dragons in it but at the same time I don't care if a new gameplay element does not parallel the real world. All I care about is how it affects the gameplay, and I don't think it affects it in a negative way. I see where you're coming from though as different expectations of the game (like wanting it to be as realistic as possible) will lead to different opinions on the new gameplay mechanics.

 

[Gaming Truth]

Where is my Iron? I clearly made a stupidly placed city to get to it, but after my first swordsman, it's greyed out. Worse yet, it never comes back until I befriend (bribe) a neighboring City-State who happens to have Iron. Now, I can make Catapults and Swordsmen like gangbusters in all of my cities simultaneously.

I know, I know. I've played only one game. I didn't read the CD's instruction manual because they decided to be cost-efficient and stick it somewhere non-obvious. It just feels off to me. I keep lying to my neighbors ("I'm sorry I'm amassing troops on your border"), I don't understand why I can build some units and can't build others. I see the Maintenance costs for buildings, but dunno if the thing in the upper left is a summary after everything's accounted for or just what my peeps in the field are bringing. I dunno why my Archers are ranged and can siege, but my Musketmen are not.

Several repeated attempts to walk my units on water told me that I misunderstand embarking and how that all works.

Quick summary: One game. Didn't like it. I own all of the other Civs. The first day is almost always disastrous for me. In this case, I chose to end my game quick-like because I just wanted it all to end (maybe to try again later).

 

[Spl1nter]

I don't view at as a simulation at all. I mean the game IS called civilization, so I don't want to see pixies or dragons in it but at the same time I don't care if a new gameplay element does not parallel the real world. All I care about is how it affects the gameplay, and I don't think it affects it in a negative way. I see where you're coming from though as different expectations of the game (like wanting it to be as realistic as possible) will lead to different opinions on the new gameplay mechanics.

Its not even about being realistic. Its about being limited in choice in a sandbox world. Personally I think thats a negative for gameplay in a sandbox game.

 

[XiaNaphryz]

I don't view at as a simulation at all. I mean the game IS called civilization, so I don't want to see pixies or dragons in it but at the same time I don't care if a new gameplay element does not parallel the real world. All I care about is how it affects the gameplay, and I don't think it affects it in a negative way. I see where you're coming from though as different expectations of the game (like wanting it to be as realistic as possible) will lead to different opinions on the new gameplay mechanics.

Yeah, calling Civ a sim would be a stretch. Something like Europa Universalis might be closer, but arguably that doesn't qualify either. The closest thing to simulations you can really get are wargames (i.e. HOI3 on the strategic level, or the Combat Mission titles on the tactical level).

Where is my Iron? I clearly made a stupidly placed city to get to it, but after my first swordsman, it's greyed out. Worse yet, it never comes back until I befriend (bribe) a neighboring City-State who happens to have Iron. Now, I can make Catapults and Swordsmen like gangbusters in all of my cities simultaneously.

I know, I know. I've played only one game. I didn't read the CD's instruction manual because they decided to be cost-efficient and stick it somewhere non-obvious. It just feels off to me. I keep lying to my neighbors ("I'm sorry I'm amassing troops on your border"), I don't understand why I can build some units and can't build others. I see the Maintenance costs for buildings, but dunno if the thing in the upper left is a summary after everything's accounted for or just what my peeps in the field are bringing. I dunno why my Archers are ranged and can siege, but my Musketmen are not.

Several repeated attempts to walk my units on water told me that I misunderstand embarking and how that all works.

Quick summary: One game. Didn't like it. I own all of the other Civs. The first day is almost always disastrous for me. In this case, I chose to end my game quick-like because I just wanted it all to end (maybe to try again later).

Resources contribute to a global pool, as you build units it takes from the pool. To increase it, you need to find more resource squares.

It's all in the OP.