-
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 |OT| of Losing My Religion, And I Feel Fine...
- Thread starter XiaNaphryz
- Start date
I think it depends on the actually city the tiles belong to, doesn't it? It was like that for Civ IV, anyway. So even if your total culture was bigger, if the border cities between you two are producing the same amount of culture-ish, then the borders shouldn't really move.Ferrio said:
Although, I could be wrong and that doesn't happen in this game. *shrug*
Burger said:
Great people (e.g, Great Artist, Engineer).
Corky said:
Also first Civ for a friend of mine, he didn't play the tutorial and he knew the basic mechanics after a game. Just use the advisory thing and check out the Civilopedia (press f1 ingame).
Also, is there anyway to check the civilopedia out of a game?
First diplomatic victory, turn 469 (I completely neglect science on this one), 12 hours playing, I think.
I spammed settlers as hell, went to war with almost everyone in order to protect city-states and maaaaan there were ups and downs on this game.
I went from -10 happiness, -250 gold to the opposite of this. I went overboard with cities and units, then my cities states started to slip away and I saved my relations (and my economy) by basically donating 70% of my army to city states and for the happiness problem, I learned of the wonders of luxury trading. having a bunch of wine really saved me.
Yeah, America brought peace to the world thanks to wine. That's history.
I spammed settlers as hell, went to war with almost everyone in order to protect city-states and maaaaan there were ups and downs on this game.
I went from -10 happiness, -250 gold to the opposite of this. I went overboard with cities and units, then my cities states started to slip away and I saved my relations (and my economy) by basically donating 70% of my army to city states and for the happiness problem, I learned of the wonders of luxury trading. having a bunch of wine really saved me.
Yeah, America brought peace to the world thanks to wine. That's history.
Just finished a 3 city cultural victory with Ramses and I didn't even control my third city (which was hit up by Alexander and even taken a few times) a decent amount of the time, so the Bollywood achievement shouldn't be difficult at all.
A few notes/questions:
-Love the "talent" that improves city defense in the cultural minded policy. One of my biggest problems obtaining cultural victories in the past was managing to produce enough culture while still having an army capable enough to defend my increasingly bigger borders. Lots of new "in your territory" minded combat bonuses in this game make it a lot easier while keeping the potential for cultural civs to suddenly go domination focused while still going for the Utopia project low.
-Civ states are incredibly useful for a cultural player with a weak military. Get a militaristic minded one on your side (ideally sandwiched between you and the aggressive civs) and watch them fight the fights for you.
-Am I right in assuming the first policy pursued for any cultural victory should be piety? How early is it possible to go Renaissance for the really nice cultural focused policy tree? I couldn't hit it until around 1800 and I really felt I should be going for the -25% to policy costs sooner.
-Similarly, I found myself unable to get the Cristo Redentor until 1900 and I know I need that sooner.
-Ramses' Wonder bonus seemed great this time around- I didn't get beat to a single Wonder I cared about. That said, who's the best general for a cultural victory? Gandhi?
Edit: Wow, kind of sucks that Babylon was the Collector's Civ. They seem like the best choice for a scientific victory by a long shot and I was about to attempt to for one using them only to find that I don't have them. :/
A few notes/questions:
-Love the "talent" that improves city defense in the cultural minded policy. One of my biggest problems obtaining cultural victories in the past was managing to produce enough culture while still having an army capable enough to defend my increasingly bigger borders. Lots of new "in your territory" minded combat bonuses in this game make it a lot easier while keeping the potential for cultural civs to suddenly go domination focused while still going for the Utopia project low.
-Civ states are incredibly useful for a cultural player with a weak military. Get a militaristic minded one on your side (ideally sandwiched between you and the aggressive civs) and watch them fight the fights for you.
-Am I right in assuming the first policy pursued for any cultural victory should be piety? How early is it possible to go Renaissance for the really nice cultural focused policy tree? I couldn't hit it until around 1800 and I really felt I should be going for the -25% to policy costs sooner.
-Similarly, I found myself unable to get the Cristo Redentor until 1900 and I know I need that sooner.
-Ramses' Wonder bonus seemed great this time around- I didn't get beat to a single Wonder I cared about. That said, who's the best general for a cultural victory? Gandhi?
Edit: Wow, kind of sucks that Babylon was the Collector's Civ. They seem like the best choice for a scientific victory by a long shot and I was about to attempt to for one using them only to find that I don't have them. :/
I'm not sure if this would help on a cultural victory but in my last game it ended with me as Napoleon and Darius.
I managed to get the diplo victory and then 30 turns later got the utopia project finished but during the course of the game Darius was always well ahead of me by almost a full era and had almost a perpetual golden age the entire game it was quite remarkable.
I really want to try him out and see if I cam replicate his successes.
I managed to get the diplo victory and then 30 turns later got the utopia project finished but during the course of the game Darius was always well ahead of me by almost a full era and had almost a perpetual golden age the entire game it was quite remarkable.
I really want to try him out and see if I cam replicate his successes.
I've had a lot of time with the game the last couple days so I thought I'd offer my two cents on it. First, wow. It really lives up to the addictiveness of all civilization games. Like all of them the core is there, the attention to detail, the complexity of both building a stable empire and expanding it, etc. I love the addition of city states as an added wrinkle they give you an incentive to have at least a few states under your protection and give you an extra incentive to go to war and engage with others. The interface is very clean, it runs very smoothly and the graphics are spectacular.
With that said, I do have a few complaints. I think they clearly thought Civ 4 was far too complex, so they wanted to get away from that as much as possible, and while I think they got close to a good balance with this I don't think they quite hit the mark. The inability to trade maps makes absolutely no sense to me. I like not always knowing what the other civilizations are thinking, that's much closer to real life, but no maps? In the real world it'd be pretty hard for any society to travel any distance at all to get somewhere if they didn't have some directions. I would have added a mechanic wherin a traded map is added to the minimap but the fog of war stays the same, that to me would add a good balance.
I also have an issue with the Diplomatic victory. As it stands with every civilization haves 1 vote including city states; there is no scale based on the population and power of civilizations like in civ 4. In theory this is nice, it incentivizes making nice with all of the city states. The problem is if there aren't enough city states left surviving and there are too many civilizations.
In that case you essentially have one option. Destroy more civilizations. That takes away from the point of a diplomatic victory, the victory should come from a proportional vote (I'd say every city has 1 vote, grouped assuming that all of your cities would vote for you of course). This would leave the city states as being crucial influences but also not destroy the balance of ridiculous scenarios where the major powers merely vote for themselves, if they're going to do that there is no point.
I could say more but for the most part I think it's been covered both good and bad.
On the whole, I think this is a fantastic game. I think a couple of patches will make it even better of course as would be expected so I don't blame it in the least. Another point though that I think people aren't really touching on. This was an absolutely needed reboot. Civ 4 was a masterpiece without any question. It was the epitome of what the civilization series should aspire to be. There really wasn't a good way to take that formula and grow it - and make it at all fun for newbies to learn to play it, it would have made it totally unintuitive. Although I think the game as it stands today is a bit too simplistic in some ways (despite it's awesomeness) I see so much room and potential for growth with the new system I'm incredibly optimistic for the series now and going forward.
This game lives up to it's AAA billing but more importantly it gives the series room to grow and expand that just continuing with the formula civ 4 perfected wouldn't have. I'm already imagining an expanded role for city states in future games and giving your "pet" city states technologies and other things to increase your bond and their power. Also, I can see your unhappy cities having a chance to rebel and actually form their OWN city state.
Also, I want city states to form their own loose federations, and I'm NOT just talking about when you get aggressive and start scooping up city states, but actual confederations you can interact with on a diplomatic level to appeal to a group of city states.
I'm sure that everyone has their own ideas to improve on Civ 5's new formula (and i'm not just talking about the currently sub par AI) but I really think the case for improving Civ 4 is much more difficult, and that's the important thing. Civ 4's formula needed to be changed and drastically, and now it's up to the devs to grow Civ 5's formula.
With that said, I do have a few complaints. I think they clearly thought Civ 4 was far too complex, so they wanted to get away from that as much as possible, and while I think they got close to a good balance with this I don't think they quite hit the mark. The inability to trade maps makes absolutely no sense to me. I like not always knowing what the other civilizations are thinking, that's much closer to real life, but no maps? In the real world it'd be pretty hard for any society to travel any distance at all to get somewhere if they didn't have some directions. I would have added a mechanic wherin a traded map is added to the minimap but the fog of war stays the same, that to me would add a good balance.
I also have an issue with the Diplomatic victory. As it stands with every civilization haves 1 vote including city states; there is no scale based on the population and power of civilizations like in civ 4. In theory this is nice, it incentivizes making nice with all of the city states. The problem is if there aren't enough city states left surviving and there are too many civilizations.
In that case you essentially have one option. Destroy more civilizations. That takes away from the point of a diplomatic victory, the victory should come from a proportional vote (I'd say every city has 1 vote, grouped assuming that all of your cities would vote for you of course). This would leave the city states as being crucial influences but also not destroy the balance of ridiculous scenarios where the major powers merely vote for themselves, if they're going to do that there is no point.
I could say more but for the most part I think it's been covered both good and bad.
On the whole, I think this is a fantastic game. I think a couple of patches will make it even better of course as would be expected so I don't blame it in the least. Another point though that I think people aren't really touching on. This was an absolutely needed reboot. Civ 4 was a masterpiece without any question. It was the epitome of what the civilization series should aspire to be. There really wasn't a good way to take that formula and grow it - and make it at all fun for newbies to learn to play it, it would have made it totally unintuitive. Although I think the game as it stands today is a bit too simplistic in some ways (despite it's awesomeness) I see so much room and potential for growth with the new system I'm incredibly optimistic for the series now and going forward.
This game lives up to it's AAA billing but more importantly it gives the series room to grow and expand that just continuing with the formula civ 4 perfected wouldn't have. I'm already imagining an expanded role for city states in future games and giving your "pet" city states technologies and other things to increase your bond and their power. Also, I can see your unhappy cities having a chance to rebel and actually form their OWN city state.
Also, I want city states to form their own loose federations, and I'm NOT just talking about when you get aggressive and start scooping up city states, but actual confederations you can interact with on a diplomatic level to appeal to a group of city states.
I'm sure that everyone has their own ideas to improve on Civ 5's new formula (and i'm not just talking about the currently sub par AI) but I really think the case for improving Civ 4 is much more difficult, and that's the important thing. Civ 4's formula needed to be changed and drastically, and now it's up to the devs to grow Civ 5's formula.
Standard for both, I've played one at epic length and that was crazy I cannot imagine what a marathon game will be like.Helmholtz said:
I think I need to up the map size to large cause at the end of every game there's only 3 or 4 civs left max it's just not enough players left by endgame.
PillowKnight
Member
City states are never destroyed, if you conquer the city of a former city state you have the option to liberate it. The same applies to fallen civilizations, a liberated civilization will always vote for you.Gaborn said:
PillowKnight said:
I know that, but what I'm saying is that it incentivizes befriending all city states (great) and destroying more major civilization, or at least crushing them into submission. I don't think a diplomatic victory should be premised on war. I'm ok with gold being a major player to get support from city states but as long as major civilizations generally speaking have no incentive to ever support you (unless you destroy them or liberate them) the current solution is broken from the spirit of what it implies. Every city in a civilization should have a vote, not just every civilization.
TheLegendary
Member
Got the retail copy of Civ (not that it matters since you have to go through steam anyway) and I get this message trying to play:
I'm only able to click DX9. As you can see the text below it is doubled and nothing happens when I hover over it. I right clicked on it to create a shortcut to the DX11 version but when I click on the shortcut it just brings me back to this startup box anyway
.
I have a brand new computer with an i7 960 and a 5870, 6 Gigs of RAM Windows 7 etc.
I'm only able to click DX9. As you can see the text below it is doubled and nothing happens when I hover over it. I right clicked on it to create a shortcut to the DX11 version but when I click on the shortcut it just brings me back to this startup box anyway
.I have a brand new computer with an i7 960 and a 5870, 6 Gigs of RAM Windows 7 etc.
XiaNaphryz
LATIN, MATRIPEDICABUS, DO YOU SPEAK IT
You try this?TheLegendary said:Got the retail copy of Civ (not that it matters since you have to go through steam anyway) and I get this message trying to play:
I'm only able to click DX9. As you can see the text below it is doubled and nothing happens when I hover over it. I right clicked on it to create a shortcut to the DX11 version but when I click on the shortcut it just brings me back to this startup box anyway
I have a brand new computer with an i7 960 and a 5870, 6 Gigs of RAM Windows 7 etc.
Screaming_Gremlin said:
TheLegendary
Member
You sir are a gentleman and a scholar. Will try now.
Edit: It works! I could kiss you! ...
Edit: It works! I could kiss you! ...
I won't though
Hmmm.... I don't know if I should go with the tutorial first or just jump in. My experience with Civ isn't that significant - Civ 4 was actually my first Civ game, sadly, though I enjoyed it very much. I remember starting off there with the tutorial, going through the whole thing, and it being enormously helpful to someone like me who was just starting off fresh. Problem is the tutorial was also very lengthy, as it should be for this sort of game, so I don't know if I want to bother brushing up again.
Decisions, decisions....
Decisions, decisions....
Jibber Hack
Member
I was doing really well as Babylon on my second serious game. Created a nice army and was able to go to war with Napoleon very early on. My last game was as the French and I learned a lot about puppet cities and building courthouses. I was determined to not get bogged down by unhappiness again.
Well, the war goes too well with Napoleon. I take a city and annex it, start building a courthouse. He sends a settler to the south and build a city which my army promptly captures and I raze it. While my army is regrouping he offers me two additional cities to get peace. I accept and think that I'll be okay if I annex the larger of the two. I'm wrong. Happiness goes down the shitter and growth and production grinds to a halt leaving me ripe for and invasion by Japan. Lesson learned.
Well, the war goes too well with Napoleon. I take a city and annex it, start building a courthouse. He sends a settler to the south and build a city which my army promptly captures and I raze it. While my army is regrouping he offers me two additional cities to get peace. I accept and think that I'll be okay if I annex the larger of the two. I'm wrong. Happiness goes down the shitter and growth and production grinds to a halt leaving me ripe for and invasion by Japan. Lesson learned.
PillowKnight
Member
Really? I thought the number of votes for diplomatic victory was a static number.Gaborn said:
The diplomatic victory in the game seems to be a "protect the city states" victory mode, which is necessarily militaristic. I do see your point though, it would be nice if other weaker civs would vote for you if you had previously come to their defense and had long lasting trade treaties. However, your "vote per city" idea seems to be another sort of militaristic victory condition.
PillowKnight said:
I like to reduce the number of city states by 1 or 2 from the standard, it makes the game harder and gives you an incentive to protect the city states you DO have and gives you a little bit more room to grow and expand. But that necessitates punishing you for that by not making a diplomatic victory impossible without... you guessed it, destroying a major civ or two.
I don't look at "vote per city" as militaristic either, I look at it as expansionistic. Seriously, we have a reward for focusing on a scientific society (space race), militaristic (domination victory) culture victory of course, stable society (time victory. There is no specific incentive for expanding your civilization, in fact the game, through unhappiness tries to do everything it can to DISCOURAGE expansionism. I always looked at diplomatic victory in civ 4 as being a good mix of appealing to your friendly civilizations and rewarding you for making a large civilization. The way it is now doesn't make sense.
XiaNaphryz
LATIN, MATRIPEDICABUS, DO YOU SPEAK IT
Don't worry, they'll be waiting:Horsebite said:
I love diplomatic victory. It really is a militaristic victory, but with a nice flavor instead of the usual Exterminate! Exterminate!
Protecting small nations instead of aiming at domination feels nice, especially if you are indulging in some roleplay.
I think it balances.
You have the Attack victory.
You have the Protect victory.
You have the Small Peaceful Empire victory.
You have the Big Peaceful Empire victory.
Is that right? I like it.
I'll disagree with you here. You can expand to an empire with 15 to 20 cities (maybe you want bigger, I find this big enough) and you do get rewarded with science, gold and basically not needing to worry about limited resources. But you really need to find good pacing while doing so, the game does discourage rapid early settling, but if you take your time making sure you are happy enough, you can make that big empire.
Stuff in this civ *does* take more time to do. To occupy a big chunk of the map included.
Protecting small nations instead of aiming at domination feels nice, especially if you are indulging in some roleplay.
I think it balances.
You have the Attack victory.
You have the Protect victory.
You have the Small Peaceful Empire victory.
You have the Big Peaceful Empire victory.
Is that right? I like it.
Gaborn said:
I'll disagree with you here. You can expand to an empire with 15 to 20 cities (maybe you want bigger, I find this big enough) and you do get rewarded with science, gold and basically not needing to worry about limited resources. But you really need to find good pacing while doing so, the game does discourage rapid early settling, but if you take your time making sure you are happy enough, you can make that big empire.
Stuff in this civ *does* take more time to do. To occupy a big chunk of the map included.
I just had a thought, would one be able to conquer all of the City-States keep them around as puppets and then before the UN vote to free them and get their votes never having to worry about paying them thousand upon thousands of gold keeping them allied along with tons of military engagements to protect them from other civs.
This would require a few things though first that even if you conquer a City-State giving them independence still gives you instant allied status just like if you free them from another Civ and secondly you can conquer enough City-States to secure the UN vote without becoming a world wide enemy of the remaining City-States because after conquering a certain number of them the rest of the independent City-States will band against you.
If this can work it would be a pretty good strategy for getting the UN, conquer as many city states as you can keep them around as puppets and when the UN vote pops up grant them independence and if need be only have to use a little gold to buy out whatever other votes you need if any.
This would require a few things though first that even if you conquer a City-State giving them independence still gives you instant allied status just like if you free them from another Civ and secondly you can conquer enough City-States to secure the UN vote without becoming a world wide enemy of the remaining City-States because after conquering a certain number of them the rest of the independent City-States will band against you.
If this can work it would be a pretty good strategy for getting the UN, conquer as many city states as you can keep them around as puppets and when the UN vote pops up grant them independence and if need be only have to use a little gold to buy out whatever other votes you need if any.
Sblargh said:
And I'm fine with that. I actually like that aspect. You can expand, but it just takes a lot more effort, a lot more attention to happiness and making sure you're building circuses and theaters and the like and have at least some attention on civics that reduce unhappiness and costs. It's a very good system actually that in some ways I feel like I'm still learning. I'm just saying that all that effort is mostly for naught - there isn't a clear end game reward for that expansionism even though it takes a lot of effort and a lot more costs to maintain it.
I'm new to Civ, but in my first play through today I had 14 cities that I had built + 2 puppet cities. I had put most of my cities to focus on Science and by the last 50 years of the game I was pulling in almost 900 science a turn thanks to having schools, universities, science labs, and (when the geography allowed it) observatories. My Happiness was sitting around +40 at the end of the game.Gaborn said:
I'd say there is a clear advantage to have a lot of cities, but that is probably purely if you're going for a scientific victory. I don't know how you could pull the same amount of science from 4-6 cities. I don't think it'd be possible. But what do I know! :lol
close to the edge
Member
Cool, thanks everyone. I started a new game now though (I didn't like the position I was in and everything was kind of messy) and now I'm England. Everything's a lot smoother this time. Pretty damn cool game.AstroLad said:
XiaNaphryz
LATIN, MATRIPEDICABUS, DO YOU SPEAK IT
That actually looks more awesome than if it had been just on land.DJ_Tet said:
I call it 'Sunk-henge' :lol
DrForester
Kills Photobucket
So what are the Cradle of Civilization things? Add-On scenarios?
On that note, Gamestop's codes can be printed out on their computers to anyone. If you're nice you can get their Mediterranean Cradle of Civilization free.
On that note, Gamestop's codes can be printed out on their computers to anyone. If you're nice you can get their Mediterranean Cradle of Civilization free.
Jibber Hack
Member
noise36 said:
YES. They really need to adjust happiness penalties. As it stands it feels like I need to micromanage every city's population when I'm in a conflict, which in this game is quite often. I guess I could go to each of my cities and put on avoid growth, but that seems a little extreme.
And once you are in the hole there is no way to dig yourself out unless you have the cash to immediately build a coliseum. I hope this gets adjusted to be a little bit more forgiving. Maybe keep the growth and unit combat penalty, but not the production penalty so it doesn't take 60 turns to solve the problem.
Similar threads
- Poll