-
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
natkingcoleslaw
Neo Member
DEO3 said:
Exactly. I liberated persia towards the end of one game only to have darius go "hey you have such a pathetic army, someone will kick your ass soon enough". That totally pissed me off, so I finished him off all over again. BUT THE STRANGE THING IS i still had his UN vote even though I finished him off.
On another occasion I declared war on Wu zetian, early game, hoping to get allied to a maritime city state. After a few turns though she offered peace to me along with nearly all the recouces she had in her civilization in return for open borders. But that game is still on. Maybe, it's a part of a Machiavellian plot and I'll be proved wrong.
Also in another hilarious occasion I tried to strike a trade deal with rameses, offering him a LUxury for gold only to have him go "No fool you shall take all my iron reserves as well". I mean what's up guys.
Also all this was in prince difficulty level.
Even I've been contemplating not building farms and just spamming TPs except for resources. Plus you can easily just buy Maritime CS influence; that shit is OP since it scales so well as you tech. If you have TPs on tiles being worked that give food, you also get gold. It's so stupid when you think about it.coopolon said:
I'm new to Civ, but also ICS (infinite city sprawl/spam) means you just spam a ton of cities and stop them at 4 pop or something to overwhelm your opponents or something while keeping them happiness neutral and everything and gobble up the whole map for your pleasure.
Farms are useful for your science city which should be situated in a grassland/jungle area with some production to help support it.
There's never absolutes even in Civ V. Trade posts are good due to how golden ages work, but even then spamming them mindlessly isn't always the best way to play. What if the whole map doesn't have enough maritime city states to support your growth plan? What if you're Gandhi and you have a ton of happiness to spare?
There's never absolutes even in Civ V. Trade posts are good due to how golden ages work, but even then spamming them mindlessly isn't always the best way to play. What if the whole map doesn't have enough maritime city states to support your growth plan? What if you're Gandhi and you have a ton of happiness to spare?
jepense said:
One example of this is when he complained about not being to figure out how to make peace with a city state. One, the peace option, when available, is on the main screen of a city state. Two, City States sometimes enter a state of permanent war, in which case there is no way to go to peace with them for the remainder of the game.
I agree with his complaints overall though. In particular, the fact that a LOT of buildings are pretty pointless, and that mass gold/science seems to be a great all-around strategy with no downside.
DEO3 said:
Yes, If you have at least two maritime allies, you most likely don't need any farms. In the very beginning of the game, however, farms are useful for quick growth. This is somewhat reasonable, since you'd expect farms to be important early on while commerce (trading posts) is more valuable in the modern times. The time when trading posts become better than farms seems to be quite early, though.
I don't really see why lots of gold and science should be bad in any way... And I think lots of buildings are useless because you should specialize your cities. In Civ IV, specialization was forced through national wonders. Here, you specialize by picking only some of the normal buildings in each city.Palmer_v1 said:
He is probably correct about no research overflow and producing scouts being better than building wealth, and if so, those should definitely be fixed. Any exploit that rewards stupid micromanaging is a flaw.
I don't buy his claim about ICS being broken just yet. It clearly is a viable option, but I think it was even said in the community podcasts that you can do lots of small cities instead of a few big ones, so I'm not surprised it can be done.
His argument for it being OP are: (1) the city tile can be really powerful with maritime food and policies such as communism, (2) You only need colosseums to make the cities happy-neutral (the other happy-buildings are more expensive) (3) city growth gets slow after sizes of around 10. However, he finds out that he can't have more than one maritime ally since the cities would grow too much, and he only manages to get a couple of policies due to the high policy costs. So, his city tiles are not very good in the end, and they produce 2 unhappiness, not making them any better happiness wise than normal citizens. Also, his small cities have no powerful modifiers like universities or factories, making them rather weak in the end for anything else than money. The main cities are not getting the city-state or policy benefits either, crippling them as well. Also, since city growth is still quite fast at size 4, He could probably do even better if he built some theatres as well and let the cities grow a bit more?
Money is very important, and since he was clearly going for conquest, he needed the cash to support the army. And he had the land for it so why not city sprawl? But I don't think he was doing unbelievably awesomely otherwise. At 1600 AD, he was getting 300 beakers and 150 gpt. In my previous game with a 7 city empire, I was getting more beakers at that point (of which some 200 came from a single city) and roughly the same gpt (with a smaller but more advanced army probably), and I managed to get 4 happiness triggered golden ages during the game as well. If he would've gone for a science victory, I think he would've had some difficulties in getting the spaceship built with all those tiny cities, instead of a couple of production mammoths. Since the small city strategy seems to be good for cash, he could have easily gone for a diplomatic victory as well.
Dear NeoGaf... which Civ do I want?
I haven't played a "proper" Civ in quite a long time, but have Civ Rev on XBox and DS. I actually prefer the DS version more, as the XBox one makes me nauseous with all the zipping and zooming on the map after long sessions.
Main complaints with Civ Rev is the AI, end-game micro-management (turns taking ages) and the crippled diplomacy and so on.
So, first off, would I like Civ? Worth getting as a casual Civ Rev player?
Second, trying to decide which one to get...
Civ III is a tasty $5
Civ IV is a respectable $20, or the complete editon for $40 (Pissed I missed the sale)
Civ V is $80
Leaning more to either III or V
I haven't played a "proper" Civ in quite a long time, but have Civ Rev on XBox and DS. I actually prefer the DS version more, as the XBox one makes me nauseous with all the zipping and zooming on the map after long sessions.
Main complaints with Civ Rev is the AI, end-game micro-management (turns taking ages) and the crippled diplomacy and so on.
So, first off, would I like Civ? Worth getting as a casual Civ Rev player?
Second, trying to decide which one to get...
Civ III is a tasty $5
Civ IV is a respectable $20, or the complete editon for $40 (Pissed I missed the sale)
Civ V is $80
Leaning more to either III or V
archnemesis
Member
Try to get an American to gift you Civilization V for $50. It's worth it.
Edit: If you have an old rig you might want to consider a previous iteration instead.
Edit: If you have an old rig you might want to consider a previous iteration instead.
RustyO said:Dear NeoGaf... which Civ do I want?
I haven't played a "proper" Civ in quite a long time, but have Civ Rev on XBox and DS. I actually prefer the DS version more, as the XBox one makes me nauseous with all the zipping and zooming on the map after long sessions.
Main complaints with Civ Rev is the AI, end-game micro-management (turns taking ages) and the crippled diplomacy and so on.
So, first off, would I like Civ? Worth getting as a casual Civ Rev player?
Second, trying to decide which one to get...
Civ III is a tasty $5
Civ IV is a respectable $20, or the complete editon for $40 (Pissed I missed the sale)
Civ V is $80
Leaning more to either III or V
If you don't get Civ V get IV, cause with the expansions it's considered the best of the 3 so far.
Gaming Truth
Member
DEO3 said:
It's such crap. I -again- try to start a game peacefully and get tag-teamed by my immediate neighbors to the west and south. If it wasn't for the mountains to the west and the city-states to my south, I'm not sure I would have survived. The French had a gigantic army and I didn't even have an archer at the time.
I kill off 'polean, and hold off Bismarck (offered peace several times and finally got it when Napolean's head was on the offer table). I find out later that Bismarck is a crazy warmonger and has pissed off three of his immediate neighbors.
I get a Pact of Secrecy from Ramses, shift my army from south to west, declare war on Bismarck (who was about to finish off my ally Singapore, who I swore to protect, and:
1. Ramses ends our Pact of Secrecy. Maybe that's how it's supposed to work? but ...
2. I'm the only one at war with Bismarck. and ...
3. Immediately, I get messages from the three neighbors. They go like this:
-. "You're too bloodthirsty for our tastes. We're going to have to end our Pact of Cooperation." Finally ...
4. On the diplomacy chart:
Elizabeth - Hostile
(Iroquos) - Hostile
Ramses - Hostile
Bismarck - War!
Napoleon - Dead ...
(Ottomans) - (ok) <-- but then again, I already know everyone universally hates him
That's it. I'm done with this game for a while. I've been the game three times (conquest, cultural, diplo), quit easily six more due to boredom. Every game involves heavy war. I ultimately have to kill everyone on my continent because peace is never possible.
Sending troops overseas is retarded. Yes, units going over on their own seems more realistic, but they move dirt slow. Happiness is broken. You seem to permanently lose happiness for conquering/razing cities. It doesn't seem to ever come back once they're gone.
I'm done with this game. DONE
Brewster's Wallet
Member
Right, got myself a HD 5770 to enjoy this in DX11 and start to make my way through my PC gaming backlog.
jepense said:
I was trying to get at the fact that early in any particular game, you really only have two choices. Don't expand and go for culture victory, or do whatever you want, cause the other victories all have a similar base. Just spam trading posts and get science buildings for a tech win, or money buildings for diplomacy victory, or military units for Domination victory. the point though, is that all 3 of those latter victories come from a similar place, and they benefit each other. Increasing tech will make your military stronger, increasing gold will let you rush military on demand in addition to city states helping you during wars.
The point I'm trying to make is that o get a Culture win, you have to be extremely focused right from the start, whereas the other wins can be flip flopped for a long time before needing to buckle down.
Edit: Another problem with Culture wins is that early on, you'll probably have the advantage on wonders, but by mid to late game, other people will be teched far enough ahead that they'll be able to finish wonders before you even have access to them.
Second Edit: A lot of these problems only really exist against the AI. For example, the AI never seems to go out of their way to pay off city states, whereas other players might be stealing your Ally status every few turns.
hooooly what just happened?
Here I am minding my own buisness at like turn 100 or something, nothing special has happened but all of the sudden ALL 3 ( out of 4 players ) Civs declare war on me! And the next turn, ALL the citystates declare war on me! What?!
Here I am minding my own buisness at like turn 100 or something, nothing special has happened but all of the sudden ALL 3 ( out of 4 players ) Civs declare war on me! And the next turn, ALL the citystates declare war on me! What?!
Gaming Truth said:
It seems so, its very war heavy. I also have to clear everyone out, or be overwhelmingly strong and let them live in a corner.
As to troops overseas, I do not like the individual unit at their own pace thing either. I don't think its far fetched to require some sort of transport get filled with troops.
And as to happiness when taking over, I usually only set up puppet cities in everything but my core cities or ones on crucial resources. My issue has not been happiness, but food shortages in the end game in some cities.
My biggest problem is workers and work boats moving continent to continent if they are on automatic. They spend more time traveling around than doing work. When I first move to a continent and settle or conquer some cities, I build/buy a boat or worker and they run off... Requires micromanagement over a giant empire.
Gaming Truth
Member
Shambles said:
Nah, the diplomatic fallout from responding. It's stupid. Two people bully me. I kill one of them, the other one makes peace (at gunpoint). Everyone hates this other guy, one even offers to "secretly" collude against him. I go after this second guy, everyone hates me.
F you Elizabeth. Your voice irritates me anyway. And you, random native american indian guy who wanted free pearls, you die next.
BigJonsson
Member
Any hints for diplo victories on Prince?
Prince is super easy. You should be able to liberate enough cities and or keep enough CS satisfied for an easy diplo win. I even had a shot at a diplo win playing Oda Nobunaga while going for cultural victory. All I needed was to spend 1,000 gold to 2 city states right before the vote and i'd have 10 votes. And I didn't even build the UN (so 1 vote instead of 2)
I think diplomatic/domination victories need to be made a bit harde.
Patronage track is helpful, but no need to play as Greece I've won diplo victories with other civs.
There's a bit of luck required as well. If you can get a few friendly/neutral CS and they ask for the right things early on, you can keep them allies for a very low cost.
I once liberated a CS then complete a road a few turns later. Had 260/60 allied points. That lasted me half the game without the need to pay in gold.
I think diplomatic/domination victories need to be made a bit harde.
Patronage track is helpful, but no need to play as Greece I've won diplo victories with other civs.
There's a bit of luck required as well. If you can get a few friendly/neutral CS and they ask for the right things early on, you can keep them allies for a very low cost.
I once liberated a CS then complete a road a few turns later. Had 260/60 allied points. That lasted me half the game without the need to pay in gold.
DurielBlack
Member
Gaming Truth said:
I don't mind the warmongering aspect of the game so much, at least I wouldn't if the AI was at all competent. Basically the only way to lose a war in this game is to be seriously behind in tech or unit count.
Theres a lot of little things that could easily be fixed in this game, from economic factors to shit like not being able to sell buildings. (seriously, wtf. I took 12 cities over a couple of hundred turns in a conquest game. I then spent another hundred turns not able to do anything because I couldn't sell 12 useless barracks and monuments I didn't need.)
But the biggest thing is the AI. It has no concept of whats going on in the game beyond the immediate present. It doesn't care if you've been cooperative for 200 turns, has no concept of what a fair trade is (aside from goofy stuff like offering better deals then you even asked for, it will also always refuse even trades for luxuries, even if your in every kind of pact with them). It doesn't handle troop movements very well outside of just spamming all of its units towards whomever its at war with.
Some of the other stuff is mostly just balancing issues/bugs that could be fixed in a patch. Unfortunately I doubt we will ever see an improvement in the AI. I still can't believe how old Civ is as a series, and yet the AI is still basically just like it was 10 years ago. You'd think there would have been some advancement in this area by now.
DurielBlack said:
Easier said than done. And Civ3 AI was pretty advanced for its time. The botton like though is a human player is always going to get advantages. (reloading/better unit placement/going for the bombard units etc)
There's a number of things they can do to improve the AI, like making it value ranged units more and not move them around so much (sometimes right infront of a melee unit).
I cringe everytime I watch a city state move its ranged unit outside of the city while it was being invaded.
BigJonsson
Member
In regards to the war-mongering
How many states in real life managed to avoid all wars throughout their history? Eventually someone wants something that someone else has or wants more living space for their people, in that sense war is unavoidable
How many states in real life managed to avoid all wars throughout their history? Eventually someone wants something that someone else has or wants more living space for their people, in that sense war is unavoidable
MrMephistoX
Gold Member
Too bad there isn't an award for political manipulation. I pretty much maneuvered Washington and Napoleon into an armed conflict once the wooden toothed douchebag decided I was too close to his borders and declared war on me with a vastly superior force. I was probably on the verge of invasion from both but our height defficient friend actually agreed to trade for one of my cities just as Washington was about to invade it. Long story short I got nukes and a near science victory )10 turns away grr!) while the two biggest dogs duked it out. I ended up nuking Washington when he sent in a massive invading force into my holdings in North Africa, he never recovered and Napoleon mopped the floor with him.
I lost but it was worth it
Isolated tribes...yes. States no.
I lost but it was worth it
BigJonsson said:
Isolated tribes...yes. States no.
BigJonsson
Member
MrMephistoX said:Too bad there isn't an award for political manipulation. I pretty much maneuvered Washington and Napoleon into an armed conflict once the wooden toothed douchebag decided I was too close to his borders and declared war on me with a vastly superior force. I was probably on the verge of invasion from both but our height defficient friend actually agreed to trade for one of my cities just as Washington was about to invade it. Long story short I got nukes and a near science victory )10 turns away grr!) while the two biggest dogs duked it out. I ended up nuking Washington when he sent in a massive invading force into my holdings in North Africa, he never recovered and Napoleon mopped the floor with him.
I lost but it was worth it
Napoleon seems easily bribed into war
MrMephistoX
Gold Member
Must be. I tried bribing Washington with a nearby city a few turns earlier after I noticed his tone in diplomatic negotiations shifted (which he happily accepted) but I guess he took it as a sign of weakness and blitzkrieged me!BigJonsson said:Napoleon seems easily bribed into war
It's my first CIV game so I'm too amused with odd outcomes like this to be dissapointed.
Shalashaska
Member
There's some news on a couple patches from Jon Shafer. The first one in the next few weeks will be cleaning up some UI stuff and making certain information easier to access. There's another one coming later on this year which will be making changes to diplomacy & AI.
http://www.quartertothree.com/game-talk/showpost.php?p=2413263&postcount=3639
http://www.quartertothree.com/game-talk/showpost.php?p=2413263&postcount=3639
D
Deleted member 30609
Unconfirmed Member
awesome to hear about the possible diplomacy changes. there's so much potential and personality there, it's a shame it's mostly being wasted at the moment!
as far as the interface is concerned, hopefully this means making luxury resources and trades agreements a little more transparent.
as far as the interface is concerned, hopefully this means making luxury resources and trades agreements a little more transparent.
FutureZombie
Banned
I hope the interface change will allow you to see what luxury resources everyone has.
Question: What does a pact of secrecy do? Can you ever truly be friendly with another civ?
Question: What does a pact of secrecy do? Can you ever truly be friendly with another civ?
D
Deleted member 30609
Unconfirmed Member
yeah, what do pacts of secrecy and cooperation actually do? they're not clear cut like a war agreement or a defensive pact.
It already does if you go to "relationships" tab or something in the expanded diplomacy window - it lists every leader and what you can offer/trade with (e.g. if you and they have the gold it'll list a RP, etc.) but it's really poorly handled. It only lists luxury resources you need in that case.FutureZombie said:
D
Deleted member 30609
Unconfirmed Member
Pacman is legit, he even tolerated my payment in two installments, ransom style.
Gaming Truth
Member
DurielBlack said:
The problem is, we're assuming that things they learned in each Civ carries over to the next. Random made-up fact, but I'm sure only 10% of the development team has actually been on more than one Civ team. People need to work and there's a lull between Civ games. I have the collectors edition of Civ 4. Their nice spiral-bound manual (remember when companies used to make an effort?) documents their evaluation of the Civ series and why they decided to rewrite everything.
Love Civ 1, Love Civ 2, Love Civ 4, Love Civ Rev. That is all.
Similar threads
- Poll