Support NeoGAF

[Shane86]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=QrsXw3Zukk0

Xcom units coming to Civ 5

 

[injurai]

Fuck Rome: A Rant

Since first beginning my journey of Civ V, I have without fail started near the same 3 civilizations. Rome, Greece, and my first piece of DLC being Polynesia. Not only am I robbed some some variety but the same thing always happens. Polynesia becomes my first ally and usually lasts by my side for a considerable time. Through them I can usually get a few strong allies whom which I can engage in trade and research agreements. But Greece is always a pain in my side. He toys with me usually and eventually back stabs me. However good old Alex can usually be dealt with and I can always seem to mend the wound for a considerable amount of time. Enemy of my enemy and all that. But who is this common Enemy you ask?

Fucking Caesar.

This fucking twat, has single handedly drove me mad for countless hours. He fuels his lust of conquest my expanding and lapping up every descent resource that the land has to offer. But if you get his slice of pie first, you can be damn sure he will come down on you like a torrent. Taking my city with east I had to retreat back to cut my loses. For 400 turns I have been at a bloody battle with him, and it happens every game. Once I with Alex and Hiawatha managed to knock him down a size and create a buffer zone. But the damage had been done and Hiawatha betrayed me. Another time It was me and Alex. But this time... I'm in between Alex and Caesar. Luckily keeping peace with Alex the whole game with another common enemy of Montezuma, I have since ended the two front war I had previously fought. But Rome has been at my southern boarders for ages. I dare not expand farther north to prevent a similar border war. But Rome is ruthless. I tried to get land that would leave both of us growing room, but he has draped his purple blood stain roads right up to my door. Polynesia was killed off long ago, and Alex is almost done destroying what Is left of the great Aztec nation.

and me...

A small peaceful Inca nation with 3 close by cities, and 1 robbed from me near 2 millenia ago, and Caesar just hasn't had enough. For peace he wants my second biggest city which is guarded in an impenetrable mountain range. My Capital nestled in a safe zone on the coast and near an inland lake has kept me safe despite its lake of defense. and my smallest town out near the planes of what is now the North roman empire is under constant siege.

Caesar is a monster, but it will be too late when he realizes the monster that he has created. So wait... and when It is my time. I will see it that the Rome finds it's peace in another life.

 

[balddemon]

rant of truth

yeah, if I ever end up near him or certain other civs (japan being one of them) I make it a point to have a large standing army and to take them out first when I start declaring war on everyone.

 

[Mengy]

Fuck Rome: A Rant...

I had one game a few months ago on a pangea map where it ended up being Rome and I as allies against the entire rest of the world. We waged war on everyone, he went east and I went west , and we divided up the entire world together. In the end the only two left were Rome and I, friends and allies, as I coasted into a space race victory.

That was a fun game. But yeah, often times Rome can be a pain in the ass.

 

[Escape Goat]

Whats the best strategy for winning with domination as America? I seem to either grow too large and piss off EVERYONE around me or I develop so slowly I appear weak to my neighbors and they attack. Is America an empire building player like Rome? How do I offset the unhappiness factor?

 

[Veezy]

Whats the best strategy for winning with domination as America? I seem to either grow too large and piss off EVERYONE around me or I develop so slowly I appear weak to my neighbors and they attack. Is America an empire building player like Rome? How do I offset the unhappiness factor?

This works well, for me.

 

[Boss Doggie]

America is sorta terrible last I played Civ V GnK. Did they improve it?

Also I'm blacking myself out from Civ V until the expansion comes out.

 

[Fragamemnon]

America is sorta terrible last I played Civ V GnK. Did they improve it?

Also I'm blacking myself out from Civ V until the expansion comes out.

Minutemen and especially B-17s are underrated. You don't get the kind of obvious, super-powerful timing push that you get with something like Camel Archers, but minutemen+cannons is actually an amazing army composition when you work to get it sooner rather than later. There's very little reason that you would ever lose very man minuteman in a fight because they easily retreat to safety due to their movement advantages in terrain plus excellent overall unit defense. It's a solid unit comp and works better in practice than on paper-give it a try.

B-17s get to Logistics and Air Repair faster, and Bombers have always been the great endgame equalizer on Immortal/Deity. With some promotion buildings in a couple of cities and lot of focus on selling luxuries provided from puppeted cities for rush buys, they get out of hand real fast.

I've done both Immortal and Deity American wins via Domination and found them to be excellent at the four city tradition opening -> power teching -> solid timing pushes with their excellent Unique Units.

Not Tier 1 but definitely not nearly as bad as people rate them.

 

[Morfeo]

Used to LOVE Civ 2 and 4, but didnt really enjoy the direction they seemed to take Civ5 in. However I've never played it, so I'm just wondering, what is the fan consensus on the game now? Better than 4? And is the mod community as good as it was for Civ4?

 

[Mengy]

Used to LOVE Civ 2 and 4, but didnt really enjoy the direction they seemed to take Civ5 in. However I've never played it, so I'm just wondering, what is the fan consensus on the game now? Better than 4? And is the mod community as good as it was for Civ4?

I own all of the Civ games and I've played them all many more hours than I will ever admit. In my humble opinion, Civ V is the second best game in the series, only Civ 4 final (with all expansions) is better. Civ V vanilla was good but not great. The new direction was very promising but it just didn't have the pull or appeal that Civ 4 had, and I quickly (after 80 hours or so) got a bit tired of it. The interface and new combat were good changes IMHO, except for the fact that diplomacy sorely needs more information in it's screens. However, the Gods & Kings expansion fixed a lot of that, and I have to say that now Civ V has shaped up real nicely. It's still not up to Civ 4 standards, but it's close enough to be in the same ballgame. And the next expansion for Civ V sounds like it is exactly targeting just what is still keeping 5 behind 4, so I have great hopes that soon Civ V will take the crown from 4. Because as the game sits today it's real close.

Note that even though I say that Civ 4 is still a bit better than Civ V, I don't play 4 at all anymore. The interface and combat changes in V are so much better that I just can't go back to 4 anymore. I've tried, too.

If you loved Civ 4 then you would most likely enjoy Civ 5 + G&K right now, it's got the familiar "just one more turn" feeling down to a T, and it's now good enough to compete with 4. All IMHO of course.

 

[Morfeo]

I own all of the Civ games and I've played them all many more hours than I will ever admit. In my humble opinion, Civ V is the second best game in the series, only Civ 4 final (with all expansions) is better. Civ V vanilla was good but not great. The new direction was very promising but it just didn't have the pull or appeal that Civ 4 had, and I quickly (after 80 hours or so) got a bit tired of it. The interface and new combat were good changes IMHO, except for the fact that diplomacy sorely needs more information in it's screens. However, the Gods & Kings expansion fixed a lot of that, and I have to say that now Civ V has shaped up real nicely. It's still not up to Civ 4 standards, but it's close enough to be in the same ballgame. And the next expansion for Civ V sounds like it is exactly targeting just what is still keeping 5 behind 4, so I have great hopes that soon Civ V will take the crown from 4. Because as the game sits today it's real close.

Note that even though I say that Civ 4 is still a bit better than Civ V, I don't play 4 at all anymore. The interface and combat changes in V are so much better that I just can't go back to 4 anymore. I've tried, too.

If you loved Civ 4 then you would most likely enjoy Civ 5 + G&K right now, it's got the familiar "just one more turn" feeling down to a T, and it's now good enough to compete with 4. All IMHO of course.

Nice and thanks! I didnt really like the augmented focus on tactics, as that has always been the least interesting part of Civ for me, but then again, I didnt really like stack of dooms either Guess I just need to give it a try! It doesnt feel dumbed down in the city-management/civilization-building parts?

 

[balddemon]

I wish there was a way to fix multiplayer so it isn't simultaneous turns for the human players.

 

[Mengy]

Nice and thanks! I didnt really like the augmented focus on tactics, as that has always been the least interesting part of Civ for me, but then again, I didnt really like stack of dooms either Guess I just need to give it a try! It doesnt feel dumbed down in the city-management/civilization-building parts?

Actually, having to use tactics in combat now is why I find it more interesting and engaging. I enjoy going to war in Civ V more than ever before in the franchise. A good chokepoint can be a so influential in a Civ V war. As for the city management it's basically the same as always, just with a much better UI to do so. So I wouldn't say it's dumbed down, just streamlined.

One of the largest changes for me was getting used to how roads work in Civ V. You don't just spam them over every tile in your empire anymore, it costs way too much money. Now you only use roads to connect your cities and allow you armies to quickly get around. At first I didn't care for the change, but now I like it a lot. I played a game of Civ 4 about half a year ago and found the road spam pretty silly. Like I said, it's hard going back to Civ 4 after playing Civ V, just too many changes for the better to go back.

 

[Fragamemnon]

Shaking off the rust a bit and clocked a science win in the 240s on Deity last night w/ Siam.

Was a super weird game-a Pangaea start where some mountain ranges and inland bays really effed my part of the map-I had plenty of room to expand but not very many good sites to actually expand into-a real lack of rivers and usable/defensible coastal sites were a huge drag. Furthermore, offensive operations before the Industrial Era would be nearly impossible to conduct.

So I just had to hunker down with a science victory plan and hope the permanently friendly city states would be enough to get there. One of the AIs went runaway around turn 175 but I beat him handily to space by about 15 or so turns after being down at one point in techs by like 18% to him.

Really looking forward to Brave New World.

 

[Boss Doggie]

I don't really fare well with city-states-focused gameplay. Any tips on playing Alexander/Ram/Teresa?

 

[balddemon]

I don't really fare well with city-states-focused gameplay. Any tips on playing Alexander/Ram/Teresa?

kill everybody

--

for you guys who like this game, you should try endless space. same thing, little bit more complex ( or so it seems to my feeble strategizing mind), with a scifi twist. I just blew 3 hours playing it today.

 

[Mengy]

for you guys who like this game, you should try endless space. same thing, little bit more complex ( or so it seems to my feeble strategizing mind), with a scifi twist. I just blew 3 hours playing it today.

Endless Space is a good game (the UI is incredibly well done) but for my space 4X itch I still go to Galactic Civ II with all expansions. I enjoyed ES for awhile but it just didn't hold my attention for very long, I think the combat model really kind of ruined it for me. Not that GC2 has a much better combat style, but seeing the ships that I designed kicking butt does have it's attraction, and the rest of GC2 is so incredible that it more than makes up for the combat.

But when I want a nice, relaxing, casual 4X game to sink lots of hours into, I always end up starting a game of Civ V. It's become my 4X of choice for the most part.

 

[Fragamemnon]

I don't really fare well with city-states-focused gameplay. Any tips on playing Alexander/Ram/Teresa?

Ram - Get two points into patronage for the increased resting influence. This plus pledge to protect on all city-states will put your rested influence level at 30, meaning you are friends with everyone. You will get a lot of food/culture/faith by doing this.

Terersa - You have to run a strong gold economy to make her work. She doesn't really need patronage policies like Ram and Alex do, but she does need hordes of cash. Tall empires are pretty poor at making money hand over fist-you want wide empires with rivers and calendar/mining luxuries to really get ahead. You will be a huge warmonger as you eat city state armies-don't sit on a huge army you buy, but use it against your neighbors. Make friends with the Civs who hate said neighbors.

Alex - His early units w/ composite bows can KO a civ easily at Emperor (6) and below by turn 60/70. Do that if you play there, if you have the space of two civs you shouldn't ever lose a game if you get it that early. If you are on 7 or 8 it gets a lot harder because those units are crapola for those difficulties. Do the two points patronage+protect trick to get some city state bonuses and build (again) a wide empire to support the economy of your city states. He's much weaker at 7 and 8 than either Ram or Teresa.

you should try endless space

Game was too easily figured out for me. I played it for like a week, it's just not challenging enough. Civ scales extremely well with player skill.

 

[Trigger]

I tried Endless Space, but didn't care for it. As I said in its thread, the game lacked a certain personality. Diplomacy and combat felt flat compared to Civ 5. The only two things I liked were the ideas of custom playable factions and the random events.

 

[CarbonatedFalcon]

We really do need a good, quality modern 4x. Gal Civ 2 shows its age (besides its numerous flaws). Either an Alpha Centauri 2 or Gal Civ 3 for existing franchises. Otherwise something brand new. An EVE spinoff could be really cool, but it doesn't seem like something CCP would make anytime soon.

 

[Meteorain]

Here's to hoping that the new expansion brings back the random weather hazards/benefits!

 

[Mengy]

We really do need a good, quality modern 4x. Gal Civ 2 shows its age (besides its numerous flaws). Either an Alpha Centauri 2 or Gal Civ 3 for existing franchises. Otherwise something brand new. An EVE spinoff could be really cool, but it doesn't seem like something CCP would make anytime soon.

Civ V is a good modern 4X game IMHO. Unfortunately it has very little competition.

Personally, I would pay any price for a true Master of Magic 2. Stardock's Elemental has finally turned out okay, after so many issues at the start, but it's lacking a lot of what made MoM so much fun. A modern graphically updated Master of Magic clone would be my game of the decade. I'd seriously pay a couple hundred dollars for it. I mean I still play the original in a Dosbox for God's sake, and I bought it back in 1993, lol. Warlock was a fun game for a bit and it was well done, but I grew bored of it fast. There just wasn't enough depth to it to hold my interest for long.

As for Gal Civ 3, I'm certain we'll be seeing it down the road. There is just too much demand for Stardock to ignore it, and the dearth of good 4X space games means they would be fools not to do it.

As funny as it sounds, I kind of wish someone would develop a modern remake of Master of Orion 1. The first MoO had some nice, simple concepts to it that made it fun and quick to play. Planet building was done with three sliders and was fairly automated, it gave you control without having to micro manage every system. So many modern 4X games go for the complexity path of design, which is good sometimes, but one of the things that makes Civ V so nice to play is that it's easy to get into and play. The streamlined UI and "simplified" game mechanics made for a nice balance of gameplay and design. MoO 1 was similar.

 

[CarbonatedFalcon]

Civ V is a good modern 4X game IMHO. Unfortunately it has very little competition.

Personally, I would pay any price for a true Master of Magic 2. Stardock's Elemental has finally turned out okay, after so many issues at the start, but it's lacking a lot of what made MoM so much fun. A modern graphically updated Master of Magic clone would be my game of the decade. I'd seriously pay a couple hundred dollars for it. I mean I still play the original in a Dosbox for God's sake, and I bought it back in 1993, lol. Warlock was a fun game for a bit and it was well done, but I grew bored of it fast. There just wasn't enough depth to it to hold my interest for long.

As for Gal Civ 3, I'm certain we'll be seeing it down the road. There is just too much demand for Stardock to ignore it, and the dearth of good 4X space games means they would be fools not to do it.

As funny as it sounds, I kind of wish someone would develop a modern remake of Master of Orion 1. The first MoO had some nice, simple concepts to it that made it fun and quick to play. Planet building was done with three sliders and was fairly automated, it gave you control without having to micro manage every system. So many modern 4X games go for the complexity path of design, which is good sometimes, but one of the things that makes Civ V so nice to play is that it's easy to get into and play. The streamlined UI and "simplified" game mechanics made for a nice balance of gameplay and design. MoO 1 was similar.

Meant to say "sci-fi 4x". Somehow slipped my mind when typing. I do enjoy Civ V, but I think a sci-fi game would really scratch my itch more. Doesn't necessarily have to be set in space ala Gal Civ. Terrestrial-based would be fine. Hell, maybe you could even do a cyberpunk 4x with digital world sort of stuff.

 

[Boss Doggie]

Ram - Get two points into patronage for the increased resting influence. This plus pledge to protect on all city-states will put your rested influence level at 30, meaning you are friends with everyone. You will get a lot of food/culture/faith by doing this.

Terersa - You have to run a strong gold economy to make her work. She doesn't really need patronage policies like Ram and Alex do, but she does need hordes of cash. Tall empires are pretty poor at making money hand over fist-you want wide empires with rivers and calendar/mining luxuries to really get ahead. You will be a huge warmonger as you eat city state armies-don't sit on a huge army you buy, but use it against your neighbors. Make friends with the Civs who hate said neighbors.

Alex - His early units w/ composite bows can KO a civ easily at Emperor (6) and below by turn 60/70. Do that if you play there, if you have the space of two civs you shouldn't ever lose a game if you get it that early. If you are on 7 or 8 it gets a lot harder because those units are crapola for those difficulties. Do the two points patronage+protect trick to get some city state bonuses and build (again) a wide empire to support the economy of your city states. He's much weaker at 7 and 8 than either Ram or Teresa.

I guess Ram is the one who benefits the most due to boosted free supplies. I'll try using him.

 

[Woorloog]

Meant to say "sci-fi 4x". Somehow slipped my mind when typing. I do enjoy Civ V, but I think a sci-fi game would really scratch my itch more. Doesn't necessarily have to be set in space ala Gal Civ. Terrestrial-based would be fine. Hell, maybe you could even do a cyberpunk 4x with digital world sort of stuff.

Can we ge Alpha Centauri 2 please...

 

[Fragamemnon]

As funny as it sounds, I kind of wish someone would develop a modern remake of Master of Orion 1.

I actually thought Endless Space was a decent riff on MOO1 (which I like more than MOO2)-it definitely had systems with individual planets, but the overall micromangement overhead required is actually quite low.

I still play Master of Orion I from time to time. It stands the test of time. I cackle with glee at "colony destroyed" the same way at 35 as I did when I was 15.

I guess Ram is the one who benefits the most due to boosted free supplies. I'll try using him.

If you are on Emperor or below, you might want to go right for Chivalry after Education and just start running over people with his UU. It's very potent and city states don't care if you beat up on civs they are not allied with.

 

[Mengy]

I actually thought Endless Space was a decent riff on MOO1 (which I like more than MOO2)-it definitely had systems with individual planets, but the overall micromangement overhead required is actually quite low.

I still play Master of Orion I from time to time. It stands the test of time. I cackle with glee at "colony destroyed" the same way at 35 as I did when I was 15.

I also prefer MOO1 over MOO2. I've never really been able to peg down why either. It just seems more "fun" to me. I can hear the sounds now of that "colony destroyed" screen now, as the nukes fall from orbit....

Endless Space was a nicely done game, but MOO has a charm to it that ES simply lacked for me. I have no desire to start a new ES game while talking about, but after your comment about MOO above I have the incredible desire to start a new game of MOO tonight.

 

[Fragamemnon]

The pangaea map script is really borked-it is making way too many snakey landmasses. Just had a deity game where I ate two entire civs by turn 150 and still faced not one, but two runaway AIs due to land masses and the AI ability to ICS.

Still won in the 250s via space, but had this land mass been normal it would not have been a problem. If I wanted to have a game that could be completely out of my hands, well, that's what Continents is for.

 

[Escape Goat]

How do you guys win a domination victory when another player has half or more of the map colonized? I think its umwinnable because you get bogged down in a war of attrition. Maybe I just need to stockpile 2000 nukes.

 

[XiaNaphryz]

How do you guys win a domination victory when another player has half or more of the map colonized? I think its umwinnable because you get bogged down in a war of attrition. Maybe I just need to stockpile 2000 nukes.

You only need the capital city, so you can just raze your way through. Or go straight for the capital ignoring everything else. You may want a smaller distraction force somewhere else beforehand if you go that route.

 

[CoconutTank]

So, I finally got around to playing Civ 5, but I did this at first because I found out about the Empire of the Smoky Skies scenario and that it had an actual honest to goodness air unit that could move over land and sea without appearing absolutely incompetent (see Gunships and having to embark over widdle puddles). I missed seeing real air units since Civ 2, dunno what they were like in Civ 3 and the atrocity started with Civ 4.

Spoiler

Yes I realize all the above is rather petty on my part, but extremely mobile units tend to be what I like using most in 4X, RTS, TBS or physical war games. Going from Civ 2 to Civ 4 didn't feel right.

Anyway I was entertained by Empire of the Smoky Skies for awhile. My favorite faction was Eruch, and I enjoyed smashing things up with Airships (and Flying Fortresses) and Land Leviathans all over the place. What was also really cool was that Artillery weren't stupidly overpowered since they could be easily answered by Airships+, but Airships+ themselves were pretty pricey and easy to dispatch with AA, so it's not like I completely snored my way to victory. I don't remember if there were settings to increase the time or difficulty but I found after a few matches that I would just win without having to do much. Denied the satisfaction of having a historical business card which is titled "Clouds the world in fire and chaos with monstrous air army", can you imagine? The fact that I've already won means I only get to print that as a footnote or something in small font on the back.

So! I decided that I'll try to play some regular Civ 5 and set aside my petty requirement for air units. I can still try to go for a game of domination or conquest, which seems to be what I'm looking for in 4X games these days (one day I'll use the Rho Indi Syndicate and see what's up). I'm still a shrimp so I guess I'll start with Warlord first (but that's starting to get boring too).

The civs I've tried so far are Songhai, England and Danish on Archipelago maps all way from Ancient times and so on. Mainly what I'm looking for is a civ that's good at warmongering and/or mobilizing, and the fact that those 3 are also naval centric is more pertinent to the latter than the former (Aztecs for instance are actively dependent on warmongering but aren't specialized for mobilizing so they're not as interesting). The social policies I've tried going is maxing out Honor first, going down the right side and then the left, then transitioning to Commerce and Autocracy when they're available. I always make it very important that I get the Great Lighthouse no matter what, then I try getting Big Ben and/or any other wonders that make it easier to buy units and/or have a big army. I haven't finished a game so far, but to me the journey seems to matter more than the goal, and the journey involves interacting with other civs in bloody and exciting ways (and sometimes bloody exciting ways) instead of sitting back and looking at numbers tick up and workers scurry about like my pacifist brother does. Remember, Liberty and Freedom will make you lazy!

tl;dr I'm enjoying Civilization 5: Gods & Kings quite a bit (don't remember much from vanilla). Any recommendations on what I should do if I prefer domination/warmongering? What civs are good for that? What social policies and what order of picking social policies are good for fighting? And I didn't really dissect religious benefits much because they all seemed stupid for war, but which ones are good for that? Usually I pick God of Craftsmen and the other production related benefits but they don't seem very useful (perhaps I should try the gold related benefits).

Edit: removed some fluff that upon further consideration was meant to be fun but probably wasn't funny.

 

[Fragamemnon]

How do you guys win a domination victory when another player has half or more of the map colonized? I think its umwinnable because you get bogged down in a war of attrition. Maybe I just need to stockpile 2000 nukes.

bombers if you are ahead in tech, nukes if you are at parity. If the capital is coastal, just bombard it and capture with ships as the last capital remaining for the instant win. Paratroopers with mass bombers are extremely good for fast capping a continent and come well before nukes.

Any recommendations on what I should do if I prefer domination/warmongering? What civs are good for that? What social policies and what order of picking social policies are good for fighting? And I didn't really dissect religious benefits much because they all seemed stupid for war, but which ones are good for that? Usually I pick God of Craftsmen and the other production related benefits but they don't seem very useful (perhaps I should try the gold related benefits).

Best straightforward warmongering civs:

- China, Arabia, Mongolia, Aztecs

Terrific warmongers that aren't quite as straightforward but great:

- America, Sweden, Ottomans on a naval map like Archipelago

Social policies:

- I would get tradition's opener-it's too good, then go through the honor tree straight for the faster XP gain at Military tradition, then back to Discipline. You can then finish off the Honor tree if you need the happiness, pick up Legalism for free amphitheaters, and dump points into rationalism once that opens up to at least get the university bonus and trading post science.

so something like:

Tradition opener->honor opener->Warrior code->Military tradition->Discipline.

Then go Military caste if you need the happiness, or go back to Legalism to get free 2nd-tier culture buildings (not monuments, those are already built). Once you can start putting points into rationalism do so, at least get the opener and Free thought.

If you have a lot of cities after Free Thought, go into Order next and get the cheaper factories and science boost. Otherwise go autocracy opener and then either finish up honor if you have experienced units that need upgrading but low income or more autocracy if you have good income and plan to purchase a lot of units.

The extra experience early is most important because it gives you the max amount of time to farm XP on your composite bowmen. Tech pairty crossbows with range and logistics upgrades are absurdly powerful and allow those ranged units to remain very powerful as you upgrade them to gatling and machine guns.

And I didn't really dissect religious benefits much because they all seemed stupid for war, but which ones are good for that?

God of craftsmen is actually very good when warmongering if you have a civ that has a natural means to produce faith, else a faith-based pantheon choice is ideal. Ceremonial Burial to help deal with the inevitable happiness issues is almost always the best founder belief. I like Guruship when warmongering a lot-puppeted cities almost always work Great Merchant slots and Pagodas (provided I have enough faith to supply it) for the extra culture and happiness.

I basically puppet almost everything unless it is a perfect city along my natural city core and I get it early. The extra hammers from the religious traits really do make a difference in those puppets since they work gold focus. You shouldn't really need the extra income-you are fighting and conquering from the minute you have composite bowmen for the rest of the game. Puppets and captured workers making plenty of trading posts should keep your income high throughout the game.

 

[Boss Doggie]

I really hope they bring back regenerate map option in the menu.

Also I have a tendency to prefer coastal starts.

 

[Fragamemnon]

I really hope they bring back regenerate map option in the menu.

Also I have a tendency to prefer coastal starts.

Restart game is in the current version and basically is a map reroller that's a bit slower than Civ IV.

Coastal starts are atrocious. Workboats are awful, awful, awful. It will take a lot of extra juice in terms of trade route gold to make them worth the pain in Brave New World.

 

[Psychoward]

You only need the capital city, so you can just raze your way through. Or go straight for the capital ignoring everything else. You may want a smaller distraction force somewhere else beforehand if you go that route.

I pretty much always go complete domination or whatever so you have to destroy/take every city. I love having coastal cities but they can also be blindsided easy, especially with Gods and Kings. Can't wait for BNW so I can take advantage of all of the sea trading.

 

[CoconutTank]

Thanks for the reply Fragamemnon! I'll try to reply to your post in as much detail as possible, but here's an update on where I am now with the amount of Civ 5 I've played.

1. I really like Archipelago maps, but I really hate going Honor when I'm playing a game using that map layout. Honor is pretty dependent on land unit usage and having to embark and disembark constantly really gets in the way of that. I haven't played many games that aren't Archipelago, but when I try again next time I'm going to do something more land locked instead and see if Honor works better under those conditions.

2. As of now the playthrough that gave me the most "fun" is going England on an Archipelago map, then opened with Tradition and Aristocracy, branching into Liberty with Republic and finishing it, then maxing out Commerce when I can get it. I made a beeline for Great Library and Great Lighthouse, then prioritized culture boosting wonders asap and Big Ben for mass producing units. Egypt conveniently decided to start a war with me, so with the Galleass and Ships of the Line that I had amassed, I took back the city they stole from me, then took the rest of the cities on that island, then took the cities on the island to the east of that, then started smashing their homeland coast with 3 ranged ships and took their capital France decided to invade me while I was having my one-sided war with Egypt, but they only had about 2 Ironclads and a bunch of embarked land units, which was very easy to sweep up.

Spoiler

There is a lack of Honor in this playthrough, which makes me ashamed of myself

3. Being a warmonger seems to be really difficult. Even with kill bonuses from Songhai, Aztecs or the Honor starter and finisher, they don't seem to occur consistently enough to be useful. Meanwhile, the consistent unhappiness penalty from being at war eventually makes it too hard to continue fighting at all, and I have to stop or else risk my entire empire collapsing. The Honor happiness bonuses for garrisons and city upgrades help, but not enough imo.

Best straightforward warmongering civs:

- China, Arabia, Mongolia, Aztecs

So does uh, gratuitous use of Citadels with China get anywhere? I've never actually used the Citadel improvement with Great Generals since trading a mobile combat buff for an immobile defensive position seems like a poor choice, but maybe that strategy will work better with China. I'll try these factions again, though I don't think I like Mongolia's UT all that much.

Terrific warmongers that aren't quite as straightforward but great:

- America, Sweden, Ottomans on a naval map like Archipelago

I'll try these factions too. I'm aware of what America's UT and units are like, I don't remember what Sweden or Ottomans do though

Social policies:

- I would get tradition's opener-it's too good, then go through the honor tree straight for the faster XP gain at Military tradition, then back to Discipline. You can then finish off the Honor tree if you need the happiness, pick up Legalism for free amphitheaters, and dump points into rationalism once that opens up to at least get the university bonus and trading post science.

Yeah, after a couple of games I learned that getting tradition for the +3 culture is a must. If I don't get it then I start lagging behind on social policies pretty quickly (at least early game, when +3 is actually a big deal).

so something like:

Tradition opener->honor opener->Warrior code->Military tradition->Discipline.

Then go Military caste if you need the happiness, or go back to Legalism to get free 2nd-tier culture buildings (not monuments, those are already built). Once you can start putting points into rationalism do so, at least get the opener and Free thought.

If you have a lot of cities after Free Thought, go into Order next and get the cheaper factories and science boost. Otherwise go autocracy opener and then either finish up honor if you have experienced units that need upgrading but low income or more autocracy if you have good income and plan to purchase a lot of units.

The extra experience early is most important because it gives you the max amount of time to farm XP on your composite bowmen. Tech pairty crossbows with range and logistics upgrades are absurdly powerful and allow those ranged units to remain very powerful as you upgrade them to gatling and machine guns.

I'll try your suggested social policy path. I definitely agree that Military Tradition is the best reason to go down the Honor tree though. I also definitely agree that composite bowmen are awesome. I am curious, is the Temple of Artemis worth getting early on? +10% city growth is fine, but since wonders are often taking up production I find that I am buying units more often than I am spending hammers on them.

God of craftsmen is actually very good when warmongering if you have a civ that has a natural means to produce faith, else a faith-based pantheon choice is ideal. Ceremonial Burial to help deal with the inevitable happiness issues is almost always the best founder belief. I like Guruship when warmongering a lot-puppeted cities almost always work Great Merchant slots and Pagodas (provided I have enough faith to supply it) for the extra culture and happiness.

Nowadays what I like is getting God of the Sea (which is probably also impacted by my choice of map layout). I can get it to trigger more than once per city, sometimes up to 4 times with 4 fishing boats around, which means +4 hammers, which is pretty awesome. God of Craftsmen is less map dependent but only triggers once per city.

I did get a deserty starting spot and used Desert Folklore one time :O That was glorious.

Anyway, Ceremonial Burial? It gives 1 smile per city following my religion, seems as though I will need to spam lots of missionaries/prophets and get them all over the map as much as I can. Which I guess is why you mentioned a faith-based pantheon being ideal?

I basically puppet almost everything unless it is a perfect city along my natural city core and I get it early. The extra hammers from the religious traits really do make a difference in those puppets since they work gold focus. You shouldn't really need the extra income-you are fighting and conquering from the minute you have composite bowmen for the rest of the game. Puppets and captured workers making plenty of trading posts should keep your income high throughout the game.

Okay, I am starting to suspect that I am doing this warmongering business all wrong. But whatever it is I'm doing, I'd rather do that than sit back and just observe the civilization as if it were a bonsai. These suggestions will be quite helpful, thanks!

 

[Boss Doggie]

Restart game is in the current version and basically is a map reroller that's a bit slower than Civ IV.

Coastal starts are atrocious. Workboats are awful, awful, awful. It will take a lot of extra juice in terms of trade route gold to make them worth the pain in Brave New World.

Oh, restart rerolls? I always thought it doesn't.

And as long as one tile connects to a major body of water I wouldn't mind. I need to out-Wonder certain enemies.

 

[Fragamemnon]

1. I really like Archipelago maps, but I really hate going Honor when I'm playing a game using that map layout. Honor is pretty dependent on land unit usage and having to embark and disembark constantly really gets in the way of that. I haven't played many games that aren't Archipelago, but when I try again next time I'm going to do something more land locked instead and see if Honor works better under those conditions.

Honor is strictly a policy tree for near constant land warfare from about turn 50-60 onwards. By "near constant", I really mean just that, you go to war and only make peace to move your troops after dealing a crippling blow (usually taking their capital and second city) to an AI. If you do not plan on doing this Honor is not where you want to be. If you are not planning on going to war before turn 100 or so, then you would be better off with Tradition if you don't have much land to grow into (three cities, maybe four), and Liberty if you do have a lot of land to grow into (four or more).

You can use either of these starts to still win via warmongering. The typical path is to usually get Education and get your universities up, then barrel through military techs, beating your opponents to extremely powerful units like riflemen, cannons/artillery, and the very late game bombers.

On water maps you should really put an emphasis on the Commerce tree for warmongering. On island maps I would do tradition start, head straight for Education, get Oxford built to automatically tech Navigation at the right time, and then mass upgrade a fleet of triremes and galeasses to Caravels and Frigates. Then I would rampage everyone with that plus some Privateers to steal ships. Commerce obviously fits right in with that strategy, and I have successfully executed this for Domination wins on Deity with a variety of Civs, though Carthage, The Ottomans, and England are the best at it.

3. Being a warmonger seems to be really difficult. Even with kill bonuses from Songhai, Aztecs or the Honor starter and finisher, they don't seem to occur consistently enough to be useful. Meanwhile, the consistent unhappiness penalty from being at war eventually makes it too hard to continue fighting at all, and I have to stop or else risk my entire empire collapsing. The Honor happiness bonuses for garrisons and city upgrades help, but not enough imo.

You still need to build some culture buildings in your cities, and you can get a lot of culture by befriending cultural city states. Put some effort into these things and I think you'll find your progression through the social policy trees brisk-15 to 18 turns per policy is a good goal.

So does uh, gratuitous use of Citadels with China get anywhere? I've never actually used the Citadel improvement with Great Generals since trading a mobile combat buff for an immobile defensive position seems like a poor choice, but maybe that strategy will work better with China. I'll try these factions again, though I don't think I like Mongolia's UT all that much.

You generally need two or so great generals to execute a war, but after that they are useful for annexing resources from city-states or creating a nice choke and stalemate on the ground while you tech up to bombers or artillery.

I'll try your suggested social policy path. I definitely agree that Military Tradition is the best reason to go down the Honor tree though. I also definitely agree that composite bowmen are awesome. I am curious, is the Temple of Artemis worth getting early on? +10% city growth is fine, but since wonders are often taking up production I find that I am buying units more often than I am spending hammers on them.

Temple of Artemis is good in the following conditions, in order:

- your capital is food rich. Multiple granary resources, river, and/or multiple fish tiles.
- your second city has some decent food.
- you have an excellent civ-specific food-producing abilities, improvements, or abilities.

The ranged unit bonuses are not a big deal. The growth is. For the hammers to be worthwhile, you really need a good prospect of steady 20-25 food surplus at size 9 or so in the capital and around 15 or so in your second city. Do the math on your fingers and count the yields of tiles you will work after Civil Service comes into play.

Nowadays what I like is getting God of the Sea (which is probably also impacted by my choice of map layout). I can get it to trigger more than once per city, sometimes up to 4 times with 4 fishing boats around, which means +4 hammers, which is pretty awesome. God of Craftsmen is less map dependent but only triggers once per city.

This pantheon belief is tremendous when working with water resources in a island map.

Anyway, Ceremonial Burial? It gives 1 smile per city following my religion, seems as though I will need to spam lots of missionaries/prophets and get them all over the map as much as I can. Which I guess is why you mentioned a faith-based pantheon being ideal?

Faith producing pantheon choices are important when you do not have civ-specific means of generating faith (such as Ethiopia's Stele, Mayan Pyramid, Celt ability, etc) or a nearby natural wonder and/or Stonehenge to help power out enough faith to get your religion created and enhanced first. Choosing Itinerant Preachers or Religious Texts as your enhancer beliefs will allow your religion to by and large spread pretty naturally-you will only need a missionary or two to get the ball rolling.

 

[Ogimachi]

I'm playing the Mod of Ice and Fire and I'm taking a beating at happiness. The mod makes techs end at the Renaissance, players are not allowed to build wonders and victory is only through domination.
Any tips on how to keep people happy enough so I can raze my way down Westeros?

 

[traveler]

Do any of you guys play much multiplayer? I used to play a lot of single player but nowadays I pretty much only set aside time to play a game if we've got a multiplayer group ready to go. How do you approach the game? On the one hand, I do play to win, but, generally speaking, I do try and pursue non-militaristic victories and gameplans that do not rely heavily on going to war as it's kind of weird to get the whole group in Skype and have one person out before we even make it a third of the way through the game. What kind of strategy/which civ would you pursue given this approach?

 

[Ogimachi]

Do any of you guys play much multiplayer? I used to play a lot of single player but nowadays I pretty much only set aside time to play a game if we've got a multiplayer group ready to go. How do you approach the game? On the one hand, I do play to win, but, generally speaking, I do try and pursue non-militaristic victories and gameplans that do not rely heavily on going to war as it's kind of weird to get the whole group in Skype and have one person out before we even make it a third of the way through the game. What kind of strategy/which civ would you pursue given this approach?

I'm a warmonger 90% of the time, and I like the multiplayer a lot, but most competitive matches were a drag really.
I love playing it cooperatively, though. Me and 2 friends against 6 AI civs on Emperor/Immortal, for instance.

 

[Gvaz]

Is there any mods that decrease the amount of barbarians in the beginning, then increase their tenacity?

 

[Lyng]

Im sick and tired of loosing because I choose to go for culture victory. You are so damn vulnerable late game as soon as you choose to play on a somewhat challenging difficulty setting.
Militaristic nations have it way to easy right now. Cant wait for Brave new world to fix this unbalance.

 

[Human_Shield]

Im sick and tired of loosing because I choose to go for culture victory. You are so damn vulnerable late game as soon as you choose to play on a somewhat challenging difficulty setting.
Militaristic nations have it way to easy right now. Cant wait for Brave new world to fix this unbalance.

What are the conditions you're losing under?
Do you have a small nation of 1-2 cities, or are you sprawled out across the map like an empire? Agressive nations tend to get noticed than the ones that appear small and weak.
What social policies are you taking late game? If other nations are that aggressive, you should be taking Universal Sufferage as quickly as possible, followed by Constitution for the culture boost.
Are you making sure to build key Wonders to get the highest amount of culture available? Consider making it a point to also get Wonders like the Great Wall to slow enemy advances and the Kremlin for the boost in city ranged defense. Cultural victories are usually the easiest to achieve (for me, at least). The most difficult part is usually the 1 or 2 bully nations that you might come looking for you around the start of the Industrial Era, but they can usually be chased off by eliminating enough of the melee units they used to attack. Also, let them think you're weak by constantly letting slide any denouncements or insults they hurl your way. The goal is to not get into direct conflict with anyone, even if their score is ridiculously higher than yours.

 

[Lyng]

What are the conditions you're losing under?
Do you have a small nation of 1-2 cities, or are you sprawled out across the map like an empire? Agressive nations tend to get noticed than the ones that appear small and weak.
What social policies are you taking late game? If other nations are that aggressive, you should be taking Universal Sufferage as quickly as possible, followed by Constitution for the culture boost.
Are you making sure to build key Wonders to get the highest amount of culture available? Consider making it a point to also get Wonders like the Great Wall to slow enemy advances and the Kremlin for the boost in city ranged defense. Cultural victories are usually the easiest to achieve (for me, at least). The most difficult part is usually the 1 or 2 bully nations that you might come looking for you around the start of the Industrial Era, but they can usually be chased off by eliminating enough of the melee units they used to attack. Also, let them think you're weak by constantly letting slide any denouncements or insults they hurl your way. The goal is to not get into direct conflict with anyone, even if their score is ridiculously higher than yours.

I go for a small empire. I boosted my capital city but didnt manage to get the great wall because it was build by sweden while I was working on a different wonder. I had far more culture then the other nations. And let all insults etc slide. But in the end Catherine decided to wage war on me and went in with her full army which my city could not withstand for more then 20 turns.
I had no problems getting cultural victories in Civ IV. I do believe the changes comming in Brave new world will help out though.

Social policies I went with Tradition - Piety - Patronage and started doing Order but then got slaughtered.

 

[Human_Shield]

I go for a small empire. I boosted my capital city but didnt manage to get the great wall because it was build by sweden while I was working on a different wonder. I had far more culture then the other nations. And let all insults etc slide. But in the end Catherine decided to wage war on me and went in with her full army which my city could not withstand for more then 20 turns.
I had no problems getting cultural victories in Civ IV. I do believe the changes comming in Brave new world will help out though.

Social policies I went with Tradition - Piety - Patronage and started doing Order but then got slaughtered.

So, yeah, not as easy as I remember it being in the past.

I decided to start up a game with the Aztecs, 1-city, on King difficulty, pursuing a cultural victory. I started in the middle of a continents map surrounded on all sides by hills, rivers, forests, and jungle. France is to the east, the Ottomans to the northeast, Arabia to the far northwest, and Babylon to the southeast. The game started relatively peacefully, using jaguars to clear out the raging barbarian camps surrounding the capital, and pushing my borders out quickly with the Border Settlements, and the culture boost from jaguars killing barbarians. Then, on turn 59, France came calling, but were pushed back, mostly due to the terrain slowing them down to a manageable crawl. Then Arabia attacked, sending forces from around the sea, but met the same fate as France. This French/Arabian assault continued until the French got tired and sued for peace. Arabia later became a non-threat due to being too far away to send continuous units to be chewed up in the jungles surrounding the capital.

Just as peace seemed like a possibility, the Ottomans started encroaching closer and closer with cities, until they too decided to have a go at me. Its now turn 290, and I have now been in a constant state of war for over 200 turns, and the French have returned even more determined than before. They and the Ottoman forces have now combined into a type of super army, and the only thing holding them back is line of veteran Gatling guns reinforced by two citadels. I can see an army of French rifleman and cannon approaching, and I can only hope my own cannon will get there in time.

 

[Lyng]

Yeah that sounds much like my game. Instead Russia for me was what France is for you.

The AI is so much more aware an agressive towards you on higher levels. Which is as it should be, but I believe you need to be able to use culture in some way to fend of the attacks.

Lets say if the enemy are inside your border for more then x amount of turns, if your culture is x % higher then the attacking country, their troops will join your army instead.

 

[CoconutTank]

Im sick and tired of loosing because I choose to go for culture victory. You are so damn vulnerable late game as soon as you choose to play on a somewhat challenging difficulty setting.
Militaristic nations have it way to easy right now. Cant wait for Brave new world to fix this unbalance.

That's... not quite the feeling I get from playing Civ 5 When I try a militaristic nation (I assume you mean something like China, Japan, Aztecs or The Huns), I'm always behind on wonders (and to a degree also behind on social policies). I don't know how anyone else has any measured success in warmongering but my cities can only do wonders or units, and wonders make my civ more efficient and also grants mucho points, while units eat up gold and don't do anything unless they're actively attacking or defending.

On the other hand, regardless of who I play as and whom I'm near, there's usually a pretty good chance that someone will go to war with me, and usually by that time they'll have 3x more units than I do (well I concentrated on wonders, and I only have around 2 cities by that point, not exactly sure what else I should do...). So nowadays I beeline for Great Library and, assuming I don't have anything else inbetween that I need/want, I beeline for Great Wall and pick up Oligarchy from Tradition if I'm feeling nervous. The city attack boost from Oligarchy is very nice and can easily let cities 2 shot a lot of units from early to mid game. So I recommend getting those two next time if you want to worry less about militaristic nations (or any kind of militaristic encounters)!

As for my experiences with wanting to be aggressive; early game, throwing Warriors and Archers at cities is incredibly inefficient and Catas can just get focused down by the city I'm attacking unless I have a bunch of other units around to distract the AI. It doesn't help that rough terrain will screw with attack range, so my Catas will have to be attacking from 1 range! Lame.

Late game, Artillery, Rocket Artillery and Battleships are awesome for quickly wearing down cities. But the amount of unhappiness I deal with when annexing/puppeting/razing cities makes this something I can't do for a long time unless I have Notre Dame and Protectionism (both of which are quite awesome). And if I don't have Big Ben, Mercantilism and Militarism, fielding a useful army is out of the question.

Whenever I get the chance to check my score against the other civs, my score is usually 2nd highest at best until someone declares war on me and I start taking their cities in retaliation. The civ that's highest is usually there because they've got awesome cities and have built a bunch of wonders as a result (and I would know because these freaking civs keep finishing wonders before I do). The only times I've won, have never been due to any kind of sustained military campaign. It's either due to United Nations, finishing the space race or (hahahaha) finishing my Utopia project.

I go for a small empire. I boosted my capital city but didnt manage to get the great wall because it was build by sweden while I was working on a different wonder. I had far more culture then the other nations. And let all insults etc slide. But in the end Catherine decided to wage war on me and went in with her full army which my city could not withstand for more then 20 turns.
I had no problems getting cultural victories in Civ IV. I do believe the changes comming in Brave new world will help out though.

Social policies I went with Tradition - Piety - Patronage and started doing Order but then got slaughtered.

Hmmm... and Oligarchy isn't working well enough at this point? What kind of units do you have and what kind of units do they have by the time you're getting attacked?

 

[Boss Doggie]

Is there a trick on spawning Settlers fast? Then again too much cities can mean poor economy.

 

[Lyng]

I think I messed up because my units where knights while they had soldiers.
But my Capital was by far the strongest on the map.
One thing: How do you guys go about research agreements?