cphite wrote:nor do you need transports - land-based units can embark over water once you have the ability to sail, but can only go out as far as your technology allows
You also can't fine-tune the production of a single city with the same level of detail that you could in IV. So if you're really into that sort of detail, then yeah - you might prefer IV.
Combat is V is much more involved and interesting. You can no longer get by just building stacks (you can't even build stacks) and relying on sheer numbers. Well-placed ranged units supported by good defensive units is an absolute game-changer; mainly because ranged units can now actually strike at range in a meaningful way. Cities no longer need garrisoned units for protection (and you can only garrison one) and depend more on built-in defenses.
The AI is greatly improved. The computer opponents actually *plan* now. Not just in a general sense like "build forces" but with long-term goals. They plot with one another, react to your apparently long-term goals, get nervous when they notice your troops near their borders and actually take steps to do something about it.
The AI is laughably bad, the combat AI is terrible but the diplomatic AI is far worse. Countries will get mad at you if you liberated their city because hey, "your troops are too close", lol. If you ally with them in war they will hate you for being a "warmonger". If you attack them they will readily give away all but one of their cities in exchange for peace. They are at war with a city-state one turn and declare they're now pledged to protect it the next. They tell you your conquest of France has pissed them off, when you're playing as France. They attack you at random no matter how much you've invested to be "friends". Sometimes they "attack" you with a Settler. One city state even declared war on itself and started shelling its own units.
Yeah, um, not getting this game until after quite a number of big patches, if ever. And I was so psyched. Good thing I didn't pre-order.
cphite wrote:Haven't seen even one example of a country giving away cities - in fact they're pretty adamant about NOT giving them away even if you're on the verge of overrunning them completely.
I have seen two examples of this, where the enemy nation offered to give almost everything away to end the conflict. However, in both cases those nations were the aggressor, and ended up getting the crap kicked out of them. whenever I've been the aggressor, the enemy state asks for peace when they start to lose, but is never willing to give much away to achieve it.
Users browsing this forum: Yahoo [Bot] and 2 guests