TR Forums

Since they have retarded the system of emperors (you can't pick anymore, fixed advantages) and the development trees are kind of dumbed down as well, I definitely won't try this one out. Civ is one of the franchises that could definitely use not being "casualised".

Therefore, Civ IV is still best (complete with expansions), but Civ II + Alpha Centauri holds a special place in my retro heart.

As near as I can tell, the only real "trade" occurs between nations. When one of your cities demands a good, all that means is that once they have access to that good, they'll be happier.

As far as giving them access goes, basically you have to have that good in your area of influence, and you have to have a trade route (ie. a road) between the city that has that good and the city that wants it.

Besides making your citizens happy, specific goods are necessary for building certain units or buildings. If your city doesn't have access to iron for example, you can't build a longswordsman in that city.

I don't think the emperors matters though; nations and leaders were always cosmetic in Civ 2/3 and I didn't play enough to know for sure in IV. Heck, if they give different advantages to different factions that would, in fact be less casual since you might have to alter your strategy to different civs.

I agree about Civ II though, first PC game I owned

The development trees are definitely less complex, and a lot of stuff like trade has been greatly simplified... you don't have to build caravans anymore, 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.

All in all, the game is a bit more casual, but it's still a lot of fun. Personally, I don't miss a lot of the stuff that's gone now - the lawyers (nothing like having production shut down for absolutely no reason) or the religious conversions, etc.

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 just need escorts instead since the units are completely defenseless in the open water. Basically there's no more need to build units for solely carrying units, but you need to have escorts. It's probably because of the 1upt design that it works this way.

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.

You still get quite a bit of control. You just have to put the specialists into the buildings and you can't stack up one type of production as high anymore. Still, I see why some people would prefer the greater control. I'm kinda glad production fine-tuning doesn't require as much work. Plus there's actually a reason to buy units sometimes now.

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.

I like this a lot too. Attacking city requires a careful siege campaign and defense involves more than simply putting a bajillion units inside the city. Having units roaming about in the borders is important now.

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.

This. I'm still on my first game but when I finally landed on the other great continental mass, I found a political pressure cooker with city states being protected by two powers against the one superpower but mostly in a stalemate. When I appeared all three nations tried to court my favor with the two weaker nations asking me to declare war on the superpower. After allying with two of the friendly city states, one of the powers became a little upset and insinuated that they wanted to be the sole protector of the state. But I have a more powerful army at this point so it's been left at that for now.

Can anyone explain what a time victory is?

A time victory is when the calendar runs out before you've met any of the other victory conditions, but you're ahead on points.

it's like kissing your cousin...

omg I missed this!!

*quit job and buys Civ V

I have to say I've lost all enthusiasm for this game. Read the forums over at CivFanatics or Sulla's playthroughs on his site, they're ripping this game to shreds.

The game is plagued by profound balance issues that reward exploitative strategies the developers never intended for you to use. Infinite City Sprawl strategy is back after being removed in Civ IV. Founding huge numbers of tiny, completely undeveloped spam cities is a great way to win now. And all this after the devs blabbing on about how the game now "rewards smaller civilizations". Everything can be bought with money, just spam trading posts everywhere and you're good. Production is therefore replaced. Bribe "Maritime" city-states with gold and you'll get ridiculous food bonuses, negating the need for that as well.

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.

The game is riddled with bugs, multiplayer is apparently unplayable.

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.

Everything the devs said would be so "improved" from Civ IV turned out to be total, horrible lies, or maybe they were genuinely completely delusional about the state of their game, like Stardock was with Elemental.

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.

I haven't seen any of this after playing several games. I've not seen one instance of a friendly (or even neutral) country or city-state attacking at random, and I don't know if you even *can* attack with a Settler. Haven't seen one instance of a city attacking itself. 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. Both times I've liberated a nation they immediately became allies and didn't gripe at all about my troops being close. Now, if you leave those troops there forever then eventually they'll get miffed about it, but that's to be expected.

Countries attacking themselves sounds like a bug - are you sure your sources weren't playing a beta? Or that there wasn't an enemy (or barbarian) unit there that they just didn't notice? One thing that I have seen is where barbarians will capture a citizen (worker) and when you kill the barbarian unit, the worker unit will be left there in the same hex.

Really, the only kind of silly thing I've seen in regards to diplomacy is the other night, I started taking over city-states to the point where all of them united and put out a global call to nations for help, and I noticed that I had the option to offer them troops to defend themselves against me.

The combat AI is much improved over that of the previous versions of the game. The diplomatic AI is pretty much the same, if a bit more simplified. The strategic AI is much improved - if you play at higher difficulties the AI countries plan far ahead.

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.

Ah, so you've never actually played the game that you're bashing?

I'm not saying the game is perfect - there are plenty of things that I'd like to have seen done better - but I haven't seen any of what you've posted above after several games. And I've played through to the domination victory, the science victory, and the UN victory; so I've played a variety of different ways. You'd think that if these problems were so prevalent I'd have seen at least some of them.

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.

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.

Which actually makes sense. I hadn't seen this - but then again I've typically been the aggressor

I've had them give me cities, but I play at Chieftan and Warlord; they may be more dug in at higher difficulty levels.
I *have* had them tell me my warmongering is inexcusable just for defending myself though, which is irritating...look damnit, the Arabs/French/Roman/Aztec whoever attacked me, I conquered them, that's how it goes. That's not warmongering that's self defense.

Although I've learned to NEVER let them mass troops on my border, cause I was in a pact of coopearation with both the Songhai and Japanese, and they tag teamed me and tore me up after doing so >.<

Heh, I had Germany pull that one on me the first time I played. We were in a pact of cooperation, had open borders, and they started building up forces like crazy. I assumed they were going after China (who was next to me) because the two of them had previously been at war, when all of a sudden their leader pops up to inform me of his plan to wipe my pitiful country off the map along with everyone else. Actually took quite a bit of scrambling to get enough forces in play to defend myself, and lost a couple of cities in the process.

Ah yes, the Neville to Winston switch.

Some kind of patch applied this weekend, mostly to fix some of the diplomatic quirks people have complained about. I didn't notice much difference on that end, but one thing I did notice is that the game seems to run *much* smoother now, particularly on ending turns. So anyone who's shelved the game for performance reasons, it might be worth giving it another go after the patch.

I'm kind of played out and haven't played since Christmas. I may play it again in 2-3 months.

Nearly all the feedback on the latest patch has been extremely positive. They actually made a lot of significant changes between this one and the one before. I'm planning on playing the crap out of it this weekend once my Sandy B. build is complete...

The latest patch has been a huge help as far as I have been able to tell. Both with the time it takes after clicking next turn and the amount of crashes I was seeing.