Civilization V

[Caciss]

Civ V is out you dumb ****in' idiots.

It rules! It'd be cool to like play a big game with the pav... don't you THINK!?

[Biggie]

Re: Civilization V

I did think this game looked really cool, but I'm kinda tapped out for money right now. WHAT'S YOUR TAKE ON IT SO FAR?

[Wavelength]

Re: Civilization V

Finally got my new computer (which meets the specs, unlike my old one) online, so now I can buy and play it. I've been waiting for this for months; the new Civ looks awesome.

Looking forward to seeing how the new Social Policies work in practice. IMO it's not the best way to represent 'Culture' but maybe I'll be surprised.

[DK]

Re: Civilization V

How does a Civilization game work? I've never played one before and I'd rather here it from a pavvie than through a fifteen second google search.

[Caciss]

Re: Civilization V

I did think this game looked really cool, but I'm kinda tapped out for money right now. WHAT'S YOUR TAKE ON IT SO FAR?

Have you played other Civilizations? I think all of the changes are pretty great and warranted. The inability to stack military units is the best part about this, gives mounted units an actual role in their ability to flank, and you have to protect your siege units.

Gold is now a lot more valuable in that it has more functions in expanding borders, research agreements, and of course rushed production of units and buildings. The change to culture is also really nice because it provides a culture players with a lot of buffs to their civilization and gives you more incentive to play that way.

I'm not sure how I feel about the city states though, actually, they're sort of just annoying. Though they do provide some benefits.

Looking forward to seeing how the new Social Policies work in practice. IMO it's not the best way to represent 'Culture' but maybe I'll be surprised.

I think it actually works really well, feels more streamlined and gives more incentive to play culture.

How does a Civilization game work? I've never played one before and I'd rather here it from a pavvie than through a fifteen second google search.

Civilization is a turn-based strategy game where you play a civilization from 4000BC and BEYOND. Managing your citizens happiness, your resources, and territory. You compete with several other civilizations in an attempt to rule the wooorld. It's an interesting game in that you can win without ever throwing a punch, if you want, though not necessarily the easiest thing. It's sort of like a much more in-depth Risk.

Also like my second favorite franchise after Starcraft.

[John Mora]

Re: Civilization V

1UP gave it a C. Thoughts?!

[Caciss]

Re: Civilization V

lol, sounds like he was playing on easy difficulty and complaining that the ai's military sucks and is technologically inferior.

[Denmo]

Re: Civilization V

I've never played more than an hour on Civ 2. It was fun while it lasted.

[Wavelength]

Re: Civilization V

So, between Friday and yesterday I played through my first game and only stopped to eat, pee, and sleep. Apparently, it's got every bit as much of that "one more turn" effect as Civ IV did. And until the last couple hours (when I started to run away with the game) it was a lot of fun.

I got near a Domination victory and couldn't find England or their Capital City (the new Domination victory requires all players but you to lose their Capital). Why they don't have a tech to reveal the whole map, or at least allow map trading, I'll never know. That annoys me. Three hours later, I had won.

I do love the new Culture (it makes a LOT of sense now that I've seen it), the new things you can do with gold, and (surprisingly) the new happiness system. The lack of unit stacking works wonderfully in practice, but I wish you could choose to swap two units by using one more for each.

I love what they did with strategic resources, but I hate what they did with food resources. I also miss Corporations from Civ 4 Beyond the Sword. I really miss the vocal tracks from earlier games; the experience feels a bit empty without it.

Diplomacy... well, I've got to give it a few more games before I can really pinpoint what the AI is trying to do. But they seem to play a lot more aggressively than 4's.

It is a really cool experience overall. I liked it a lot so far and I think even you guys who haven't played a Civ game since 2 will be able to warm up to it pretty easily. There are just a lot of things that I think they truly perfected in 4, and then threw out the door this time around.

[hitogoroshi]

Re: Civilization V

I've got it, and I'd be down with a Pav game.

The good:

ONE UNIT PER HEX. I literally stopped playing Civ 4 because I was sick of how unwieldy it was to maneuver large armies. I just hated going to war with an intense passion and it made me drop out of the game entirely. This is far better, and is more tactical then "it's like rock paper scissors, only you get to choose how many hands are walking together."

City-states. While the constant barrage of requests can get annoying (I think their default city-state numbers are a tad high and am gonna play with lowering the number) they add a very interesting element to the game and make gold a hell of a lot more valuable. Maritime city-states are great friends to make for an early expansionist, cultural city-states are a welcome battery, and militaristic city-states serve as mercenaries when you need help in battle (not only do they give you units, but they tend to have decent armies to help you out in a nearby war.)

The changes to resources and the death of the fat cross. Feels MUCH more natural to have "grow your borders, work more squares, get more resources in squares you work" then "grow your borders, but you can only work squares in this weird shape, but you can still build stuff on resources out of the weird shape, but you need roads to get the resource whether or not it's in the weird shape".

The death of religions and corporations. "First to found" racing always left a bad taste in my mouth.

Social policy. FINALLY, being cultural doesn't mean "be terrible the whole game but hope to win."

Strategic resources.

The bad:

No advanced start.

"Explore" will trespass in city-state borders without a care, so you have to micro the exploration.

Long load times and turn times, as well as multiplayer lag.

Leader abilities seem far too map/game settings dependent. Hello Elizabeth, welcome to this landlocked Pangaea map. Hello Hiawatha, welcome to this desert. Hello Napoleon, welcome to the Industrial Era start game.

[Wavelength]

Re: Civilization V

I've got it, and I'd be down with a Pav game.

Aaaahhh! I've never played Multiplayer! It does seem like this would be the ideal version for multiplayer... and yet, I feel like either the turns would go way too fast, or the game would go way too slow, depending on our settings. x.x

It would be a hell of a lot of fun to try it sometime, though!

The good:

ONE UNIT PER HEX. - It's amazing how this wasn't done before, eh? I really like this change too.

City-states. While the constant barrage of requests can get annoying (I think their default city-state numbers are a tad high and am gonna play with lowering the number) they add a very interesting element to the game and make gold a hell of a lot more valuable. - I really like them as well. They also make the Diplomatic victory far more interesting. I agree that the default number is way too high! I wish you could interact with them more, though.

The changes to resources and the death of the fat cross. Feels MUCH more natural - I like the "hex radius" system way better than the "fat cross" but I feel like I have to build a whole new city just to catch a resource or prevent a rival from cutting into the middle of my empire. I wish your cities would just keep expanding up to five hexes, but only work the first three. Also, while the cultural expansion algorithms are great, I'd still like to be able to choose which hex to culturally expand to next.

The death of religions and corporations. "First to found" racing always left a bad taste in my mouth. - I almost cried over these. I loved Religion, I loved Corporations even more, and I like the "first to found" element because it rewards decisive and competitive play. On the other hand, it would have been nice in Civ 4 if there were ways to attract other peoples' religions or corps to expand into your empire.

Social policy. FINALLY, being cultural doesn't mean "be terrible the whole game but hope to win." - Right?

Strategic resources. - Totally.

The bad:

No advanced start. - Never used this myself but it would be a nice feature.

"Explore" will trespass in city-state borders without a care, so you have to micro the exploration. - I have a feeling they'll fix this in a patch soon.

Long load times and turn times, as well as multiplayer lag. - Haven't tried MP yet but the AI turn times are a bit longish, even on my new computer. This was a problem in Civ 4 until BTS if I remember correctly. I also noticed the game overall felt a lot longer than my Civ 4 games on a scale of about 100% longer; did you notice the same thing?

Leader abilities seem far too map/game settings dependent. Hello Elizabeth, welcome to this landlocked Pangaea map. Hello Hiawatha, welcome to this desert. Hello Napoleon, welcome to the Industrial Era start game. - I really like the leader abilities, though. I played as Japan the first game and Bushido was a really fun ability. I guess you're right that they can be too dependent on game settings; there are a few (like you named) that are really feast-or-famine.

[Caciss]

Re: Civilization V

Maybe my computer just rocks the ****, but I haven't had really any loading problems and I'm running at max settings.

I can't imagine playing Civ V on any speed slower than Standard, I feel like I'm playing on Marathon... actually, considering turning my game speed up.

The diplomacy system is severely lacking though, and a part of me hates to think they purposely left it so bare bones and unintuitive just for an expansion pack to rectify. I mean, pacts of secrecy and companionship(?) are so vague in their effects. You can't see how other leaders feel about you, except perhaps try and decipher their feelings from their greeting messages. No trading of maps? What? That's honestly just retarded, and I can't believe they simply over looked that. Although I think the research agreement is an interesting change from the trading of resources.

Also, they wonders in this game seem to be really... lacking? The best to me seems to be Angok Wat. Expands your borders in a hurry.

Playing my current game on King difficulty, for a culture win, and am just raping my opponents in technology and culture. You can't raze capitals which is annoying, because now my empire is overburdened and I don't know if I just wanna give the city away. Probably just gonna go for a Domination victory instead. You can't really win culture unless you have like at max three cities.

[hitogoroshi]

Re: Civilization V

Yeah, my first game I tried for a culture victory I went one-city-challange. I ended up losing (on king) but I made a good fight of it - in the end what killed me was not having enough research. Himejei (sp?) Castle and Theocracy are both basicially necessary for a Cultural victory because they make your defensive power insane.

[Wavelength]

Re: Civilization V

Maybe my computer just rocks the ****, but I haven't had really any loading problems and I'm running at max settings.

I've got 6GB RAM, a 1GB DDR3 ATI card, and a really clear C-drive. I'm running at default settings. My loading is fine, the interface doesn't lag much, but the AI turns have been much slower than the final patch of Civ 4.

I can't imagine playing Civ V on any speed slower than Standard, I feel like I'm playing on Marathon... actually, considering turning my game speed up.

Likewise. My Standard speed game on a Medium map took me over 15 hours to complete (finishing in 2005AD). I'm going to play "Quick" from now on as long as it's balanced.

The diplomacy system is severely lacking though, and a part of me hates to think they purposely left it so bare bones and unintuitive just for an expansion pack to rectify. I mean, pacts of secrecy and companionship(?) are so vague in their effects. You can't see how other leaders feel about you, except perhaps try and decipher their feelings from their greeting messages.

It's my belief that they intentionally left it bare bones and nebulous in order to try to make the AI feel more human. When you play with other human players you don't know how they'll react to your actions. Maybe they'll hold an earlier war against you all game, maybe they won't. The greeting messages let you know their general feeling, as do their statuses (such as "Hostile" and "Afraid").

I still would have liked to see a list of "postive" and "negative" factors to jog my memory though, maybe a simplified version of the modifiers from Civ 4.

I was very surprised when all of a sudden Alexander turned on me after being allies all game. Of course, I wiped him for it.

No trading of maps? What? That's honestly just retarded, and I can't believe they simply over looked that. Although I think the research agreement is an interesting change from the trading of resources.

The no map trading ****** me off, too, because it forced my game to last an extra two or three hours as I hunted down the final capital. The research agreements are a great touch (way better than tech trading) but I wish that it forced you to think over a longer term than 30 turns.

Speaking of which, I don't see why all the agreements are limited to 30 turns (Open Borders, Resource trade, etc.) rather than being open-ended.

Also, they wonders in this game seem to be really... lacking? The best to me seems to be Angok Wat. Expands your borders in a hurry.

I really liked the ones that increased culture or great people production across all cities. Aside from that they do seem to lack punch (see: The Pyramids), but they're also a lot cheaper than in previous games.

Playing my current game on King difficulty, for a culture win, and am just raping my opponents in technology and culture. You can't raze capitals which is annoying, because now my empire is overburdened and I don't know if I just wanna give the city away. Probably just gonna go for a Domination victory instead. You can't really win culture unless you have like at max three cities.

All of what you mentioned is what Puppet States are for. About the only strain they'll put on you is a bit of happiness (from the population) and a bit of cash (and I might be wrong about the cash). No Culture-needed-for-Policies increase, and they'll usually provide net cash to avoid overburdening your empire.

Yeah, my first game I tried for a culture victory I went one-city-challange. I ended up losing (on king) but I made a good fight of it - in the end what killed me was not having enough research. Himejei (sp?) Castle and Theocracy are both basicially nessacary for a Cultural victory because they make your defensive poweri insane.

Wow, I'm amazed that you and Caciss are playing your first games on King! I played on Warlord (or whatever is Level 3, right below Noble). I never won a Monarch game in Civ 4 (but got within 3 turns once). You guys must be great at this.

I think either Honor or Freedom had a really nice Defense item which increases your Cities' combat power by 33%. I skipped Himeji Castle in favor of different techs but it did look like a nice boost - and the real thing is an AWESOME experience, by the way.

Oh, and speaking of which, Cities' Hit Points are my favorite addition to the game. Absolutely brilliant.

[Caciss]

Re: Civilization V

I've got 6GB RAM, a 1GB DDR3 ATI card, and a really clear C-drive. I'm running at default settings. My loading is fine, the interface doesn't lag much, but the AI turns have been much slower than the final patch of Civ 4.

Hm, maybe I just haven't played Civ4 in a long time. Either way the load times haven't really bothered me. I'm sure it'll be more streamlined down the road.

Likewise. My Standard speed game on a Medium map took me over 15 hours to complete (finishing in 2005AD). I'm going to play "Quick" from now on as long as it's balanced.

I think the way the combat works in V won't imbalance the game so much on lower difficulties.

It's my belief that they intentionally left it bare bones and nebulous in order to try to make the AI feel more human. When you play with other human players you don't know how they'll react to your actions. Maybe they'll hold an earlier war against you all game, maybe they won't. The greeting messages let you know their general feeling, as do their statuses (such as "Hostile" and "Afraid").

I still would have liked to see a list of "postive" and "negative" factors to jog my memory though, maybe a simplified version of the modifiers from Civ 4.

I was very surprised when all of a sudden Alexander turned on me after being allies all game. Of course, I wiped him for it.

That's actually a pretty interesting thought, but I still don't like it!

The no map trading ****** me off, too, because it forced my game to last an extra two or three hours as I hunted down the final capital. The research agreements are a great touch (way better than tech trading) but I wish that it forced you to think over a longer term than 30 turns.

Speaking of which, I don't see why all the agreements are limited to 30 turns (Open Borders, Resource trade, etc.) rather than being open-ended.

I meant to say trading of tech. But, the lack of map trading just makes no sense. Why can I discover a map in some ruins but not trade a map with another civilization? At least give me world view after inventing satellites (although I've actually haven't progressed that far in tech in either of my games olol).

All of what you mentioned is what Puppet States are for. About the only strain they'll put on you is a bit of happiness (from the population) and a bit of cash (and I might be wrong about the cash). No Culture-needed-for-Policies increase, and they'll usually provide net cash to avoid overburdening your empire.

I was under the impression puppet states still increased the culture needed for the next social policy, which is really my biggest concern. Also why can't I purchase a court house?

Wow, I'm amazed that you and Caciss are playing your first games on King! I played on Warlord (or whatever is Level 3, right below Noble). I never won a Monarch game in Civ 4 (but got within 3 turns once). You guys must be great at this.

I'm really no Civ wiz! I could win games on Monarch in Civ4 but that strategy always revolved around playing Rome and using Praetorian to conquer my nearest neighbor and then proceeding to tech trade to get a heads up on my opponents.

I played my first game on Normal (Warlord?) as Caesar basically playing like I did in Civ4 and managed to get a Domination victory rather easily.

Second game Biz Markie got revenge on me as Napoleon on King trying to play a culture game. Didn't have enough defense.

Third game as Napoleon on King again, but I'm managed to take a very very healthy lead by just not skimping on my military. Actually a little bored of this match because I'm so far ahead, but to get my victory is going to take awhile~ Although I will admit I got very lucky with my spawn on the continent and pretty much got blessed with 80% of the Iron and Oil on the map.

Probably up the difficulty for my next game.

ALSO I've never played a game of Civ online in my life but I'd really like to give it a whirl. Three people sounds pretty small though... I know Garr has this as well. You guys are on steam no? Look me up, I'm dJanks