Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Shades]

I build farms on rivers early too, as I generally use the great library to get the civil service? tech that gives the bonus there so it's often not long into the game. I will replace them eventually but it gives a nice little spurt of growth early on and having cities work unimproved tiles is silly.

Later on I'll only build trading posts and anything to get luxury/strategic goods. Mines are pretty worthless imo, unless your really hurting for shields. (one production is not better than two gold times all the multipliers you end up with for it).

As to happiness I've seen people ignore it completely, although I've yet to try it.

[umiman]

Considering how rare hammers are in this game, mines are supreme. I think the game counts on multipliers to make the mines more appealing as time passes, which is something food deoesn't get. For example: windmills, factories, etc. Besides, you can only build them on hills anyway.

And no, I didn't say build workers after you researched the tech. Build a worker sometime before they get the tech. Ideally, you could steal a worker from someone before then with your warriors. In fact, I definitely recommend immediately declaring war on nearby players. I mean, they don't do anything for you and you can bet your arse you'll be fighting each other. Since we're counting on our military strength and skill to be superior to theirs, might as well get started early right? You could park a warrior just out of range of their city on a forested mountain and they won't even dare to upgrade their city tiles. Eventually if you feel you can't beat them (if you can get an early spearman from a ruins, you can easily kill them off with a single medic upgrade), just accept their ridiculous terms of surrender.

Not to mention that declaring war super early on a nearby fellow means that other person hasn't met other leaders yet and can't make them hate you for declaring war.

Not to mention the ai sucks at combat, so it'll be an easy win.

[Shades]

Not to mention the ai sucks at combat, so it'll be an easy win.

On any hardness level shame really. I understand that the old style build stack and rush is much easier to code but it's like the AI is clueless about simple things like concentrating firepower.

[umiman]

Or running around while its only city burns to the ground

[Cecilff2]

Or sending out settlers right in front of your units while you're sieging their city 

[Siquo]

Or attacking a full-health squad with a 1hp squad, while they could have ran away and healed.

The cultural victory is not hard, it's boring. I can easily conquer all my neighbours, but I wanted a Utopia. Next, next, next, next etc...
I miss pollution.
I miss religion.
I miss a lot of buildings and social dynamics.

It's been turned into Command and Conquer, and I wonder why it's still turn-based. I think I'm done with Civilisation, instead of adding more complexity, they just removed stuff...

[Fikes]

Religion was such an annoying system in Civ 4, I don't know why anyone would want it back.  Pollution was okay, I guess, but global warming was super absurd. I certainly don't feel like Civ has been dumbed down, although the AI seems much less competent.

Also, I am soooo glad war wariness is gone.

[Deon]

Religion is awesome to make great mods based on it. Original Civ4 religions were generic and didn't add much to the gameplay, but in scenarios and mods (I won't say FFH again, but take for example Charlemagne or RFC) they are an essential part of the gameplay.

[Shades]

although the AI seems much less competent.

It's more that controlling stacks is far simpler than the new tactical layer. It's not that the AI is less competent just the problem space is much harder.

[Myroc]

They also did remove some of the more annoying stuff, like transports.

I miss the commerce system though.

[Vactor]

I'm contemplating if I should pick this up now, or wait for it to be on sale some time.

I was a bigger fan of III than IV, I could never put my finger on what I disliked about IV, I think it might be because I like playing on absolutely huge maps (due to my love of geography and epic struggles), but Civ IV's mechanics didn't seem (to me)to be designed for running a huge empire to be fun.  My favorite Civ III game was a tethurkan test of time map (incredibly large standard world map) where I led the Songhai to conquer most of Africa and the middle east.

So...How well does Civ V play on the epic scale?  Should i just stick to Europa Universallis for my epic world battle fix?

[Fikes]

I don’t really know how you would define the “commerce system” but I do know that it was so impossible to figure out what was happening with your money in Civ 4 that it became very frustrating. I like in Civ5 that you can easily predict how much a city will cost you without having to worry about things like “distance from capital”

On the Epic side, I think Civ 5 does a better job than Civ 4 of supporting huge empires. As stated above, gone of the days of city distance causing a large negative impact on your countries economy. Also, large scale naval invasions are now possible, thanks to the removal of transports. The total number of units your empire has has dropped sustainably, however. This CAN lead to a feeling of less epicness, but I  haven’t experienced it.

I think religions could have added something better to the game, but the way vanilla Civ4 had them was infuriating. One player would end up with 2 or 3 of the early religions, 2 or 3 players would end up missing them by 1 turn. If you didn’t snap for them your economy ended up in rough shape.

[Myroc]

I don’t really know how you would define the “commerce system” but I do know that it was so impossible to figure out what was happening with your money in Civ 4 that it became very frustrating.

The commerce system being dividing your total wealth between science/culture/espionage/money.

[Fikes]

I don’t really know how you would define the “commerce system” but I do know that it was so impossible to figure out what was happening with your money in Civ 4 that it became very frustrating.

The commerce system being dividing your total wealth between science/culture/espionage/money.

Ahh, I see what you are saying. I don't know, it is another system change I am okay with. Makes it easier to understand what is going on in your empire and it makes it easier to dictate city specialties. The old system also gave start locations and religion even more impact, since starting next to flood plains gave you such an insane amount of gold and gold = science.

Another against argument I don’t understand is the elimination of tech and map trading . I think they were both pretty good decisions. I am so glad that one computer hitting the classic era doesn’t mean all computers are going to hit the classic era at the same time. Map trading can be annoying, but it is nice to have a use for scouts until very late in the game. It also limits the amount of damage a back stabbing ally can do.

[Sowelu]

I'm contemplating if I should pick this up now, or wait for it to be on sale some time.

Personally, I'm going to wait until it's bundled with its (first?) expansion pack.