10-19-2010, 02:54 PM | #26 | |
We deny our creators.
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Reduces construction time
Posts: 3,070
|
Just picked this up a few days ago. Played a game with Glorious Nippon and rolled over the entire world (fuck yeah Bushido), although Chieftan difficulty lol
Quote:
EDIT: Also, the Civilopedia in V is worthless. Thanks for telling me what fucking railroads are (because I don't know anything about them despite playing this game on a computer in a first world country), but a listing of the actual rules for the improvement would be nice.
__________________
"It does not matter anymore. We cannot change the past. The future will have to do."
-Windham Khatib Last edited by Blastoise; 10-19-2010 at 03:36 PM. |
|
10-20-2010, 03:50 PM | #27 |
Soul Badge
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Saskatchewan, Canada
Posts: 1,488
|
Some Civilopedia entries are just blatantly wrong, too. Like when it claims that stealth bombers can't be based on aircraft carriers (they can). Way bigger blunders than that too. A certain social policy claims that it gives you +2 science per trading post in your empire, but it's actually only +1. That adds up to a massive difference! The funny thing about these two mistakes is that I'm not sure whether they screwed up the description, or screwed up its implementation into the game. That's why I haven't played the game in 3 weeks, not until they patch it. Right now it just feels like an incomplete game, like I'm playing in a beta.
Even putting bugs aside, I'm sad to say that this is the first ever Civilization game that isn't CLEARLY better than its predecessor (despite what the nostalgia goggles wearing Civ2 fanboys will say). The combat system, yes, huge improvement, but the economic and city management side? It's debatable. Not having to micro individual cities as severely is nice, but at the same time it feels like I'm not pushing my skills to the limit like I was in Civ4. In that game, the improvements you made with workers were extremely important; specializing properly and optimally could be the difference between life and death. Now it doesn't matter as much anymore, because it's usually a no brainer to trading post nearly everything, while abusing city states for food. HAVING SAID ALL THAT! It's still entirely possible that I will proclaim this the best Civ game ever once it's fixed. I've only played two games after all. I did enjoy those games and was looking forward to more, but the beta test feeling got to me!
__________________
Smoking Gary sez: "Stay in school kidz" |
02-18-2011, 06:15 PM | #28 |
時の彼方へ
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Lafayette, Indiana
Posts: 20,578
|
Quoting Todd Brakke:
If you read my earlier post, which discussed my reasoning for walking away from Civ 5, you know one of my big misgivings with that game is that I don't think its various systems come together in a way that actually works. I'm not sure they ever will, but I am glad to see that Firaxis's next patch, which we should see this month, attempts to address the game's many balance issues.Source: http://nohighscores.com/node/52 Seems like you were right on the money, Mcsweeney. So I guess I'll see you in 2014 when they release their final commercial build of Civ V?
__________________
|
02-22-2011, 10:21 AM | #29 |
Soul Badge
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Saskatchewan, Canada
Posts: 1,488
|
A lot of people in the Civilization community are pessimistic about Civilization V. They believe that the game is fundamentally broken and can never be made good through patching. The game is a disappointment, no getting around that, but with proper patching, I believe it can be JUST BARELY better than Civilization IV. Big cities need another buff, to counteract the Infinite City Sprawl strategy, which is currently considered the optimal way to play.
Diplomacy also needs to be less crazy. You see, in Civilization IV, if you knew how the diplomacy system worked, it was easy to exploit the other civs to get techs you wanted, and prevent them from declaring war on you. So for Civ V they wanted to make diplomacy more "mysterious" so people wouldn't be able to abuse it as much. But this just makes them insane. A civilization will ask you to declare war on somebody they hate, and then afterward they will denounce you for being a warmongering barbarian! I shit you not. In Civ IV it was possible to build a very strong friendship with another civilization. In Civ V, it seems like nothing you do is good enough, you never have any true friends, so just take what you can get from others and backstab them when the time is right. The new patch look pretty good. http://forums.2kgames.com/showthread...ry-Patch-Notes Haha, it's hilarious how many changes are in every patch. Look at that shit! This is why Civilization has such a high learning curve. All the million little rules you have to learn, further compounded by each new patch which alter everything. If a beginner picks the game up for the first time, the 233 page manual would be COMPLETELY USELESS, because most of the information in there is wildly out of date. So how is he supposed to learn how to play the game properly? Loads of trial and error, keeping up with each new patch and finely tuning his strategy to each new round of changes, duh! GOD, can't they do something so simple?
__________________
Smoking Gary sez: "Stay in school kidz" |
02-22-2011, 10:40 AM | #30 |
時の彼方へ
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Lafayette, Indiana
Posts: 20,578
|
What you've described in 5 sounds awfully similar to what I experienced in and hated about 3. Here's one story I vaguely remember ...
I was playing an eight-civ medium-map game in Civilization III one time and India was one of my neighboring civs. Mr. Gandhi planted a colony settlement right smack dab in the middle of two of mine but I didn't say anything: I didn't want to stir the hornet's nest, so to speak. Then he offers me a ridiculously unfair trade: something like 10 of one of my resources for 1 of his shitty resources that I already have plenty of myself. I tell him "No" but offer him a fairer counteroffer: 2-for-1, still retardedly against me. He turns it down and storms off. Later on, he's getting wailed on by somebody to one of his nation's sides that isn't near me, so I figure, "Okay, let's offer him another trade." He happily accepts the terms I establish, requesting some stuff I need in exchange for some stuff he'll need to power his war machine. Everyone's happy. Eventually, we form an alliance. This drags me into Gandhi's tangled mess. He's pretty much pissed off half of the world at this point and I've pissed off nobody, so I now find myself confronted by 3 or 4 civs that hate my guts. Great. What happens next is unbelievable: Gandhi declares war on me and forms an alliance with the people he'd previously been at war with. WTF @ him, but a bigger WTF @ them. What were they thinking!? That would be like if Soviet Russia made an alliance with Nazi Germany to go after the Japanese Empire when the Japanese hadn't yet spilled any Russian blood and the Germans had already killed 500,000 Russian soldiers. So what do I do? I don't remember all of the details, but eventually war is called off, I've survived, and Gandhi is very pissed at me. Needless to say, our alliance is over and done with. But what happens next just floors me: he sends troops to the perimeter of one of my colonies, I defeat the troops on neutral soil, and the world just EXPLODES in rage at me. Every nation accuses me of being a warmongerer. Even though HE Sent the troops. Even though HE'S the big douchebag. You'd think the AI would have realized: 1. Gandhi is a douchebag. Let's eliminate him. 2. Talon is a nice guy. Maybe we can milk the sucker, but regardless, no need to declare war on him. 3. Talon was just defending himself from Gandhi's militant advances. We'd have done the same. But no. The AI is purposely designed, even at the easiest levels, to treat the player as Public Enemy #1. It makes a diplomatic style of play completely worthless and convinces me that Sid Meier only ever plays his baby one way, despite his many claioms to the contrary: and that's hardcore, Genghis Khan, "rape, pillage, and murder"-style barbarism. I have no doubt Sid played as the Zulu in Civ 3. No fucking doubt whatsoever.
__________________
|
02-22-2011, 12:27 PM | #31 |
The hostess with the mostess
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 226,522
|
Was thinking of playing a Civ game. As a new person to the series, which one should I pick up first?
|
02-22-2011, 02:46 PM | #32 | |
Soul Badge
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Saskatchewan, Canada
Posts: 1,488
|
Haha, I don't remember the specifics of Civ 3's diplomacy system, but that sounds about right. In Civ 4 and 5, Gandhi is THE neighbour that you want to have. He's friendly and hardly builds any military. This means that he isn't a threat, and you can easily steamroll him when his usefulness expires and you just want his nice cities full of wonders.
Quote:
That's another thing that sucks, I have no one to play Civ 5 with. No one's around to share the experience of carpet nuking the AI's whole empire!
__________________
Smoking Gary sez: "Stay in school kidz" |
|
02-22-2011, 06:58 PM | #33 |
Dominator of Bike Levels
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 3,321
|
Play Civ 2, then my dad would have someone to play with.
__________________
The Kim Il Sung of ASB. |
02-22-2011, 08:19 PM | #34 |
We deny our creators.
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Reduces construction time
Posts: 3,070
|
I would start Civ 5 first, if only because I find the combat system in that to actually be somewhat tactical and comprehensible (versus "hurr my stack is bigger than your stack my strategy is besterest"). I've always been a casual Civ fan though, so take that for what you will.
__________________
"It does not matter anymore. We cannot change the past. The future will have to do."
-Windham Khatib |
02-23-2011, 01:09 PM | #35 |
Soul Badge
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Saskatchewan, Canada
Posts: 1,488
|
Civilization 2 didn't have multiplayer, but I believe there's mods out there that do.
I agree that Civ 5's new "one unit per tile" rule makes combat so much better, but it has its own flaws. It makes the late game tedious as you have to maneuver all your units around each other. In previous games you could just throw everything into the stack of doom. But then, Civilization games have always been notorious for having tedious endgames. Civ 5 - You have so many units and have to figure out where to put them. Civ 4 - The city governors aren't as good as Civ 5's, so you have to heavily micro all your cities to make sure they have the specialists you want, work the tiles you want, and population doesn't exceed the happiness/pollution caps. Civs 2 and 3 - Microing cities is even more essential, since city production will completely stop if population exceeds the happiness cap. You also have to clean up pollution with workers. Civ 1 - This game is nice and simple and has lots of retro charm, but IT'S ALSO A HUGE PAIN IN THE ASS. Moving individual units across vast stretches of railroad is the goddamn worst. For newcomers: Don't let my previous posts talking about the game's high learning curve scare you off. It's still an awesome series. Just be prepared to get rocked, and play on low difficulty levels until you figure out what you're doing.
__________________
Smoking Gary sez: "Stay in school kidz" |
05-26-2012, 07:37 AM | #36 |
時の彼方へ
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Lafayette, Indiana
Posts: 20,578
|
Morg mentioned that this game is available through Steam to try for free this weekend and (iirc) is 75% off should you choose to keep it. Or something. In any event, it's on sale.
Over one year later, how would you say the game fares? How much has the fan community supported this title? How does it compare, one year later, against its predecessors? You laid the case for comparison last year but I'm interested to know how many (if any) of Civ 5's weaknesses have been addressed either by official patches or by fan community mods.
__________________
|
05-26-2012, 08:55 AM | #37 |
Soul Badge
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Saskatchewan, Canada
Posts: 1,488
|
As it stands now, the game is bug free, but it still falls short of Civ 4's glory. After the disappointing reception of Civ 5, the cock-sure lead designer, Jon Shafer, left the company (or was forced to resign, rumours say). The game might redeem itself when the expansion Gods and Kings is released next month. Some people forget that Civ 4 never became a truly good game until the 2nd expansion was released, Beyond the Sword. I like everything I've read about Gods and Kings. They're bringing back stuff to make it more like Civ 4, such as religion and espionage. It will probably push Civ 5 over the top and surpass its predecessor at last. I especially like how they're changing up city states. Right now, city states are just something you can throw money at, then they all become your friends, and you'll subsequently win the game by "diplomatic victory". It looks like in Gods and Kings, the only way you can curry their favour is by doing stuff for them when they ask for help. This will make diplomacy much more interesting, as you'll really have to pick and choose who to be friends with, why, and how.
I hope they bring in some better music too. The bombastic classical music from Civ 4 really got me pumped to fire cannons at lines of soldiers. Civ 5's music is ambient and pleasant ... too pleasant. It has the effect of putting me to sleep. And just bring back Baba Yetu already, goddamn!
__________________
Smoking Gary sez: "Stay in school kidz" Last edited by McSweeney; 05-26-2012 at 08:57 AM. |
05-26-2012, 12:56 PM | #38 |
beebooboobopbooboobop
|
I'm probably the minority, but I like stacking units. Granted, I'm not very good at this game, but I tried Civ 5 yesterday and not being able to put two units on the same tile was pretty annoying when I was trying to move my Space Race crap onto my city (a worker was asleep on my capital city and it didn't show it). I also didn't like how you had to buy land to expand rather than just expanding based on culture.
Anyway, if someone can explain why these two things are actually worse than the system in Civ 5, that'd be appreciated as well.
__________________
|
05-26-2012, 01:25 PM | #39 |
Soul Badge
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Saskatchewan, Canada
Posts: 1,488
|
One unit per tile is annoying at times, but it is vastly superior when it comes to strategic complexity, trust me. Wars in Civ 5 are way more fun than 4, because you actually have to think about say: the logistical problem of assaulting a city surrounded by mountains and hilly terrain (with enemy artillery perched on said hills). In Civ 4, stuff like that barely matters at all.
And you don't HAVE to buy land. It's optional. Cities still expand with culture like normal. I encourage others to check this game out for themselves while it's free! It's already superior to Civ 4 in some aspects. Once the expansion comes out, it will have total superiority. Then all the cool kids will switch over. If you're new to Civilization, just play on a low difficulty and have fun with it.
__________________
Smoking Gary sez: "Stay in school kidz" |
05-26-2012, 01:39 PM | #40 |
beebooboobopbooboobop
|
Yeah, but you got one tile at a time which is annoying. I'll give it another shot.
__________________
|
06-05-2012, 01:44 PM | #41 |
Not sure if gone...
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Or just lurking.
Posts: 2,709
|
I bought this game when it was 75% off on Steam. I really like it, though I can't really compare it to Civ 3 since I only played a little of that game, and never played any of the other Civs.
I've already won a Space Victory (the year is 1980?) and am going for a Cultural Victory and then a Military Victory. I'm playing on the lowest difficulty setting, though... so the city states are more technologically advanced than my opponents, whom I've mostly wiped out. These games take a really long time to play. 20 hours to get the space victory? Wtf? Anyone have any tips? |
06-05-2012, 03:05 PM | #42 | |
beebooboobopbooboobop
|
Quote:
__________________
|
|
06-05-2012, 03:19 PM | #43 |
Not sure if gone...
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Or just lurking.
Posts: 2,709
|
I guess my other problem was that I was trying to do literally everything in the game - exploration, new units, new buildings, diplomacy, etc. So you guys usually focus your efforts when going for a certain victory?
|
06-05-2012, 03:24 PM | #44 |
beebooboobopbooboobop
|
It's what I usually do. I also usually invest in some defense units if I'm not going for a Conquest/Domination victory.
__________________
|
06-05-2012, 04:02 PM | #45 |
時の彼方へ
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Lafayette, Indiana
Posts: 20,578
|
I have found that it takes me 5+ hours to win just one game and I usually go for the as-quick-as-possible victory by conquering most of the world map. The one time I tried for the United Nations or the space race victory, I'm pretty sure it took me 10+ hours of gameplay to do it. I was not surprised to hear Amras say it took him 20 hours and I'll be damned if there's a way he can get it to under 5.
__________________
|
06-05-2012, 04:19 PM | #47 |
時の彼方へ
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Lafayette, Indiana
Posts: 20,578
|
Well, I'm talking Civ 3, in case it makes any difference. That was the last one I played. For me, Civ 3 was always won fastest by just emulating Napoleon and fucking steamrolling everybody. Either kill or be killed. More often than not I would be killed (lots of 2nd and 3rd places) but it was either that or shoot for the other ways to win. And they all sucked and took forever. Way faster to conquer people militarily than to tech-tree it up sufficiently to get either the UN or the rocket launch. The best was always starting on a map that had me and (at most) two other nations on a large continent-island that wasn't connected to any of the other land masses. Immediately conquer one of them during the Stone Age, keep the other one cowering in fear and basically being my trading bitch -- "give me great deals or I invade you!" -- and use that to tech tree it up faster than any of the other nations could elsewhere in the world. Be the first to discover far-ocean sailing and grab as much unoccupied land for myself as possible. And then just spend this time resource bunkering down and building tons and tons and tons of pre-Industrial Revolution-era soldiers.
Perhaps they fixed it in Civ 4 and Civ 5. That would be nice. It would be nice for a change if you could win by being metropolitan (best landmarks, best resources, most urban cities) instead of wasting your time doing that only to get invaded by and conquered by Thtinky the Unthtoppable with his societal intellect of 2 but military power of 9,999.
__________________
|
06-05-2012, 04:22 PM | #48 |
Mrow?
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: Camping the White Market
Posts: 6,938
|
Civ 3 takes forever to win. I've only one time beaten that game in less than 6 hours. I played Rome, got Legionnaires almost immediately, and proceeded to steamroll everything because the game set me up on basically a pangea. And even that took like 3 hours.
|
06-05-2012, 04:33 PM | #49 |
時の彼方へ
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Lafayette, Indiana
Posts: 20,578
|
Then maybe I just picked the wrong game to join in on. I dunno. It definitely left such a bad taste that I've never ever ever ever ever wanted to return to the franchise. If Civ 5 were all fixed and if it had the Beyond the Sword equivalent for its generation and if it were completely free to play, even then I'm not sure I'd install it (hard pressed for longterm hard drive space right now), that's how contaminated my impressions of the franchise are by Civ 3. But I've always thought the idea behind Civ was interesting (how could it not be!?) and I've always wanted to play more scripted fan maps that more closely follow history.
__________________
|
06-05-2012, 04:38 PM | #50 |
Not sure if gone...
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Or just lurking.
Posts: 2,709
|
That reminds me that I should actually try some of their scenarios.
|
Lower Navigation | ||||||
|
Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests) | |
|
|