While I understand why they removed it, I still kind of miss the ability to buy cities wholesale (finance revolts) in Civ 2 if your economy was strong enough. It was a simple way to expand your influence without causing a major incident (unless you wanted to).
Civilization V
- Thread starter Hermiod
- Start date
Yeah, that was always fun. One thing I never liked about the diplomacy AI in any version is that real horse-trading would never happen unless one side completely outclassed the other--which would result in the superior side demanding cities and tribute.
In the real world, a bloody war with good odds on stalemate would result in significant trades on both sides: territory, goods, money, etc. In Civ IV I could occasionally get civilizations to trade cities to me, but again--only when I totally outclassed them and the city was indefensible to begin with.
IIRC, Civ V also removed the ability to culturally annex nearby cities that belong to other nations - something which I enjoyed doing as I was going for a culture victory. I also miss the use of religion in the culture wars as well. It was an extra dynamic that added to the mix. But I agree, the combat is definitely more fluid with this new system.
I had a bit of the opposite experience yesterday that also demonstrates how much better the combat is. I was trying to take an English city that was past a choke point, made even more difficult by a mountain I had to maneuver around. It was during the medieval period so the English had Longbowmen instead of crossbows... which aside from being a big stronger, also have a range of 3 instead of the standard 2. Given the location this gave the English a huge tactical advantage that I wasn't prepared for so despite my superior numbers and slightly superior technology I was simply unable to take the city. I couldn't get units in fast and in large enough number to get passed their ranged defenses. Because of my poor planning and the terrain I had no choice but to pull out of that war.
In Civ IV, I just would have had to build a massive stack and move it in. No tactics, no planning beyond building enough units. It would have been much easier to take the city, but also much less interesting and certainly less complex.
Incidentally, I played that whole game from start to finish without stopping for a time of about 7 hours. I think I need to give Civ 5 a rest for a few days for my sanity's sake
^^^ Heh - it is addicting. I had two 6 hour sessions last weekend. Wiped out the Arabs, English and Indians. Arabs were the most aggressive and a VERY tough nut to crack. The English were a little more weak and the Indians only had their capital city after England took all the others. Love this game!
My only REAL complaint is this game's frequent need for a map refresh, graying out the tiles and slowing down the movement every time the refresh moves up the screen. Several patches have marginally sped it up in the past year but it's still dog-ass slow.
My only REAL complaint is this game's frequent need for a map refresh, graying out the tiles and slowing down the movement every time the refresh moves up the screen. Several patches have marginally sped it up in the past year but it's still dog-ass slow.
I never cared much about religion as a cultural thing, I always used it as a political tool. I would always switch to the state religion of my most powerful neighbour to get in their good books and then spread that religion around my empire as much as I could. You know, like the way religion used to work in the real world.
It's a pity that it wasn't included, city states aren't as interesting politically.Another major thing I miss is the old happiness system. Happiness working on the city level made more sense than it does working on a civilization-wide basis, and it forced you to deal with the cities as separate entities with different needs. Unhappiness in one city used to cripple production there and forced you to deal with the problem, but in Civ 5 one city can be full of unhappy people and the problem can be ignored so long as happiness is high enough in all the other cities.
I'm glad this thread was bumped. I think the game's improved a lot since it started. If you have money to shell out for the DLC, there are two new ones coming out (one involving the Seven Wonders of the World and probably Sumeria, the other involving Korea). If not, I think the game is solid these days. When they started, I think they removed some of Civ4's strategies (involving religion, etc), but didn't really replace them. Now they've found good synergy with the social policy system, city-states, and new small wonders they've added with patches.
I still think Civ4 is the best strategy game ever, but Civ5 is quite a lot of fun. The combat is heads and shoulders above and the production value with the uniqueness of each civ (including leaders, audio, as well as play style) is quite good.
I still think Civ4 is the best strategy game ever, but Civ5 is quite a lot of fun. The combat is heads and shoulders above and the production value with the uniqueness of each civ (including leaders, audio, as well as play style) is quite good.
Patches have improved it quite a bit. They'll still make some tactical mistakes in battle, but a human can always outsmart an AI in combat. They generally don't make game breaking mistakes (worse case, they'll lose a catapult, not their army). But they're pretty good at defense these days and are capable at offensive attacks to take cities. The rest of the AI was good for the most part and still is.
Are the DLC civilizations worth it? I'm reluctant to get them as it seems like they're nickel and diming us for things that would be cheaper together in a full expansion pack, but I do miss the variety of civilizations and leaders from Civ IV.
They're relatively cheap, so I don't feel the cost when I buy piecemeal. Buying together is a bit different. The thing is, the production value is much higher. Seeing Isabella speaking Spanish or Pachacuti speaking Quechua or Harald speaking Danish is quite good (and the animation is usually beautiful). In the end, it's more variety. I'd argue the value per Civ is higher, but the value per dollar is less if that makes sense. In other words, you would certainly get more content with expansion packs, but I think each civ in the expansion back has more substance to it. Each one plays very differently and it's just cool seeing them in game.
At first I didn't like Steam and the idea of DLCs, but now I've come to like it. In fact, some of the best Civs are DLC civs. Playing the Inca's on a Highlands map almost seems like cheating because the Incas are so overpowered around mountains/hills. And Babylon with what can be a turn 30 academy is just outrageous.
I don't know what's causing it, but I can guess what it's related to. When you hit Satellites, the entire map gets revealed. My guess is your system isn't used able to handle it. What map size are you playing on?
I tried Huge to Small, did it every time. I can't figure out why it would have that kind of problem, I've got quad core 3ghZ, 4gb of ram and a Radeon 5770, not bleeding edge by any means but it runs most everything else without complaint. It just turns the whole map into pixel soup...
For those interested, Two More DLC are being added
Korea looks like it'll be a lot of fun. Good to have another science civ.
Wonders of the Ancient World definitely will be interesting. However, it'll complicate multiplayer (or it would if they ever made it so people with DLC can play multiplayer). Still, three new wonders, new wonder art, and a new scenario should be fun.
Korea looks like it'll be a lot of fun. Good to have another science civ.
Wonders of the Ancient World definitely will be interesting. However, it'll complicate multiplayer (or it would if they ever made it so people with DLC can play multiplayer). Still, three new wonders, new wonder art, and a new scenario should be fun.
If you want to wait, there might be another steam sale in a month or two. Certainly, things like the map packs or Wonders pack are better on sale (although not bad when bundled).
Hoser, just a thought. Have you tried strategic view? Not the most pretty way to play, but it's something that would get the job done when it's that late in the game and you've invested that much.
I had a similar experience last night. There was a small region of desert between myself, India and England that nobody had settled, but when I discovered biology an oil resource was revealed there right next to the English border. Working on the principle that you can never have too much oil, I sent a settler there and claimed the area, but this annoyed the English who declared war on me three turns later. England only had three cities (London, York and Nottingham) and I had a significant tech lead over them (they were using swordsmen and longbows while I had musketmen, cavalry and cannons) so after dealing with their pathetic assault on my new city I decided to march on and take their entire civilization.
What I didn't realise was that they had the Great Wall which meant that my units were slowed down in their territory. Combine that with the increased range of the longbows and it led to a major quagmire because even my cavalry units weren't fast enough to catch the longbowmen who stayed just out of range sniping my units. What followed was a war of attrition where I was fighting to take and hold every single tile on the way to York. I only managed to take the city after my first infantry units reached the front, but by that point 2/3 of my army was killed and I was in no position to march on, so I was forced to settle for peace. It was frustrating in one sense but way more engaging than stack warfare.
Similar threads
