PLEASE: No Steamworks discussion here. There's already a thread for that. Let's try to keep this thread to gameplay.
Gamespot has some E3 coverage on Civ V. Some of it is still pretty thin, but I like what I'm seeing so far. Particularly now that there's a more visual look at how the one unit per hex & ranged combat systems will work (along with zone of control!), it seems like defending a border will be a lot more practical now.
Also some neat thingsa bout how the AI can react to units massing on the border, how city-states impact gameplay (such as the ability to join alliances with them, or liberate ones others conquered), and the replacement of annoying modal dialogs with notifications.
Any other thoughts?
Alternatively you can just hit 'G' to show/hide hexes.
I just realized it had been telling me what building I just completed the whole time at the bottom of the production menu. Apparently I'm blind....
Now my only real criticism is that I wish i could still see what the other civilizations opinions of me are. I understand that they got rid of the little table full of little modifiers (although I really miss it) but it would be nice to have some better idea if a certain civilization loves me or hates me. Granted I have noticed that civilizations will sometimes send insults my way....that's probably a good sign that they don't like me!
Well, I had the Elemental beta for months and was 1000% behind it, but CIV 5 is hands down better if you have a PC to handle it. For me, both will get play, I'll be playing CIV 5 for the next month until I go on a roadtrip for a few months and then I'll play elemental because it should run decently on my laptop (where CIV V wont). Hopefully, this will give elemental time to "mature" as well.
I have loved stardock for many years, elemental is going to take time to live up to that and I hope it will but CIV V is definitely the bomb for now.
The demo (Civ5) is pretty nice, i like it. Looking forward to buy it on the 1st.
Yeah, the insults are a bit obvious.
In the diplomacy summary screen, I saw one of the civs labeled as "Hostile" but we weren't at war with each other.
Also realise that other nations are missing, havent put them in yet. Maybe just the Demo idk. But i manage to hack into Demo files to make England, Germany and other nations to become playable. The game is great but only play til 100th turn, its possible to hack it to last as long as you wish, better off getting the complete package for epic stuffs.
Really like playing Japaneses
Dammit. I want this game so bad. Come sooner Christmas. Please.
I would wait, there still things missing in that game and some glitches. Most games that come out needed to patch anyway.
So ... I heard the AI was REALLY bad. Is this true??
I mean, it seems like the combat AI would be more easy to "improve" due to the 1 unit per tile. I mean right? Computer AIs can handle chess pretty well, and as for the combat AI, its largely like a game of chess.
You'd think so, but it has to know how to arrange its units in the right tiles, with ranged guarded by melee, and what to pick off. I'd say that the combat AI isn't terribly good at focus firing or things that it needs to do in order to win. But I've also never fought an equal force, because I like to keep a small but high tech army and the AI seems to always be a tech level behind. It doesn't matter how well the AI uses its archers when I'm counterattacking with trebuchets.
Yeah, the AI could use some work.
I was fighting a war with Askia to the south of me (takes 3 turns for units to travel from capital to front) when England declared war. I had to make peace with Askia and start shifting to meet England. I survived the initial onslaught and then France declared. Red and Blue units everywhere. I survived the initial rounds and then it was like they disappeared. Between the two of them they should have easily wiped the floor with me. I was playing on normal, but even then they should have pressed the advantage and wiped me out.
Later I discovered that two city states on the other side of France's empire that I was allied with was tearing it up. Between the two they had captured and razed two French cities, lol. Now I know why France's forces disappeared from the front. As for England, I don't know why.
One thing I'd like to figure out is how to avoid micro-managing workers. From the wars, I captured a lot of workers. I got annoyed with having to continually tell them what to do. However when I set them to automated the forts I built disappeared. Very annoying.
The Ai also runs into difficulties with terrain. It frequently doesn't handle choke points or limited line of sight very well. I've also found that bodies of water can confuse it and lead to it embarked military units that never do anything.
Comparing it to chess is not a good anology though. Part of why chess AI is so good is because on any given turn there are really only a small number of possible moves so it can use brute force math to plan ahead when it's not following a preprogrammed strategy. This is not true in Civ 5 where in a given turn it may have to move 10 different units, each of which can go end up in 15 different places, and each placement effects where the others go in that same turn. This makes it impossible to brute force plan and forces it to use a different strategy.
Really there are very few games where you can use an AI similar to chess because there are very few games where each turn only has 20 or so possible variations.
In Civ 4 there is an option for "automated workers to leave existing improvements alone." Is this not the case for Civ 5?
Civ V is an advanced game that brings the operating system into play; this option can only be turned on in the settings.ini file in your "My Documents\My Games\Sid Meier's Civilization 5" folder.
This is a pretty useful thread Tridus. Thanks for starting it. I've been looking for non-review info to try to figure out if it was worth wasting my bandwidth to try this out or not. The retarded dumbed down combat always turned me off of the Civ games. I liked some of the other concepts behind the Civ games, and I like Alpha Centauri back in it's day, but the combat of the Civ games has by far always been it's weakest area if you ask me.
I don't know why strategy game devs can't just get it through their thick skulls that if they're going to put so much work and detail into the strategy side of a game then the combative options need to have the same depth as the other aspects of the game. Too bad Firaxis and Sid Meier couldn't get together with The Creative Assembly and do a game together. Have Sid and the Firaxis guys do the strategy map and diplomacy aspects and have the TW guys do the combat side of the game. I think those two together could turn out the ultimate strategy game if they put their heads together.
I think Paradox and CA would be a better partnership. Civ is too high level for TW battles. For a game that goes from 3500BC to the future, it makes no sense to have 20 different kinds of spearmen in the game. Also it would take too long to finish a game, and RTS does not fit its genre - for the same reasons Elemental discarded RTS. However, having the strategic depth of a Paradox game, with their ability to make a single historical era play out realistically, would be awesome if combined with TW combat.
As for Civ V combat, the model is great, but the AI can't handle it. It's a shame, because the AI seems to be able to handle the empire building and tech side ok, but having the capacity to build larger armies is useless if it can't organise the formations correctly. The SDK is rumoured to be "just around the corner". If so, it will be a race between the community and Firaxis to see who improves it the fastest. My money is on the community, the Better AI mod in Civ 4 was the best a Civ AI ever achieved.
I can agree with Paradox. I think saying "and RTS does not fit its genre - for the same reasons Elemental discarded RTS" is a matter of opinion really though. Lots of games, especially some of the TW games, do a Awesome job of mixing deep 4X with the RTS battles. Med2 TW, Rome, Empire, all good examples of some good 4X on the strategic campaign map. Elemental's battles were changed to better fit the turn based inspiration and to give a wider depth of strategic choices in battles, not because it didn't really fit, though that too all depends on what kind of a game you're making from the outset. If the makers of the game say "We're making a game with deep 4x turn based gameplay with real time strategic battles" then it fits because they say it does because that's what they set out to make.
When getting back into Elemental's gameplay, we're going to be seeing a Lot of changes in the battles between now and the first and second expansions. I don't think they'll take it back to real time, but many of the aspects they have planned would fit it if they chose to re-examine that aspect later down the road. I'm still ecstatically happy about what Brad and I discussed last week .
Back to CivV talk though . Is it any good?
Single player is, yeah. The new combat model works a lot better, the unique leader traits are a LOT more interesting then the old model, and the city states are good at stirring up trouble (and then helping you if you bail them out). The AI needs work though, and MP support is... well, it's functional. But it's a step back from Civ 4 in that area, in particular how the AI gets weaker in MP games for some reason.
Yeah. I declare war on a far away India state in order to support Japan who asked me for that. After 10-15 turns India ask for 10 turn peace giving me 1650 gold. Wow! I have 2 questions: why they do that? how to accumulate that much gold at the middle age era?
Things I've noticed about the changes.
Roads. They seem to be more strategic now. They have a 1 gp maintenance cost so building them all over seems counter productive.
Production. It seems to me that the production times are taking longer. Or is it the turns themselves?
I do like the new layout. My wife is even getting interested. It's easier to handle for a "non-gamer."
They mainly exist to connect cities to your capital for a trade route to generate extra gold. Harbors can be built on coastal cities to link them to your capital if it also has a harbor without having to build a road, but units also travel much faster on them.
Yeah. It appears that you no longer need to build roads to special resources either.
Roads cost even outside of your territory, which took a while to work out since the info didn't match up properly but furtuher testing proves it does.
Or does it? I totaly don't know anymore the info presented in game is... lacking.
Interesting point. I should try that out tonight at home. might be a loophole.
according to the devs hands-on video, roads in neutral territory still incur a maintenance fee for the civ that built the roads.
There are many great features available to you once you register, including:
Sign in or Create Account
