*Official* Civilization V thread Page 3

  • Page

    of 59 First / Last

  • Khanivor 18 Feb 2010 20:03:08 40,381 posts
    Seen 1 hour ago
    Registered 12 years ago
    I really hope they add some stuff into the late middle period of the game so it remains involving. My favourite part of a game of Civ is always the start. Once it sets into a routine it can get a bit bloody tedious.
  • ronuds 18 Feb 2010 20:05:37 21,788 posts
    Seen 11 months ago
    Registered 8 years ago
    I'm with Khani. The start is always the best - discovering new land and such. By the end, it's more a matter of finding all of those bastard cities so you can destroy them over having fun.
  • Hunam 18 Feb 2010 20:05:49 20,674 posts
    Seen 14 minutes ago
    Registered 8 years ago
    I prefer the middle to end, once the countries have stable borders then it becomes about mass production of forces behind an iron curtain and basically developing each city for it's purpose. Then they learn why they don't try and strong arm the one country that refuses to abide by nuclear proliferation.
  • kalel 18 Feb 2010 20:09:02 86,329 posts
    Seen 20 minutes ago
    Registered 11 years ago
    Red Moose wrote:
    kalel wrote:
    coastal wrote:
    The only problem i have with Civ is that i end up always playing one strategy. All peace until muskets appear, war for a hundred years, give up - sign peace treaty.. wait for marines to appear and then war again to the end. Perhaps this time i'll learn out to eke out the best from my cities.

    I tend to go:

    - Determinded to play peacefully and win via peaceful means
    - Expand as much as I can
    - Build up my army in case of attack
    - Realise I'm really powerful and I might as well start a war
    - Realise I'm not as powerful as I thought I was and regret starting war
    - Make peace
    - Win space race

    That is pointless. It's always been far more efficient to take over already existing enemy cities and use their resources. Your utopian peace-lovers always get their asses kicked, because a few modern cities are useless against the hordes of unwashed medieval warriors.

    I've never really understood how people play as warmongers from the early game. If I don't delay war until I'm pretty much in the mid game, then I either aren't powerful enough to get anywhere, or I spend so long waging war I fall behind in my general progress as a civilisation.

    Unless you mean it's pointless to start war at the point at which I start it, which I know, but I just get a bit bored otherwise.
  • Hunam 18 Feb 2010 20:12:19 20,674 posts
    Seen 14 minutes ago
    Registered 8 years ago
    The thing about early game wars is that you can kill a state outright quite quickly. There is no real infrastructure behind funneling units in the early game so if you get the right research you can just rush them and knock a leader out right off the bat.
  • Deleted user 18 February 2010 20:12:40
    I just hope there's some some game speed slower than marathon, something along the lines of 1 turn equals 1 year, from the beginning :)

    /has no life
  • JoeBlade 18 Feb 2010 20:18:32 2,488 posts
    Seen 7 minutes ago
    Registered 11 years ago
    kalel wrote:
    I've never really understood how people play as warmongers from the early game. If I don't delay war until I'm pretty much in the mid game, then I either aren't powerful enough to get anywhere, or I spend so long waging war I fall behind in my general progress as a civilisation.
    Early war is often cited as the silver bullet of civilisation but in my experience it is far too easily thwarted. A protective or creative target, cities on hills, early unique units, unexpected counter-units to your attack force, targets too far away, being dogpiled by other opportunistic neighbours, etc; there's a plethora of things that can go wrong.
    And when you're harbouring a stack of units that costs a heap of money and no means of putting it to use you'll end up lagging behind technologically.

    Yes, it's plain glorious when it works, but that's just not very often the case.
  • kalel 18 Feb 2010 20:23:48 86,329 posts
    Seen 20 minutes ago
    Registered 11 years ago
    Yup, that's my experience. Every time I think I'll take out a small civilisation early doors they turn out to have more cities across the water or something. It's worked for me a handful of times and even then I tend to fall behind in other areas.

    Then again I really suck at Civ so...
  • Deleted user 18 February 2010 20:27:22
    Which Civ had the full explanations of what you were building, creating, investigating etc, not just the effect it has on the game? I'm sure it was two, but I hope they include that.
  • RedSparrows 18 Feb 2010 21:34:05 22,023 posts
    Seen 16 minutes ago
    Registered 7 years ago
    I like my epic games. 24 civs, giant Earth map, diplomatic and space victories disabled, GO!

    Although by the end game the wars take so long I get bored and quit.
  • RedSparrows 18 Feb 2010 21:35:56 22,023 posts
    Seen 16 minutes ago
    Registered 7 years ago
    hiddenranbir wrote:
    My first ever civ win was conquest. Man, I remember having some epic wars, back and forths...

    Even remember the hard lesson how important managing economy in terms of funding research. When China nuked my city which had militia for defence...and when I hadn't realised you could fortify them inside the city, so I always made a defensive ring of them instead.

    Good times.


    On Civ 1 I covered an entire continent with Militia. I had no idea what I was doing. But I survived for centuries. I think they even killed some tanks, as they were so well fortified ;o
  • Bloodloss 18 Feb 2010 21:46:25 4,499 posts
    Seen 8 months ago
    Registered 7 years ago
    Fuck yes!!

    Khanivor wrote:
    I really hope they add some stuff into the late middle period of the game so it remains involving. My favourite part of a game of Civ is always the start. Once it sets into a routine it can get a bit bloody tedious.

    Agreed. I find myself loading up a game in the middle and missing the early exploring etc, and restarting it. As a result I rarely finish games.

    Also agree about wars. The defender just seems to have a massive advantage and I'll be at his city's gates with a huge army, baffled at all the losses I'll take from his 2 archers. And the upkeep costs/time it takes to haul all the reinforcements across the map just make it a very painful experience for me.

    One thing I hope they add/modify is unique buildings and traits etc. Basically I really like civilizations being as different as possible without ruining the balance. It annoys me that, for instance, the English Red Coat UU is barely any different from the unit it replaces.
  • the_dudefather 18 Feb 2010 22:33:17 9,193 posts
    Seen 11 minutes ago
    Registered 9 years ago
    playing with small isalnds can be fun, you have your own little world that you build, not knowing what horrors or riches lie beyond your reach until you get better ships or when you get swallowed up by an unknown empire that comes over the horizon

    (ง ͠ ͟ʖ ͡)

  • dsmx 18 Feb 2010 22:33:55 7,555 posts
    Seen 5 minutes ago
    Registered 9 years ago
    This time can they make an AI that can win without making so it can research tech quicker than you?

    "If we hit that bullseye the rest of the dominoes will fall like a a house of cards, checkmate." Zapp Brannigan

  • Deleted user 18 February 2010 22:35:02
    Early wars are a bad idea. You usually sink far too much into ridiculous odds (if they have archers defending the city then you're pretty much shit out of luck until you've advanced an age), for little benefit other than 'one less competitor'. Meanwhile everyone else has expanded beyond you and is automatically hesitant towards you because they psychically know you destroyed another nation.
  • WrongShui 18 Feb 2010 23:38:56 6,598 posts
    Seen 2 hours ago
    Registered 9 years ago
    The same game again for the fifth time and I'm still looking forward to it.

    Can we go past the space age yet?
  • dsmx 19 Feb 2010 00:17:37 7,555 posts
    Seen 5 minutes ago
    Registered 9 years ago
    Well switching to hexagons does open up the ability to make 3d shapes with them and space is 3d so there is a possibility. I hope they do go into space and do it properly and not let it turn into the spore version which ended up with you constantly defending your planets.

    "If we hit that bullseye the rest of the dominoes will fall like a a house of cards, checkmate." Zapp Brannigan

  • dsmx 19 Feb 2010 01:49:17 7,555 posts
    Seen 5 minutes ago
    Registered 9 years ago
    I know that civ 4 is a better game in every way so why did it not grab me like civ 3 did?

    This is a worry I have about civ 5, along with it being published by 2k who are a bunch of morons.

    "If we hit that bullseye the rest of the dominoes will fall like a a house of cards, checkmate." Zapp Brannigan

  • Genji 19 Feb 2010 02:08:03 19,691 posts
    Seen 2 years ago
    Registered 10 years ago
    /just read about this

    ....HEXAGONS?!?

    Evidently, eight directions were just too much to handle for the casual Civ fans. If there is such a thing as a casual Civ fan. ;)
  • dsmx 19 Feb 2010 02:19:00 7,555 posts
    Seen 5 minutes ago
    Registered 9 years ago
    Hexagons would result in town catchment areas being circular instead of that weird 2 in every direction but diagonal thing they have going on. Although it does raise the question that you won't be using the num pad anymore to move about so are we going to have to use the mouse for movement?

    "If we hit that bullseye the rest of the dominoes will fall like a a house of cards, checkmate." Zapp Brannigan

  • Page

    of 59 First / Last

Log in or register to reply