Civilization V- Might actually be good now. Stay tuned.

[March]

Japan offered me EVERYTHING (a town, all of their gold, all gold they were making, all resources) they owned except the Kyoto last night. I took it, waited out the peace treaty, then ran all over them. I have to say it took me a little by surprise, too.

Now that you mention it... and here I was thinking, "Finally, a game AI that appreciates my strategic and tactical genius"  

[Murgos]

Ah, thanks.

Actually now I'm thinking the units the game wouldn't present as having moves available were the units I tried to move out of their range, so double thanks!

Nah, I have a couple of War Chariots that won't get their rotation in the movement and command phase until I go hunt them down on the map and click them.

[Quinton]

Okay, dumb question -- what's the first naval unit that can carry ground units over water and/or what technology do I need to accomplish this?  I've got a nice start on an island but it's time to expand and I can't find the path to do that...

[Tannhauser]

I'm having the same issues, I'm putting it down to my fault for now.

One thing I keep doing is trying to move my units overland when I can more easily embark them and move them by sea.  Such a radical change and not sank in yet I guess.  

[dusematic]

There are no longer naval transports.  Once you research (sailing?) you can simply move the units onto the water.

[Quinton]

Aha, the "embark" action.  Wow.  That had me completely baffled.  Thanks!

[dusematic]

Sooooooo, does anyone know how to access the "behind the scenes" vid thatw as supposed to come with Steam digital deluxe?  Can't fucking find it anywhere unless it's buried in the folder somewhere.

[Tarami]

There are no longer naval transports.  Once you research (sailing?) you can simply move the units onto the water.

Yep. Sailing for Embark, then Navigation to be able to cross Ocean tiles.

[Lantyssa]

In my last game I liberated the German capital from someone and they came back into the game.  They didn't act particularly pre-disposed to me, however their existence didn't stop me from getting a conquer victory.  They seemed to be a city-state capable of diplomacy at that point.

[MrHat]

In my last game I liberated the German capital from someone and they came back into the game.  They didn't act particularly pre-disposed to me, however their existence didn't stop me from getting a conquer victory.  They seemed to be a city-state capable of diplomacy at that point.

Honestly, it feels like the whole diplomacy thing was cut until it was ready.  I was reading on the 2K forums, and it makes it sound like they're are planning on patching in a bunch of stuff that they didn't have time for.  Stupid Publisher, I gladly would've waited until December for proper diplomacy.

I love the city-state diplomacy options mostly due to the fact that there's a giant number I can see that makes my actions with them known to me.  

I gifted like 400g, luxeries and plenty of other things to some civs because I was trying to bribe a defensive pact, just to see if there were still options to become a vassalage. Did they take that out too?

 I did this same thing:

Japan offered me EVERYTHING (a town, all of their gold, all gold they were making, all resources) they owned except Kyoto last night. I took it, waited out the peace treaty, then ran all over them. I have to say it took me a little by surprise, too.

But gladly would've allowed them to stay if I knew that it was going to matter to some vote or something later.  As far as I can tell, the only bad thing from doing this is you get called 'bloodthirsty' by the other civs.

It just seems like they left out complication in the game hoping that modders will simply add it in.  I mean, seriously? Satellites don't reveal the map?

[Miasma]

Well I'm far less angry about the unskippable intro movie now that I know it's actually loading.  This could be used as the latest benchmarking tool for computers.  I get all the way to the word "lush" before it's done, damn vista.

[Reg]

Someone just gave out this link over at the Civ 5 thread at Qt3. It's pretty funny stuff.

clicky

[WayAbvPar]

Someone just gave out this link over at the Civ 5 thread at Qt3. It's pretty funny stuff.

clicky

That was brilliant. Made me LOL several times.

[Quinton]

12 unhappiness is not fun.

I dunno why my people are unhappy.  I am the British.  I created a huge armada and invaded France.  Seriously, what's not to like about that?

(Okay, I accidentally subjugated a few cities I probably should have left as puppets.  Still!)

[Pezzle]

Two games so far.  My first was Greek, no iron, coal, aluminum or uranium near any of my cities when I revealed them.  My second game is Japan and the pattern is repeating.  I think the game hates me!

[Muffled]

RE no resources near your cities: I've noticed this as well.  I believe the standard seeding algorithm biases your starting area against strategic resources, I guess to force you to expand or trade for them.  I'd have to run a ton of games to really test it though, and I'm nowhere near that dedicated.

Edit: it occurs to me that it may be civilization specific as well.  I was pretty well supplied with iron as Rome, and very horse heavy as Arabia.  Hmmmm...

[Comstar]

In my 2 games so far all the oil, uranium and aluminium has appeared in areas I'd already conquered. None appears in my howe cities. Also the city states tended to get 1 of them.

[Triforcer]

Someone just gave out this link over at the Civ 5 thread at Qt3. It's pretty funny stuff.

clicky

That was brilliant. Made me LOL several times.

Didn't crack a smile most of the way, but the Lion King bit got me.

[Tarami]

The new combat. I like it, in general, except for:

a) Ranged attacks are not ranged enough. Woods, heights or pretty much anything but plains make them too hard to use, especially since the majority of the units are completely defenseless. There's no point in ranged units being ranged if you have to park them right next to the enemy.

b) Units are still too important for the defense of cities, as the city artillery is far too puny to discourage enemies from capturing your workers and pillaging your lands. Basically it would have been better to have a "miltia unit" that was leashed to the city by distance. That way you could atleast have been a little proactive with the defense of your city. Passive defenses are an ill fit for Civilization, I think.

c) Lack of multi-select. I really, really want to be able to select multiple units because often it's not that important exactly where they end up standing. Jumping back and forth between two points in order to move the 10+ units you need for an invasion becomes tedious quickly.

d) Excessive unit sprawl. Not stacking in the open is one thing, but it would really, really help if you could atleast stack them in cities. They needn't contribute to combat, they just need to be hidden away. Having a pile of units fortified in the middle of nowhere (normally in a desert) "just in case" looks stupid.

[Quinton]

d) Excessive unit sprawl. Not stacking in the open is one thing, but it would really, really help if you could atleast stack them in cities. They needn't contribute to combat, they just need to be hidden away. Having a pile of units fortified in the middle of nowhere (normally in a desert) "just in case" looks stupid.

I've been doing mostly naval combat this game, and I actually like the look of my carrier group (escorting the carrier are two destroyers and four ships of the line!)

I haven't quite wrapped my head around how to expand sanely -- I think I may have founded too many cities too soon or I'm not just not raising enough cash fast enough to balance the upkeep on all my buildings (many of which I need to keep my people happy).

[Tannhauser]

Yes, watch your expansion.  Building roads costs 1gp per hex, 2 with railroad and you can get in debt in a hurry.  So far  puppet states are working out well for me, lowering my costs.  Still having a bit of trouble increasing production, taking a lot of turns to build anything.

[Sky]

The lack of stacking, even stacking units that can stack, is bothering the hell out of me. Why can't my settler and warrior stack for movement? That's just hassling the player who is playing by the rules! Or stacking a commander and a military unit?

Also bothering me, even more, the inability to move by keypad into a space occupied by another unit, even if you have enough movement to move out of that space before the turn ends. Really, the whole inability to move units through because of anti-stack rules makes the game a pain in the ass. I have two roads through mountainous terrain, and it's like some kind of wild west where one wagon has to pull off the side of the road and wait for the other unit to move through, wasting a couple turns in the interim, hassling me via micromanagement and slowing down gameplay.

I'm trying to play the game as if it's a new TBS and not Civ, it's slightly more fun that way, and I am enjoying it somewhat. I really can't believe it shipped in this state, though. Built an acadamy (great scientist building) on a shoreline, it kind of fades off into the sea. Really?

[Muffled]

Balancing 'hammers' against gold production is the central problem of the city building aspect of the game, for me.  I'm considering science and culture as a distant third/fourth in importance.

Sky - I've found just setting a go-to command for the unit and forgetting about it works out pretty well, and keeps me from pulling out my hair about the movement restrictions.  Out on the battle front where a one or two square difference matters I'm going to be micromanaging everything any way, so it's not a huge issue there.

Tarami - I think the city bombard is mainly there to provide a defender's advantage, and not really to murder stray units.  It allows your warrior to beat their warrior 1 on 1, as long as you bombard it first, or for your city to push away an archer that's plinking away at it.  As for the ranged system, I actually like it exactly as is.  Firing one extra hex away would be a bit too powerful, particularly for things like chariot archers or artillery; you'd never be able to effectively hit them back without your own, equal, ranged units.  I've been using archers mainly as a first strike for my melee types, not as dedicated killers.  One or two shots makes even higher tier units vulnerable to a frontal attack.  Then again, it's not hard to abuse the hell out of the A.I.  And I do.  

[bhodi]

The lack of stacking, even stacking units that can stack, is bothering the hell out of me. Why can't my settler and warrior stack for movement? That's just hassling the player who is playing by the rules! Or stacking a commander and a military unit?

Um, it can?  You can have one combat and one non-combat (settler, worker, great leader) unit per square. Unless you mean attaching non-combat to a warrior unit; I would be surprised if this didn't get added - the help bubble even suggests you should be able to. I wonder if it got scrapped or just wasn't finished in time for release. The keypad thing would annoy, but I switched to right-click move after Civ 3.

[Comstar]

The lack of stacking, even stacking units that can stack, is bothering the hell out of me. Why can't my settler and warrior stack for movement? That's just hassling the player who is playing by the rules! Or stacking a commander and a military unit?

You can, in fact it's the only way to keep a Military leader alive near hostile ranged units. The AI will target them when they are alone, as I discovered when I drove General Zukov took close to the Russian Artillery batteries.

I'm reading lots of posts from people complaining about the AI being dumb, but often it ends up the AI was giving the player the finger after losing the war, or the human was playing on Warlord or something. The AI could defiantly use better writing though, and there are huge expansion sized holes in the Diplomacy. It reminds me a lot of Spore for some reason.

I hadn't know that mods were FINDABLE in game, and rateable somehow. So far the mods look like cheesefests, but it should make well known good ones easy to use. I'm hoping someone redoes SMAC.

[dusematic]

The lack of stacking, even stacking units that can stack, is bothering the hell out of me. Why can't my settler and warrior stack for movement? That's just hassling the player who is playing by the rules! Or stacking a commander and a military unit?

Um, it can?  You can have one combat and one non-combat (settler, worker, great leader) unit per square. Unless you mean attaching non-combat to a warrior unit; I would be surprised if this didn't get added - the help bubble even suggests you should be able to. I wonder if it got scrapped or just wasn't finished in time for release. The keypad thing would annoy, but I switched to right-click move after Civ 3.

I know, I question whether someone who says that has even played the game.

[Malakili]

Finished my first game (as Russia/Catherine), and enjoyed the heck out of it.  It feels a lot more intuitive than previous Civs to me, and though some people seem to be claiming that its (over)simplified Civ a bit (and it probably has), the tactical choices you are making on a turn by turn basis seem to keep the depth up anyway.

The only thing I'd say if that I probably will have less city states in the game next time.  I like them, but I don't like having 2 of them for everyone 1 major civ in the game, it makes things feel a litle too...crowded.  Though who knows, maybe i'll switch back afterwards if I turn out to have liked it better the first game.  I do worry about balance for the Civs that are city state based in their bonuses (Greece, Siam), if I do that though.

[Muffled]

I read it (unit stacking issues) as a complaint about the fact that you have to move the warrior and then the settler individually, and cannot group select them.

[Sjofn]

What I am enjoying thus far is the game makes me veer from my planned victory at the drop of a hat. I'll start a game, thinking I'll go for, say, the diplomacy victory. Then some civ will START SHIT with me and next thing I know I've sort of conquered half the map, whoops.

The only reason I haven't done a conquest victory yet is I don't want to crush everyone on my small-sized map, it takes forever for me to roll my little army of death across it. On the other hand, I actually like fighting in this Civ, I have never ever liked it before. I like that there's some vague strategery involved.

The game still hasn't solved my tendancy to restart at random. I've only actually finished a game twice. :P

[Wasted]

I read it (unit stacking issues) as a complaint about the fact that you have to move the warrior and then the settler individually, and cannot group select them.

That's exactly what annoys me.  I had a settler with a warrior escort once, sent them both to the same hex from the same hex and they took different routes to get there.

[Der Helm]

I read it (unit stacking issues) as a complaint about the fact that you have to move the warrior and then the settler individually, and cannot group select them.

That's exactly what annoys me.  I had a settler with a warrior escort once, sent them both to the same hex from the same hex and they took different routes to get there.

I suggest giving the move order to the warrior one turn before the settler, then they should take the same route.

[Musashi]

Or like always, never, ever send a unit someplace you're not sure of on multiple turn orders.  It's dumb.  It was dumb in Civ 4 too.  If your units are in the fog of war, and you value them, you should be moving them one turn at a time - preferably into tiles with defensive bonuses.  Yes, it's tedious.  But so is starting over again and again until you learn.

[Koyasha]

The game still hasn't solved my tendancy to restart at random. I've only actually finished a game twice. :P

Nice to hear I'm not the only one that does that.  Sometimes I'll be doing just fine and then decide to start a new game for no particular reason.

[Tebonas]

Second game with Siam, I tried for cultural victory (again, with Babylon I went for that but was thwarted by being elected king of the world by the UN thanks to my Minor Civ lackeys).  This time I will etch out a conquest victory instead if those retards don't stop agonizing me and declare war only to be curbstomped by my Elephant army and promptly surrendering once I take away one of their cities.

Persia declared war on me twice. I play Siam pacifistic, but the third time Darius will be used as elephant toilet paper!

Standard with 28 minor civs is no good idea, btw. Worked better on huge.

[Tannhauser]

Won first game Domination on Easy mode with Romans.  I think the AI is excellent for placing cities but not with army actions.  Came down to me and Japan, it was 1962 and my tanks crawled across the central Asian desert to be met in battle by Samurai. 

Second game on Normal mode I am building monuments to my glory as Egypt.  Greece and England are in a slugging match with Greece losing their capital and England with a higher score than me.  May be time to take England down a peg as I may not get a better chance.

I too am a dirty re-starter.  I like to see what kind of starting areas the game gives me.  I also dial down the number of city-states to 2/3 the normal number.  Unless you have  a civ and policies to exploit them I think they are only good for conquest.  My influence goes down too fast unless I'm a super-rich civ.