I've played Civ Revolution. It's very lacking, the techs advance too quickly, overall it's just silly.
As for wonders in civ4, I know what you mean, but there are certain things to grab that dominate. If you get the colossus and set your cities up for it (assuming you got the right geography), then you'll make bank. The Great Library is huge for tech growth and great people growth.
civ 5 cities: I like the slower growth, makes the game progression slower, makes retaining population more important, and makes recovery times from stuff like disasters more serious.
I first played a Civ 2 demo version; then I bought Call to Power, which was sort of an intermediate version between 2 and 3. I loved it - still wish I could play it. I have Civ 4 now, which is also great. The changes in Civ 5 are intriguing. Obviously I'll have to play it to decide if I like them or not, but conceptually I approve of all of them.
The argument for removing religion from Civ 5 was that it made diplomacy in Civ IV too predictable. I generally enjoyed the feature, but sometimes you would get a very unlucky draw. For example, my continent founds most of the religions, and thus the civilizations on my continent are all divided, each having a different religion. While another religion(let's say Hinduism) completely envelops all the civs on a continent far, far away. So, my continent is plagued by war between the differing religions. Then in the middle of the game, when players from the two different continents finally find each other, all those Hindu civilzations are united and come across the ocean and defeat everybody on my continent because we were all divided.
So with the absence of religion causing all the conflicts in the world, city-states were created to be the cause of drama in Civ 5. In Civ 5, civs can pledge to protect different city-states, become friends with city-states, or even allies. To become a friend or ally of a city-state, a civ can gain enough influence over them. To gain influence, one can give a gift of gold, units, or complete tasks designated by the city-state. For example, one time Genoa wanted me to build a road, connecting them to my capital. But a much more common task is a city-state will ask for military help, by either conquering one of their enemy city-states, destroying a nearby barbarian encampent, or helping defend them from an invasion.
Once enough influence is attained over an individual city-state, you can become friends or allies. Being the ally of a city-state requires more influence than to just be friends, of course. By being the friend of a city-state, the civ receives the resources produced by them, which can be very advantageous as the city-states always seem to be plotted near very important or rare resources. Additionally, depending on the type of city-state, the friendly civ also can receive a steady supply of units or culture from the city-state.
By becoming the ally of a city-state, a civ receives all the bonuses of being its friend, but additionally the city-state will go to war with anybody their ally is warring with. This can be very beneficial as some city-states can raise fairly large and powerful militaries despite only being one city. Each city-state can only have one ally at a time. One time I(as Germany) completed a city-state task, and thus gained more influence than its current ally(England) had, so I stole England's ally. England was not pleased, and came to my court looking very angry.
So you can see how much drama these city-states can cause. Oftentimes the best way to control resources is to befriend city-states and it can become a quite competitive thing. Sometimes a civ will just become fed up with trying to kiss up to a city-state more than the next guy and they will just attack a city-state. This causes a lot of trouble because the current ally or friends of that city-state do not want to lose all the benefits from their city-state and are thus compelled to defend it.
Yeah, the city defense value of a city-state is through the roof.
To me it always seems that city-states have more units than one city could genereally support. During war, I've seen some with four to five units, and in this game, that can hault an invasion. In fact, four units in this game can even invade somebody else! Additionally, it seems like city-states create stronger, more advanced units before anyone else. I always laugh when I'm just prancing around with a warrior, and run into a rifleman.
BigBallinStalin wrote:I've played Civ Revolution. It's very lacking, the techs advance too quickly, overall it's just silly.
As for wonders in civ4, I know what you mean, but there are certain things to grab that dominate. If you get the colossus and set your cities up for it (assuming you got the right geography), then you'll make bank. The Great Library is huge for tech growth and great people growth.
civ 5 cities: I like the slower growth, makes the game progression slower, makes retaining population more important, and makes recovery times from stuff like disasters more serious.
I agree it's lacking, especially for a civ game. But, it was a fun experience for me on the xbox. It was definitely watered down. But, playing with other people online was quite an experience. Some good opportunities to exercise your strategy, well, the small amount involved.
Caleb the Cruel wrote:The argument for removing religion from Civ 5 was that it made diplomacy in Civ IV too predictable. I generally enjoyed the feature, but sometimes you would get a very unlucky draw. For example, my continent founds most of the religions, and thus the civilizations on my continent are all divided, each having a different religion. While another religion(let's say Hinduism) completely envelops all the civs on a continent far, far away. So, my continent is plagued by war between the differing religions. Then in the middle of the game, when players from the two different continents finally find each other, all those Hindu civilzations are united and come across the ocean and defeat everybody on my continent because we were all divided.
So with the absence of religion causing all the conflicts in the world, city-states were created to be the cause of drama in Civ 5. In Civ 5, civs can pledge to protect different city-states, become friends with city-states, or even allies. To become a friend or ally of a city-state, a civ can gain enough influence over them. To gain influence, one can give a gift of gold, units, or complete tasks designated by the city-state. For example, one time Genoa wanted me to build a road, connecting them to my capital. But a much more common task is a city-state will ask for military help, by either conquering one of their enemy city-states, destroying a nearby barbarian encampent, or helping defend them from an invasion.
Once enough influence is attained over an individual city-state, you can become friends or allies. Being the ally of a city-state requires more influence than to just be friends, of course. By being the friend of a city-state, the civ receives the resources produced by them, which can be very advantageous as the city-states always seem to be plotted near very important or rare resources. Additionally, depending on the type of city-state, the friendly civ also can receive a steady supply of units or culture from the city-state.
By becoming the ally of a city-state, a civ receives all the bonuses of being its friend, but additionally the city-state will go to war with anybody their ally is warring with. This can be very beneficial as some city-states can raise fairly large and powerful militaries despite only being one city. Each city-state can only have one ally at a time. One time I(as Germany) completed a city-state task, and thus gained more influence than its current ally(England) had, so I stole England's ally. England was not pleased, and came to my court looking very angry.
So you can see how much drama these city-states can cause. Oftentimes the best way to control resources is to befriend city-states and it can become a quite competitive thing. Sometimes a civ will just become fed up with trying to kiss up to a city-state more than the next guy and they will just attack a city-state. This causes a lot of trouble because the current ally or friends of that city-state do not want to lose all the benefits from their city-state and are thus compelled to defend it.
This sounds good. This makes up for the loss of religion in my opinion. Although, it is basically taking one thing that caused some issues and replacing it with another one. But, still, the city-state concept sounds quite enjoyable. Once I get a machine that can handle it, I will definitely be getting this game. Also, kudos on the excellent game review here. Provided some much needed in-depth info on this newest iteration.
BigBallinStalin wrote:I've played Civ Revolution. It's very lacking, the techs advance too quickly, overall it's just silly.
As for wonders in civ4, I know what you mean, but there are certain things to grab that dominate. If you get the colossus and set your cities up for it (assuming you got the right geography), then you'll make bank. The Great Library is huge for tech growth and great people growth.
civ 5 cities: I like the slower growth, makes the game progression slower, makes retaining population more important, and makes recovery times from stuff like disasters more serious.
I agree it's lacking, especially for a civ game. But, it was a fun experience for me on the xbox. It was definitely watered down. But, playing with other people online was quite an experience. Some good opportunities to exercise your strategy, well, the small amount involved.
Online you sya?! that's pretty cool. I got a free version for the iPhone and wasted 8 hours total on it until I had enough.
BigBallinStalin wrote:I've played Civ Revolution. It's very lacking, the techs advance too quickly, overall it's just silly.
As for wonders in civ4, I know what you mean, but there are certain things to grab that dominate. If you get the colossus and set your cities up for it (assuming you got the right geography), then you'll make bank. The Great Library is huge for tech growth and great people growth.
civ 5 cities: I like the slower growth, makes the game progression slower, makes retaining population more important, and makes recovery times from stuff like disasters more serious.
I agree it's lacking, especially for a civ game. But, it was a fun experience for me on the xbox. It was definitely watered down. But, playing with other people online was quite an experience. Some good opportunities to exercise your strategy, well, the small amount involved.
Online you sya?! that's pretty cool. I got a free version for the iPhone and wasted 8 hours total on it until I had enough.
Yeah, you could play against others on Xbpx Live. And presumably on the Playstation Network as well, although I don't really know about that one.
It's not that hard. I got a 96 on the first test with no studying. This test is pretty much on induction, strong induction and set theory, which is still really easy.
So, I start today, and the Russians are pissing me off, so I go to war with them and I literally shove my penis up Catherine's anus. Then I destroy two City-States and pretty much own my entire continent (granted, it's on Chieftain because I didn't want to start off too hard) and then I go over to another continent, meet a bunch of people.
AND THEN BAM. CIVILIZATION CRASHES AND I DIDNT SAVE. 3 HOURS WORTH OF SHIT ALL DOWN THE FUCKING TUBE.
Would be upt for a multiplayer, once I've mastered the new changes. What from I've played, you have less space for expansion and everything is much more crowded, especially with city states, and the AI pumps out cities pretty quickly.
The map, no matter what is a complete butt-fuck and you'll only have like 4 cities before you run out of room. The AI is kind of irrational sometimes (or maybe that's just the specific countries that like Germany and Mongolia).
They've taken out a lot of concepts from Civ IV and I'm kind of disappointed in that. I actually like IV more, but V is still a lot of fun. I'm definitely down for some games.
The map, no matter what is a complete butt-f*ck and you'll only have like 4 cities before you run out of room. The AI is kind of irrational sometimes (or maybe that's just the specific countries that like Germany and Mongolia).
They've taken out a lot of concepts from Civ IV and I'm kind of disappointed in that. I actually like IV more, but V is still a lot of fun. I'm definitely down for some games.
I've noticed there's a lot less space, and the AI tends to expand build cities at a very quick rate. I am missing some of the features.
Also is itt jus tme, or is it way too easy to build Wonders now. It takes around the same time to build a Great lighthouse as a normal lighthouse +scout.
For me it seems like the capital is always really easy to build wonders in, especially if you have that social policy (forgot what it's called...33% increase in production when building wonders). I always have the most wonders in my game, but they did nerf a lot of them. I don't even bother with some of them (like the ones that increase defensive buildings).
Still waiting to find CIV 4 in the value basket for 3$. I ordered it once for 5 and when I got it in the mail I was all excited and ran upstairs peeling the wrap off it and nervously jamming it into the computer, only to wait and attempt installation 4 times in a row.
