2012-05-29, 17:43
|
Link #141 |
|
On a mission
 Author
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Not here
Age: 40
 |
It's just not a good idea to insert tactical (concrete) elements into a predominately strategic (abstract) elements like Civ. What Firaxis is doing would be like questioning why you can't move your bishop vertically in chess.
The way Civ V mixed it is well, neither realistic nor interesting. What do you mean you can't have a massive concentration of forces in an area? And they block each other. You're telling me that wars take hundreds of years because divisions in the same armies are too stupid to go around each other? Gee, I guess D-day never happened. This just makes Civ V more skwered towards military due to the tactical elements, and Civilization has long been a series where warring is already heavily favored due to dice rolling psychopathic AIs. This just skews the balance. It's very hard to create an AI that can handle this. It shows pre-expansion, because it has an AI that doesn't know how to play its own game. I pity it FFS. Are we really going for a empire building strategy game, or just a war game? And let's not get into the interface issues. Civ has always had a poor interface, but V takes 3 clicks to do about anything.
__________________
|
|
|
|
2012-05-29, 19:32
|
Link #143 | |
|
=^^=
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: 42° 10' N (Latitude) 87° 33' W (Longitude)
Age: 45
|
Quote:
 Actually, a new unit shoulda been brought in for this one function.
__________________
|
|
|
|
|
|
2012-05-29, 21:35
|
Link #144 | |
|
勇者
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Tesla Leicht Institute
Age: 34
|
Quote:
 .
__________________
|
|
|
|
|
|
2012-05-29, 22:23
|
Link #145 |
|
On a mission
Author
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Not here
Age: 40
|
Well, it's not that unlikely for a bunch of raving bandits to ransack and pillage a village though.
Naval units being able to do that is extremely cheap, due to their amount of moves. But that's silly in itself, since we all know how fast ships move. :S
__________________
|
|
|
|
|
2012-05-29, 23:24
|
Link #147 | |
|
勇者
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Tesla Leicht Institute
Age: 34
|
Quote:
__________________
|
|
|
|
|
|
2012-05-30, 00:06
|
Link #148 | |
|
=^^=
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: 42° 10' N (Latitude) 87° 33' W (Longitude)
Age: 45
|
Quote:
__________________
|
|
|
|
|
|
2012-05-30, 01:53
|
Link #150 |
|
On a mission
Author
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Not here
Age: 40
|
That's an amphibious assault; your average warship fleet is not capable of doing this beyond providing cover fire and bombardment. In previous Civilization games this was represented by transport units that contained units, and civ 5 itself already has an amphibious assault in the form of disembarked units. Which makes it pretty silly for destroyers to do this.
Plus the reasoning is that destroyers are melee. Wut.
__________________
|
|
|
|
|
2012-05-30, 01:54
|
Link #151 | |
|
=^^=
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: 42° 10' N (Latitude) 87° 33' W (Longitude)
Age: 45
|
Quote:
If anything. Destroyers should be allowed to carry 1-2 ground troop units to do the job. Thing about this game: I never did like "Embarkment".
__________________
|
|
|
|
|
|
2012-06-26, 03:42
|
Link #153 |
|
別にいいけど
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: forever lost inside a logic error
|
I've just finished a game using the new features of the expansion.
It seems that the AI has been improved again but more on the resource/expansion management than the actual combat skills. There is however a significant improvement on their strategies concerning maps with prevalence of seas. They actually focus on building a strong naval force this time. The few island maps I played before were ridiculously easy because I just needed to create a strong naval force, kill off the few enemy ships and then slaughter all their embarked units. This will no longer be possible, and embarked units do not get instakilled anymore. I haven't actually focused on maritime conquest this time around so I don't know much about the differences, but the fact that trireme are now melee makes it very difficult to fight on sea early on, when you consider you can't heal outside friendly territories. Honestly I think that you should hardly bother with melee ships, one or two are enough, all the rest should be ranged. The sea is a completely open territory, so as soon as you can travel in deep water you won't have any constraint and you'll be able to get the best results with heavy ranged attacks. I can't see much point in melee ships if not for city conquest, which can however be done by embarked troops (which get the ocean upgrade for free unlike the ships!). The new admiral great person and the ability to stack embarked units with naval units is however pretty neat. There was an overal change in the social policies, I didn't really explore it much but it looks to me that piety was nerfed down considerably. I've always liked Rationalism more, myself unless I wasn't going for cultural victory, but now it's even more useless. On to the faith systme. I think it's a pretty nice addition and enriches the game with a new element without breaking it. It's more or less the same CIV except you now have more stuff to do, which is always nice. I like the fact that you have a separate pool of points to spend in religious units, so you don't need to sacrifice anything if you want to spread your religion around. The're just one building that might slow down your progress, but it's really the cheapest building, it costs even less than granary. Religions spread in the world like infections. The more are the people adhering to a certain religion, the more and with greater force they will spread to the neighbours. Once you convert a neutral city, that city will help you in converting other cities and so on. You might take that in consideration and save yourself wasting a use of your missonaries. If there are trhree city states in a line, you might want to convert the ones on the sides and just let the one in the middle to convert by itself. The grisly aspect of religions is that there is practically no way to somping them out completely. You might even destroy the civilization that founded them, but the holy city will still remain the holy city (and you can't raze the capital), You can keep it under control by exercizing religious pressure, using profets and so on. It will work, but you'll still have a few "heretics" popping out occasionally. And this doesn't take in account those that spreads to city states and so on. You can keep them under control and make it so they'll never have enough force to convert cities, but that's the best you can do unless you act quickly. The interesting bit is that there is a limited number of religions that can exist on a single game and they are always less than the total number of players. This means that those who don't act quick will find themselves unable to found a religion and will consequently be the battleground of everyone else's missionary. You still get a benefit from adhering to other religions so it's cool, but the founder gets even more benefits. What really matters, however is that there are severe implications on the diplomacy level. civilizations that share your religion will be a lot more friendly towards you than they normally are. I actually managed to remain in friendly terms with a civilization that I bordered to for the whole duration of the game. That hardly ever happened before. Conversely, civilizations that founded another religion will have yet another reason to hate you. As if making enemies in Civ V wasn't easy enough. Religion has the greatest impact on city states who don't have their own belief. If you're going for diplomatic victory, religion will be your best tool. I played as Alexander and went for a diplomatic victory, with the bonuses granted by the Civ itself, patronage and religion, I practically made every city state to ally with me without paying a thing. By the way there is an interesting change in how the diplomatic victory works this time around. Civilizations do not automatically vote themselves by default as it wa before, they are now forbidden to do so, so they will vote their favorite buddy instead. You actually have a reason to befriend other civs now (if you can manage that). As for espionage, it is barely relevant, but it adds a bit more flavor to the game, albeit very slightly. Again you don't have to worry about your production lines, you'll get a spy automatically each time you reach certain eras and then you'll keep using those relocating them in a city of your choice. It won't cost you a thing. What will cost you are the buildings meant to protect you against spies, but it's entirely optional if you don't care. The worst that can happen is that someone will steal a technology from you. And of course the best that your spy can do for you is to steal technologies. You can also use spies to rig elections in city states, so you can get influence without spending money, but it isn't that effective, religion works a lot better for that as far as I can tell. Anyway the spy system seems to be particularly useful for civs that are behind in the tech tree race, which is pretty good imo. Spies can also check what a civilization is about to do. Let's say you have a spy in your bordering civ, and let's say they are pretending to by your friends while preparing a sneak attack. Your spy might find out and inform you. Moreover a spy might find out about plans against other civilizations. Then you can share that knowledge to the civ involved and that will improve your relationship with them. Conversely if your spy gets busted your relationship will decrease and that might become a reason to start a war. You're also allowed to start a war if you spot a spy, but I doubt it will have any effect on your warmongering reputation. They will all think you're warmongering menace to the world even if you did nothing but defend yourself from other attacks. Another interesting addition are the ranged units in modern era. You get a lot of different upgrades for your archers and crossbowmen that you didn't have originally. So they won't suddenly become melee after you research riflemen, but the disappointing part... is that the new units are sitll limited to adjacent tiles... that means the only pro is that you can hit without being hit, but as far as deployment goes you're still very limited to melee range. Also thanks god siege machines no longer need iron. It was one of the biggest limits in early era. If you weren't lucky enough to have source of irons nearby you could as well give up any attempt at conquest. There are a lot of new resources that you can trade. Citrus, crabs, copper, salt and troufles are what I found. And there are exclusive goods that can only be obtained by city states. This makes gaining influence wiht them even more strategically important as it was before. At this point it's practically mandatory. Another positive change is that research agreements have been moved from philosophy to education. Finally! Albeit if it was me, I would have moved directly to scientific theory. It's still better than before though. I still didn't play enough to have a clear idea of how the many new civilization work. There are many that are focused on faith, at any rate Ethiopia seems to be pretty strong if you want to go for a non aggressive path. Using the natural defense bonus with other defense improvements you can become completely impervious to external attacks. Austria is also pretty dangerous... you can "force marriage" city states under your influece to automatically conquer them. You can make a whole empire with little effort and at the same time you will disrupt everyone else's plan for a diplomatic victory. It might backfire though if you don't have a good army to defend your "conquests". Well that's it now for my first impressions. (quite a lot actually).
__________________
|
|
|
|
|
2012-06-26, 06:58
|
Link #155 |
|
Underweight Food Hoarder
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Kitch-Water and T.O., Canada
Age: 32
|
Yes they finally fixed siege machines. Why did a catapult/trebuchet use iron but not cannon/artillery =__="
The single range archer class expanded. I hated crossbowmen -> Riflemen. Like why would anyone do that. Great War Bomber is overpowered though. There's no anti-air that early in the game. I don't understand why they introduce aircraft so early in the tech tree but no counters. The only counter is if you have the same tech and intercept the bomber with the fighters. Embarked combat got fixed, hurray for that. However Privateer ruined entire naval combat of this game. 100% conversion of any unit??!? The games just become a sausage fest of a privateers converting each other back and forth. Spies are used to gain favor of city states by rigging their elections btw. That way you don't have to tribute anything while still gaining their favor. |
|
|
|
|
2012-06-26, 14:42
|
Link #156 |
|
=^^=
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: 42° 10' N (Latitude) 87° 33' W (Longitude)
Age: 45
|
The one thing that really bothered me about Civ V:
Every city must have a specific building built in order to enable the building of a small wonder. Well. I happen to be the type who likes about... oh. 20-24 cities for an empire. Most of 'em I build myself ('cause I'm a Civ racist).  I don't conquer cities; I rather destroy them (although, the happiness factor is limiting this). 
__________________
|
|
|
|
|
2012-06-26, 19:33
|
Link #158 | |
|
別にいいけど
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: forever lost inside a logic error
|
Quote:
If you prefer sprawling empires, then you forego those wonders, they aren't mandatory and in the end I think it's a good tradeoff, because the benefits of having many cities and a lot of land under your control can hardly be compensated. Even with all the penalties and problems that it comes with, it's still more advantageous. There is still a way to conquer and get those wonders at the same time. Just leave the conquered cities as puppets. Puppets do not count for the building requirement, so you can have 10 puppets and just your capital and then you only need to have one building to fit the requirement. You also don't get the increase in culture needed to gain policies. The drawback is that puppets generate hate (less than a conquered city, but more than a conquered city with courthouse), you can't directly control them and they will never builds wonders or units. BTW I just played another game, Austria annexed one city state through the "marriage" unique ability. Later I attacked that city with the intention of liberating it but... it didn't give me the option! Austria can really mess up your diplomatic victory strategies.
__________________
|
|
|
|
|
|
2012-06-26, 19:37
|
Link #159 | |
|
=^^=
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: 42° 10' N (Latitude) 87° 33' W (Longitude)
Age: 45
|
Quote:
__________________
|
|
|
|
|
|
2012-06-26, 19:47
|
Link #160 |
|
別にいいけど
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: forever lost inside a logic error
|
Too bad you can't raze capitals.
Still, while I can understand why you want to eliminate the enemies' cities, it's really not a good idea to raze well developed cities. The main problem comes with the border expansion. No matter how fast you decide to build your cultural buildings, you can't really hope that a city founded in 1990 AD will get as much land as a city that expanded for 5000 years by the time you'll end the game. Additionally if you play at Prince or higher, the AI will always expand its border faster, making conquest the only way to balance that out.
__________________
|
|
|
|
 |
| Thread Tools | |
|
|
