|
Poil posted:On the plus side they'll never be able to defend that from an early attack. Free city. Just what I want, a city with two sheep and a bunch of desert/marsh!
|
#
?
Sep 10, 2013 06:46
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 29, 2024 02:35 |
|
|
I think the point was less where they are and more that that is their starting settler and warrior and they're still doing it nomad style.
|
|
#
?
Sep 10, 2013 07:32
|
|
|
Other than "hope you outtech Shaka", what can we do against Impis? I have never lost so many units against an AI before (emperor difficulty).
|
|
#
?
Sep 10, 2013 07:52
|
|
|
Grundma posted:Settled on the hill next to natural wonder, then used a scout+spear to herd darius' settler away from the coast. He settled on the tile below the cotton, on the coast below the fish The Ottomans do not expand often they seem to prefer taking more cities by conquest,they like to forward settle on people too and usually build a huge gently caress off army. Get Composite Bows depending on the difficultly level he's definitely coming to kick your teeth in. Snipee posted:Other than "hope you outtech Shaka", what can we do against Impis? I have never lost so many units against an AI before (emperor difficulty). It depends on who you're playing as.
|
|
#
?
Sep 10, 2013 07:54
|
|
|
Considering the human managed to beat two AIs to settling their first city, it's probably not a very high difficulty level. Go stomp their teeths in with comp bows.
|
|
#
?
Sep 10, 2013 07:58
|
|
|
Playing in a MP game, chose Spain and I absolutely knocked it out of the park on having nearby natural wonders. Second city right next to Uluru, third city right next to Mount Sinai. Both were first discoveries, and the fifth city...  A workable Krakatoa?  I'd of placed it closer to the mainland, but I didn't want to piss off Morocco.I suppose the religion name I chose, to get lucky, was rather appropriate.
|
|
#
?
Sep 10, 2013 08:15
|
|
|
The Ottomans aren't nomading it, you can see Istanbul to the side of the screenshot.
|
|
#
?
Sep 10, 2013 08:17
|
|
|
Yeah, it's only 13 tiles away through barbarian-infested desert.
|
|
#
?
Sep 10, 2013 08:30
|
|
|
If your holy city gets hit by somebody else's Great Prophet before you have a chance to spread it around, is there any easy way to "revive" it? The only thing that it seemed like I could do was wait for a great prophet of my own to spawn, missionaries that were created were of the intruding religion.
|
|
#
?
Sep 10, 2013 08:47
|
|
|
If one of your other cities still belongs to your religion then buy an Inquisitor there, move him over to your Holy City and purge those heathens.
|
|
#
?
Sep 10, 2013 09:53
|
|
|
Snipee posted:Other than "hope you outtech Shaka", what can we do against Impis? I have never lost so many units against an AI before (emperor difficulty). Crossbows work fine, you really want to work all the way up to muskets if you think he is targeting you. Each musket can hold their own vs Impi, and with aerial support you should be fine. Alternatively, bribe him to go to war with someone else. Much like Attila and Monty, they are only a problem when you have them cornered and you are their only target, since they are very willing to go to war with other nearby civs.
|
|
#
?
Sep 10, 2013 10:43
|
|
|
Daikoku posted:If your holy city gets hit by somebody else's Great Prophet before you have a chance to spread it around, is there any easy way to "revive" it? The only thing that it seemed like I could do was wait for a great prophet of my own to spawn, missionaries that were created were of the intruding religion. Hahahah, oh dear, that's not a great start. There's nothing you can do except wait for it to regenerate, but you might as well write your religion off altogether.
|
|
#
?
Sep 10, 2013 10:49
|
|
|
Okay, so I'm relatively new to Civ. Not utterly so, I've played a few games to conclusion but I don't feel confident knowing all the tecn trees or the 'best' way to reach certain points, so I tend to still be fairly reactive, building whatever I need at the time to shore up whatever resource (Gold, Happiness etc) has gone south lately. I'm playing the Iroquois on King and I happen to have all 4 Civs on one island, whilst I share the other with the Ottomans, and the fucker is 1. Always, ALWAYS ahead of me on Tech and 2. Always declaring War. I'll beat him back eventually or at least to stalemate and then he'll sue for peace, but then he lovees to drop a City right next to mine, get irate about my growth and then declare War all over again. We have roughly equivalent size Civs, but he seems to permanently have a huge running army (if the AI was brighter in how it moved them, I suspect it could have steamrolled me) which I can't keep up with on Production or Tech (I get to Muskets, he brings Rifleman, and two more of them to boot), and I'm just wondering - What on Earth am I probably doing wrong?
|
|
#
?
Sep 10, 2013 10:59
|
|
|
Just a general set of questions about Civ V: 1. What is a good amount of cities to have overall? I've played a fair bit of Civ IV and the limit was really the extent of your maintenance costs and little else. 2. Is it still effective to make extremely specialized cities? The problem I've always had with Civ IV is that I would try and make, say a production city or a commerce city but they wouldn't have enough food or be too small to actually be effective at their task. Everything just seemed to bleed back to the capital. 3. Relating to Brave New World, is the World Congress essentially the UN Council of Civ IV? The latter had some potential but it felt really shallow and a bit boring.
|
|
#
?
Sep 10, 2013 11:26
|
|
|
So this is my current situation. Not far below the current screen is Onondaga, the Iroquois capital. I just took Venice (he didn't expand once despite my seeing he had a Great Merchant - no idea what happened there, maybe AI can't play Venice?) basically for free, didn't lose any units. The question now is whether I go and bully the Iroquois to death as well, given that I have no contact with any other civilisations. I had no intention of playing in a warlike fashion but with Chu-Ko-Nus and Pikemen already, I figure I might as well erase him anyway right?  E: This was a horrible idea and I will never declare war on the Iroquois again.  Shockeh posted:What on Earth am I probably doing wrong? Sounds like you're either not focusing on science enough or picking bad spots for cities. You should always be ahead in research, at least in your specific path (ie. you really want to have gunpowder units before other people if you're being militaristic). There are a few 'great equalisers' in artillery and planes, though. If you can get to those, it usually doesn't matter if he's an era or so ahead. Do The Evolution fucked around with this message at 12:37 on Sep 10, 2013 |
|
#
?
Sep 10, 2013 11:37
|
|
|
People often stop at 4 cities and go super tall with those, getting 30+ pop in one city. There's nothing really stopping you from spending your happiness on going wide and investing in happy infrastructure everywhere, plus whatever happiness you can scrounge up from ideologies. I recently had a game where I conquered both continents, but never really suffered unhappiness. No, what really stops you from going wide is the +5% science cost per city, meaning every city had better drat well contribute to your science very quickly. Not to mention you need good science infrastructure like libraries/schools/unis to make each happiness point produce any decent amount of science. It sorta sucks because Civ4 was all about settling high quality spots early on lest they drag you down with maintenance costs, and once the best land had been filled up you had to make do with squeezing out productivity from low quality filler spots. But those low quality sites were almost always worth it in the lategame. In Civ5, they are almost never worth it because each one would effectively never pay for themselves in science (productivity, maybe). Another problem with going wide is your economy: trade routes are capped per-empire, not per city, meaning they don't scale for large empires. Specialised cities are less important than before, you no longer allocate yourself a production city, great person city, economy city, etc. Every city has to do almost everything each, though they can all do each thing better, there's not as much to differentiate one another. Civ4 was all about tailoring and adapting yourself to the land, since tile yields and the quality of the sites tends to average out more in Civ5, that effect is less pronounced. World congress is much more detailed than the old UN, but the downside is that it mostly comes down to whoever has the best gpt and can quest up/snatch up all the city states one turn before each resolution. What I miss: being able to defy resolutions, gently caress you, I'm taking part in your embargo of my best friend. I'll take a happiness hit if you really want that. What I don't miss: Stop War resolutions, good riddance.
|
|
#
?
Sep 10, 2013 11:40
|
|
|
SkySteak posted:1. What is a good amount of cities to have overall? Depends who you're playing as: Gandhi: a few Rome: dozens Genghis: all of them.
|
|
#
?
Sep 10, 2013 11:44
|
|
|
Nothing wrong with Gandhi getting lots of cities as well, as soon as you hit 6-pop (easy peasy), the UA starts kicking in. Yeah, it comes down to victory condition, space works best with few cities, domination with more cities and more production (which does scale with your #cities). Cultural, surprisingly enough, scales well with alot of cities, but you need to do things like Sacred Sites for +4 tourism everywhere, plus going wide slows you towards Archeology and Internet tech. Though people have done some scarily early culture wins using that, by hitting runaway tourism before anyone else can ramp up culture.
|
|
#
?
Sep 10, 2013 11:56
|
|
|
Phobophilia posted:-About Cities- Out of interest do you think that this has caused Civ V to lose some depth compared to Civ IV. I'm not implying that the more complicated mechanic equals a better game overall but I'm just wondering if people find V a bit more dumbed down compared to how Civ IV was eventually.
|
|
#
?
Sep 10, 2013 12:04
|
|
|
I've never really liked the word depth, it's a loaded term. It's different. Civ4 is more expansionist and much more of an empire builder, you are constantly looking for any excuse to squeeze your cities into positions that weaken your opponent's positions, and in the process trading off short term economy. No such for Civ5, once your first couple of cities are taken care of, there's no more pressure to expand. Civ4 is alot more dynamic, there are alot more decisions to be made each turn. Workers stack, so a hallmark of good play is to get alot of workers, and pair that off with tight management so that you work a high quality improved tile every single turn. Unlike Civ5, where tile improvement is slow, tile yields are low, and you typically work many unimproved tiles even well into the midgame. In Civ4, your cities are very dynamic, populations grow very fast, and you're constantly whipping them and regrowing the population, and constantly shuffling around your worked tiles. Civ5 is alot smoother, you work the best tiles, slowly grow to your next level, and never ever cap growth unless you hit 0 spare happiness. Again, fewer decisions made. Building things is also more fun. More buildings give something like +25% yield, unlike Civ5 they give much weaker yields, like +1 base production, or +15% production, or things like that. So there's much more of an instant reward for getting your infrastructure finished immediately. Plus, because you have alot more cities, you have the opportunity to bar some builds from some cities. For instance, you will decide your high production city will never bother with economy buildings like libraries, so you'll focus it on banging out units to defend your territory. Plus, the buildings are more interesting, as they do multiple things at once. Like a forge gives +25% production, and also gives up to +3 happiness. Or you have a choice between a market (+25% gold, +happiness), grocery (+25% gold, +health), or a bank (+50% gold), and your job is to work out which particular opportunity cost gives the best return on investment. Compare with Civ5, where all cities will essentially build the same things because they're always good. Well, at least in Civ5, granaries aren't the single best building in the game and get built everywhere no matter what. Wonder building is also more fun, thanks to tricks with whip and chop micro, a good player can build maybe half their wonder from working hammer tiles, then right at the end complete several chops and instantly complete the wonder and thereby minimise risk of losing it to an opponent. That's nowhere near as possible in Civ5, meaning there's less of a reward for tight play. Thanks to weakened improvements (most tiles don't make more than 4 points of food and hammers), there's not as much of a reward for getting your tiles improved asap. Which kinda sucks, because I always feel sloppy and unprofessional when I play.
|
|
#
?
Sep 10, 2013 12:56
|
|
|
SkySteak posted:Just a general set of questions about Civ V: 2. Not as much, I think. 3. Yes, but you can get more votes by allying city states, buying them from other civs (if you have a diplomat spy in their capital) and of course now you can't avoid having a decision affect you. For example if you rely on gold for happiness and selling it to other civs and some jerk puts up a vote to ban it and succeeds you're hosed unless you can manage to win a vote to unban it. Poil fucked around with this message at 14:12 on Sep 10, 2013 |
|
#
?
Sep 10, 2013 13:15
|
|
|
I had a weird ring game yesterday involving Russia. Normally she's one of the more expansionist civs in the game, making GBS threads out cities and being generally aggressive. Last game, they stayed on their subcontinent, with 3 cities, up until the 20 century, at which point they poop out six more cities.  Little late there, Cathy.
|
|
#
?
Sep 10, 2013 13:54
|
|
|
Can you do anything to stop a holy city from generating pressure after you take it? I have a habit of just sprinting for capitols when an AI decides they wanna step up and it is getting annoying to have to pop inquisitors just to stop the cities from putting pressure on proper cities.
|
|
#
?
Sep 10, 2013 14:35
|
|
|
I think if the religion has no cities following it and you own it's holy city, it dies. If just 1 town still believes in orthodox boobyism, it'll still put out pressure.
|
|
#
?
Sep 10, 2013 14:41
|
|
|
I believe if you hit it with a great prophet and an inquisitor, it kills the holiness of the city. Seems to work for me anyway.
|
|
#
?
Sep 10, 2013 14:51
|
|
|
Grand Fromage posted:I believe if you hit it with a great prophet and an inquisitor, it kills the holiness of the city. Seems to work for me anyway. Not necessarily; the game simply doesn't show the pressure for religions that do not have any followers currently present. If the religion isn't dead (there's another follower somewhere on the map), you'll eventually see a follower pop up; although if you are like me and always take Itinerant Preachers and/or Religious Texts, it'll probably take a long time.
|
|
#
?
Sep 10, 2013 15:36
|
|
|
More importantly, do you get a huge diplomacy hit if you nuke an opposing holy city off the face of the earth? I'm asking for reasons
|
|
#
?
Sep 10, 2013 16:20
|
|
|
Crazy Ted posted:More importantly, do you get a huge diplomacy hit if you nuke an opposing holy city off the face of the earth? I'm asking for reasons 99 times out of 100 Holy Cities are founded in capitals, so it's hard to say.
|
|
#
?
Sep 10, 2013 16:30
|
|
|
As the Netherlands, I have two marsh tiles in my capital, while Hiawatha had 12. What the gently caress, start bias?
|
|
#
?
Sep 10, 2013 20:32
|
|
|
Where is the great painting music in the files?
|
|
#
?
Sep 10, 2013 20:40
|
|
|
Crazy Ted posted:More importantly, do you get a huge diplomacy hit if you nuke an opposing holy city off the face of the earth? I'm asking for reasons Assuming it isn't a capital and that is possible, there is no additional penalty for getting rid of holy cities as opposed to regular cities. Just the normal warmonger penalties apply.
|
|
#
?
Sep 10, 2013 22:27
|
|
|
I have been playing lots of BNW. I have recently moved to Immortal. I only play on Marathon, only as Bismark and only on huge maps. I play CiV like a Total-War game. This latest game, I share a continent with Gengis and Shaka. It hits 880AD and Shaka has taken out Morocco, left Denmark and the Inca with 1 city each. I have wiped out the Spanish, left the US with 3 cities and left Mongolia with one. (I didn't realise the genocide penalty had gone.) I watched Shaka grow in power and realised, as he kept throwing up cities, that I needed him gone asap. I was second to him in the demographics in virtually all categories:  Luckily, our continent had a large line of mountains that cut it in half: Top:  Bottom:  My plan was simple, hold him to the north by filling the bottlenecks with troops. Then, my experienced army would sweep the south and roll him up. The resulting war took 170 turns, from 815AD to 1472AD. After I took Ulundi, he ended the war 10+ turns later by surrendering 10 cities. He left himself with 4. The war was fantastic. I must have killed 100s of Impi, Knights and Crossbows. My 4 main Crossbows finished at level 12. One had 959xp and the other three had 785, 784 and 687xp. The swordsmen I started with ended as musketmen. They finished with 384xp, 264xp and 148xp. I have never had a war this competitive. I was forced to retreat and redirect numerous times. I lost more units than I have lost in my previous 10 CiV games combined. If you look to the maps, the terrain is hills, forest and jungle. The rough terrain made Shaka's Impi brutally effective. I kept sacrificing knights and pikes to protect important units. Every time I sent out a second wave to create a new front, it was smashed back. I thought he would break through the weaker armies I stationed up in the North at one point. Only last minute reinforcements held the line. Shaka's Impi kept appearing. Usually in wars, I wipe out the AI's initial army, then slowly march forward burning cities as I take negligible losses. This was the first war I have fought where I feared I could lose. As wave after wave of Impi kept appearing, pushing me back and forcing me to sac units, I thought it would be a matter of time before I was overrun. The scary part was looking at the numbers halfway through the war. In demographics, Shaka still had the same military score he had at the start of the war, whilst mine had fallen. It was a war of attrition and I was losing. My tactic of dropping him from 3 range with crossbows was made less effective by the terrain. He would also hit my crossbows from out of sightdue to Impi's movement and roads. In the end, I broke through and swept him away. Took a good 100+ turns before I gained a clear upper hand. This war felt closer to the grindy, brutal and bloody wars of Civ 3 and 4. I am very glad Shaka is back. We always have the best fights.
|
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2013 00:26
|
|
|
Holy poo poo. Well played, sir.  Now I'm inspired to improve my game and play on immortal as well. I usually snowball out of control on emperor after killing off one of the civs on my continent unless I go for one city challenge. It's still fun for me because I like the building game more than the war aspect of it, but that looks amazing.
|
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2013 01:13
|
|
|
There was a bug in BNW what allowed Siam to purchase both wats and universities with faith using Jesuit Education. They fixed it so that Siam could not do that in the last patch. However, it appears that now every civ, except for Siam, can purchase wats and universities with faith. That's funny. http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=509110
|
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2013 02:35
|
|
|
KKKlean Energy posted:Depends who you're playing as: Doesn't Ghandi's UA make it worthwhile to set up 4< cities since so long as you can grow them to 6+ or did that get ruined in the BNW expansion?
|
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2013 08:09
|
|
|
Wide Gandhi got nerfed the same way wide everyone else got nerfed.
|
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2013 08:13
|
|
|
You can still be happiness positive with a virtually unlimited number of cities with very few happiness resources as Gandhi. The only limit is how willing you are to accept ever increasing tech costs.
|
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2013 08:16
|
|
|
Anyone else think that the AI on Emperor and higher difficulty could use fewer bonuses early on, and more in the late game? It seems like every game the AI starts out ahead of me and I play catch-up until the Industrial era, at which point I shoot out ahead. Meanwhile in the earlier eras I have my fingers crossed that I won't be attacked because on paper at least the AI has huge military superiority. Also, there's basically no point in going for a wonder pre-renaissance unless you build your entire plan around getting it.
|
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2013 09:55
|
|
|
Failed again to get a culture victory again. I guess I need to start beating up other culture-focused civs earlier. By the time I won the UN in 1980 there were still more turns til culture victory than turns left. I kept playing and eventually was influential with everyone, but it took capturing two wonder/art-filled capitals and an international games bumping me up to +2000 tourism/turn when I finally got there.
|
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2013 10:26
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 29, 2024 02:35 |
|
|
Gort posted:Anyone else think that the AI on Emperor and higher difficulty could use fewer bonuses early on, and more in the late game? It seems like every game the AI starts out ahead of me and I play catch-up until the Industrial era, at which point I shoot out ahead. Early wonders are only worth building if you can finish them within 20 turns. This basically forces me to take tradition instead of liberty, and I sometimes go for Monument to the Gods or whatever pantheon that speeds up early wonders by 15%. You are right about the AI falling behind by the end of the renaissance era though. It's pretty clear I'm going to win when I have great war infantry out against knights, musketmen, and riflemen.
|
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2013 11:49
|
|