|
I have never seen the first person to codify a Religion not take Papal Primacy. Ever. They always take it.
|
#
?
Sep 28, 2013 22:00
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 29, 2024 02:15 |
|
|
Dr. Video Games 0031 posted:Can you do a quick one or two sentence summary of their stance? Some of Freedom's tenant's allow Freedom to be militarily aggressive in a major way which makes it kind of abit unbalanced (not by much) but definitely notable and that some of Autocracy's tenant's need a buff or two.
|
|
#
?
Sep 28, 2013 22:04
|
|
|
Dr. Video Games 0031 posted:I dunno, I found myself creating the most outlandish strategies in Emperor and still winning. I mean, I can kind of sort of see what you're saying, but that aspect is really overblown. Some people have this attitude where they consider simply playing well to be "spergy optimization." Stuff like Tradition's dominance is also overblown. You can definitely win on Emperor by starting Liberty or Honor. Probably Piety too. What's more important is that you know how to fight the AI in combat (not hard, I think I've lost 2 wars in my entire time playing Civ V Yep, I haven't really played Civ V enough to get particularly good at any of the non-combat parts of the game, but I still win on Emperor more often than not just because the AI is basically incapable of beating a handful of ranged units without a massive technological advantage.
|
|
#
?
Sep 28, 2013 22:06
|
|
), knowing how manipulate the AI in diplomacy, and just having the basics down like improvement and building priorities, when to expand and city placement, etc. You single out building every building as a big flaw in your play and that's somewhat of an issue but not really, you just have to build them in the right order. Most buildings are useful in most cities (something I don't actually like about V). If you actually step up the difficulty and give Emperor a shot, eventually it will feel like King does to you now, where you can experiment and do unusual stuff and still win easily.
|
Stallion Cabana posted:I have never seen the first person to codify a Religion not take Papal Primacy. Pagodas, though, Pagodas smarts to lose.
|
|
#
?
Sep 28, 2013 22:42
|
|
|
The White Dragon posted:And? The only ones that matter are Tithe for an overwhelming late-game economy and Church Property for a safe early economy. Papal Primacy won't take you to 60 CS points, so it's utterly useless in my eyes when I could just be buying them every turn with Tithe's 200gpt. I wasn't saying that it was good, I was just showing that as an example of things that the AI prioritizes that it probably isn't as good as other stuff.
|
|
#
?
Sep 28, 2013 23:02
|
|
|
I 'almost won' my first king victory last night. I picked China (first time not doing 'random civ') and decided to go for a tech victory. I forgot about shrines so missed founding a religion. This hosed me later since I couldn't buy musicians. I was lucky enough to start on a continent alone, big enough for 2 great cities. Close by were islands overrun by barbarians that I had to spend a little too much time clearing out, to settle. I eventually built 4 cities. I had just about enough of an army to keep myself safe, and was far from everyone else anyway. I thought I was doing ok until mid way through I checked the culture screen for the first time and saw egypt was generating 280 tourism to my 90. I got the internet, built hotels, and soon had 200 tourism myself. I also did a lot of digs, but not every dig in the world. I didn't concentrate too hard on this. I bought out every single city state with all of my trade gold from my trade wonders, and decided to win a diplomatic victory when the chance came. I had 27 votes and thought I had it easily, but apparently I needed 29 to win, and since I'd nominated myself for victory, every single other civ suddenly went from friendly to HATE. I should have bought votes from just a single civ, then I would have won. After this I couldn't even get open borders from anyone so that sucked. I also picked freedom and found out the hard way, how loving terrible it was. In the bottom two tiers there was nothing I needed or wanted. Everyone else picked order after I picked Freedom. Egypt then won over 2 civs and was getting close to a cultural victory. I only generated one musician and that wasn't enough to win if I declared war then performed a concert. With one turn to go until the next world leader election, egypt won  .
|
|
#
?
Sep 29, 2013 00:25
|
|
|
RagnarokAngel posted:Wouldn't say that's quite true. Because the AI is incredibly stupid it often doesn't pick the good beliefs. I've been one of the last horses to cross the finish line on that front and still got all the good stuff. Right. You'll get Tithe but if you start from behind you won't be able to get any benefits from it except from your own cities. I've noticed the AI does snap up Itinerant Preachers and Religious Texts pretty frequently, though they're stupid as a brick about their founder and follower beliefs. Defensive pacts are so worthless and counterproductive that I don't really understand why they're in the game at all. Eric the Mauve fucked around with this message at 02:15 on Sep 29, 2013 |
|
#
?
Sep 29, 2013 00:33
|
|
|
redreader posted:I 'almost won' my first king victory last night. I picked China (first time not doing 'random civ') and decided to go for a tech victory. Why? Buying Musicians with faith only needs a full Aesthetics tree.
|
|
#
?
Sep 29, 2013 01:24
|
|
|
If he didn't even build shrines he wasn't exactly generating a ton (if any) faith with which to buy them.
|
|
#
?
Sep 29, 2013 01:33
|
|
|
Jedit posted:Why? Buying Musicians with faith only needs a full Aesthetics tree. ... Oh. Anyway I wasn't doing Aesthetics so it wouldn't have helped anyway. RagnarokAngel posted:If he didn't even build shrines he wasn't exactly generating a ton (if any) faith with which to buy them. I had about 4000 faith, which is enough for two, I think? Either way I'd geared up for tech so I wasn't able to do cultural properly.
|
|
#
?
Sep 29, 2013 02:05
|
|
|
redreader posted:I had about 4000 faith, which is enough for two, I think? Yes, with 1500 left over for a Scientist, Artist or Engineer.
|
|
#
?
Sep 29, 2013 09:25
|
|
|
I had an amazing game as China yesterday. Large Continents, started up with Polynesia, Spain and Poland as immediate neighbours with little room to expand. I placed a second city and decided to turn my Beijing into a GL-Petra city - even took the 15% pantheon, and managed to get Artemis between the two other wonders too! Then, I rushed polynesia down with composite bowmen and destroyed them. That gave me an opinion malus that was enough to get double backstabbed by the other two - took out Spain with CKNs and then Poland, then Korea and Aztecs. Everything was going great, I discover the dudes on the other continent after all that, get the first ideology... Then I realize that I thought I was playing Emperor all along, but I was on King. I *really* need to move up.
|
|
#
?
Sep 29, 2013 11:09
|
|
|
Jedit posted:Why? Buying Musicians with faith only needs a full Aesthetics tree. You need a religion to faith buy anything, though, don't you? It doesn't have to be YOUR religion but there has to be one present in the city in which you want to faith buy. Blogkb - because you too like video games, old and new (it's just a blog)
|
|
#
?
Sep 29, 2013 12:19
|
|
|
The White Dragon posted:And? The only ones that matter are Tithe for an overwhelming late-game economy and Church Property for a safe early economy. Papal Primacy won't take you to 60 CS points, so it's utterly useless in my eyes when I could just be buying them every turn with Tithe's 200gpt. But at least Pagodas can be quite situational, as with monasteries. With the right planning, you might not even need the happiness boost it gives, but I can see your point.
|
|
#
?
Sep 29, 2013 13:57
|
|
|
A buddy and me like to play on a team against AI civs - Does anyone have some suggestions for game settings and strategies? It's a little wonky that some things are shared like technology but wonders and religion are still exclusive, so you always have to be in communication over who's focusing what. Plus any trade caravans you would send to your teammate can only be the food or production ones, meaning you've got one less trading partner. Even with all these disadvantages though it seems pretty much impossible for a King AI to keep up, I've been thinking of turning up the difficulty or maybe assigning the AI a few teams of their own to see how that shakes things up.
|
|
#
?
Sep 29, 2013 15:12
|
|
|
Dwarsen posted:You need a religion to faith buy anything, though, don't you? It doesn't have to be YOUR religion but there has to be one present in the city in which you want to faith buy. Yes, but between proximity pressure and trade routes it's almost impossible to remain an atheist.
|
|
#
?
Sep 29, 2013 16:30
|
|
|
Geight posted:A buddy and me like to play on a team against AI civs - Does anyone have some suggestions for game settings and strategies? It's a little wonky that some things are shared like technology but wonders and religion are still exclusive, so you always have to be in communication over who's focusing what. Plus any trade caravans you would send to your teammate can only be the food or production ones, meaning you've got one less trading partner. Even with all these disadvantages though it seems pretty much impossible for a King AI to keep up, I've been thinking of turning up the difficulty or maybe assigning the AI a few teams of their own to see how that shakes things up. The AI will do much better if you set them into teams as well, but if you don't you can hike the difficulty incredibly high. A friend and I usually play on Emperor, but we had a fairly fun game on Deity when we were in a team and all the AI weren't. It's still a challenge, but not an unbeatable one. If you have ample city states that aren't all super far away, trade should never be an issue, and there are only a couple of wonders you'll both want, unless you both went wonder civs or something, so you may actually end up with more than usual as long as you help each other out. I think both of us vying for alliances with city states is the only major downside, really. Otherwise, just play on whatever maps or settings you like. Maybe one where city states are local rather than on distant islands though.
|
|
#
?
Sep 29, 2013 16:49
|
|
|
What is everyone's experience with Terra maps? I love the idea of them, but just played my first serious game on one, and only I(Indonesia) and Polynesia have colonized the new world.The entire world is in the modern/information age. Russia and Spain are in the game and are the score leaders, so I have able expansionists in my game. Do you normally see new world expansion in your games? The Human Crouton fucked around with this message at 18:25 on Sep 29, 2013 |
|
#
?
Sep 29, 2013 18:22
|
|
|
Just as a notice, the SA Civ5 steam group does multiplayer games on Thursdays and Sundays at 7PM EST. Tonight we'll be resuming a game we've been playing for the last few weeks, but JayMax didn't make it Thursday and it looks like he might not make it tonight either (at least, no sign of him on Steam in the last 5 days). If anyone is interested in getting a taste of multiplayer, we could use a sub for him; he's playing Sweden and IIRC is around the middle of the score rankings.
|
|
#
?
Sep 29, 2013 19:10
|
|
|
The Human Crouton posted:What is everyone's experience with Terra maps? I love the idea of them, but just played my first serious game on one, and only I(Indonesia) and Polynesia have colonized the new world.The entire world is in the modern/information age. Russia and Spain are in the game and are the score leaders, so I have able expansionists in my game. It was pretty limited in my latest Terra game:  Granted, this was a huge map on standard speed, so if I had used a smaller map or a slower speed maybe there would have been more cities. I feel like the game should give more incentive to expand overseas - maybe it's because I tend to go tall, but I feel like expansion isn't all that useful by the time I get to Astronomy. I might do it if I don't have Coal, Oil or Aluminum within my borders, but even then I usually check if I can get them from a city-state first. It's why I sort of miss barbarian cities, not only did they make settling on new continents more convenient, they were a pretty good representation of indigenous peoples and made the uncharted lands feel more "alive". Another way to encourage expansion might be to make a Conquistador-type military unit available to all civs, and either give the Spanish UU a new ability or make it available earlier and/or significantly cheaper.
|
|
#
?
Sep 29, 2013 20:18
|
|
|
So, it turns out playing as Russia and then taking Autocracy's Third Alternative tenet can get you a metric fuckload of uranium:
|
|
#
?
Sep 29, 2013 23:59
|
|
|
There's only one thing left to do...
|
|
#
?
Sep 30, 2013 00:02
|
|
|
Oh yeah, there are 3 nukes headed to each of the remaining capitols now because I want to end this game. I might come back afterward and make 30 nuclear missiles though.
|
|
#
?
Sep 30, 2013 00:17
|
|
|
The Human Crouton posted:What is everyone's experience with Terra maps? I love the idea of them, but just played my first serious game on one, and only I(Indonesia) and Polynesia have colonized the new world.The entire world is in the modern/information age. Russia and Spain are in the game and are the score leaders, so I have able expansionists in my game. I consider anything that takes place across multiple continents to be a handicap for the AI since they are so utterly awful at sea combat.
|
|
#
?
Sep 30, 2013 02:49
|
|
|
Away all Goats posted:I consider anything that takes place across multiple continents to be a handicap for the AI since they are so utterly awful at sea combat. They really are. I got sloppy earlier in my mega-uranium game and let Hiawatha get a sub near my capital while my entire navy was supporting my invasion of his cities. The sub could have camped out for a few turns and picked off my trade routes, but instead he parks directly off the shore of my capital, within move+fire range of a bazooka, and gets blown up after pillaging one fishing boat.
|
|
#
?
Sep 30, 2013 03:19
|
|
|
I've been playing pretty exclusively culture/diplomatic victories, and having quite a lot of difficulty with conquest: the sort of infrastructure needed to have a decent army always seems to end up with massive debt and unhappiness. As a dumb experiment, I played as Shaka and never built a single settler: built up the capital, then waited for the AI to build cities nearby, and then took them over. It worked amazingly, though I don't know how. My populace should've been miserable but they all loved me.
|
|
#
?
Sep 30, 2013 08:25
|
|
|
So, I've encountered something strange. In Single Player, the AI will still act like before; it declares wars, sets up trade routes, gets upset if you build too close to it, etc. But in MP, it's turned into a bit of a Zombie. It'll still build Missionaries and spread it's religion, but in terms of Diplomacy and Warfare, it seems to be happy to just... sit there, regardless of how close or defenseless I even try to be. It's always been dumb when it comes to naval warfare (a main reason why Continents / Plus Small is useless,everyone ends up on their own island and the AI just can't handle it) but we've played a few games recently where the AI just.... sits there. We still get conflict between players eventually, but we're used to the AI being an option to throw spanners in the works - Now we have to bribe it into war with another player, and even then it won't send any units in, it just declares war then does nothing. Has anyone else encountered this?
|
|
#
?
Sep 30, 2013 11:02
|
|
|
I've noticed that the AI doesn't care about winning enough. Was playing a standard/standard/Immortal/continents game yesterday with one other human player and a bunch of AIs. Got into a huge grinding war with Egypt, which they started in the Classical period and I finally won in the Renaissance, taking a city from them. I then took my skilled army and took two city states for their luxuries. Result was a three-way simultaneous war declaration on me which later became five-way with even Gandhi joining in. Cue another monster war. Meanwhile the other human is Austria and has used the Freedom tenet that gives you relations with city states for trading with them to ally them all. Game over. The obvious take-home from this is "never kill a city-state, just get consulates and focus on allying with them instead", but it does seem dumb that the AI comes down on you like a ton of bricks for what is - in game terms - at best a mild annoyance (wiping out a city state) while a truly dangerous attempt to win the game (allying all city states, or being ahead in science by a mile) is allowed to succeed with complete passivity. Makes peacetime powerhouses like Venice and Austria a bit overpowered, to be honest. In the meantime, warmongers are screwed over doubly because the Honour tree is trash and everyone on the planet hates you for conquering three cities. Gort fucked around with this message at 12:04 on Sep 30, 2013 |
|
#
?
Sep 30, 2013 11:47
|
|
|
The Human Crouton posted:What is everyone's experience with Terra maps? I love the idea of them, but just played my first serious game on one, and only I(Indonesia) and Polynesia have colonized the new world.The entire world is in the modern/information age. Russia and Spain are in the game and are the score leaders, so I have able expansionists in my game. They don't work anymore. In Civ 4 Terra maps were amazing and almost all I played, but in Civ 5 it's just not the same. I made a post about it a few months ago, but there is essentially 3 problems with Terra maps in Civ 5: 1) With all the advantages now on building tall instead of wide like in Civ 4 there is no real reason to aggressively colonize the new world. 2) One of the big reasons to settle the new world in Civ 4 was to setup a vassal state to your empire. Obviously that is not an option anymore. 3) Because everyone is crammed onto one continent it becomes easier to just steam roll over the AI for a domination victory than bothering with the new world.
|
|
#
?
Sep 30, 2013 12:08
|
|
|
HappyHelmet posted:They don't work anymore. In Civ 4 Terra maps were amazing and almost all I played, but in Civ 5 it's just not the same. I made a post about it a few months ago, but there is essentially 3 problems with Terra maps in Civ 5: I especially liked Terra in Civ 4 when using the Barbarian Civs mod. In regular Civ 4, Barbarians had the possibility of creating cities in the fog. Things didn't get too advanced, Barbs always worked together like they do in 5, so you'd sometimes see the barb cities link up and build roads between each other. They could build stuff in them and grow but it didn't mean a whole lot because most of their units were still randomly generated in the fog and they didn't have an economy or research. They were mostly meant as a way to do city fighting and military expansion even in peaceful games. Barbarian Civs was a mod that had multiple levels of civilization. Basically they tracked the culture of the barbarian cities and when that reached a certain threshold, they were able to create "minor civilizations," basically City States of sorts, able to conduct limited independent diplomacy. If they were able to achieve certain other barometers of success, they could become promoted into a full fledged civilization. The end result of all of this is that the New World in Terra maps became heavily populated with barbarian cities and by extension minor civilizations, giving the new world a whole lot of really interesting texture.
|
|
#
?
Sep 30, 2013 12:17
|
|
|
HappyHelmet posted:They don't work anymore. In Civ 4 Terra maps were amazing and almost all I played, but in Civ 5 it's just not the same. I made a post about it a few months ago, but there is essentially 3 problems with Terra maps in Civ 5: 1) Not to mention that all those new cities will actively slow down your tech pace and jeopardise your space runs. 3) They might add production, but that production won't be where you need them for domination victories: on your home continent where all the AI's capitals are. 2) To be fair, colony-vassals were never that useful, because once the State Property Civic came in, any new city was almost guaranteed to turn a profit. And you wanted their production to go directly into your coffers, instead of being filtered through the idiot AI.
|
|
#
?
Sep 30, 2013 12:40
|
|
|
Phobophilia posted:2) To be fair, colony-vassals were never that useful, because once the State Property Civic came in, any new city was almost guaranteed to turn a profit. And you wanted their production to go directly into your coffers, instead of being filtered through the idiot AI. I often went for Diplo victories in Civ 4. I liked having vassals because they were guaranteed votes in my favor for the win, or passing whatever legislation I had in mind. And I always liked the idea of having an AI that is actually friendly to you, and not waving a knife around behind your back like they always seem to be doing in Civ 5. Bring back the option for permanent alliances Firaxis .
|
|
#
?
Sep 30, 2013 13:45
|
|
|
It does seem a little wrong that new cities are active drains on your empire through stuff like happiness/science penalties AND prohibiting access to National Wonders. It's double-stupid that you can be prevented from building National Wonders because a city you are burning to the ground doesn't have the required building for it. It's triple-stupid that you take a huge happiness hit for cities you are burning down. It's quadruple-stupid that you're asked to pick something to produce, even though the city can't build anything. Cities you're razing should be zero-happiness puppets that make nothing.
|
|
#
?
Sep 30, 2013 14:25
|
|
|
I don't mind new cities being an initial drain on your empire, because that's the way it's always worked and you always need something to slow down early game expansion. The problem is that they become a permanent and cripplingly large drain on your empire that doesn't scale with time and tech: new cities should be easier to start up and maintain in the lategame. Like, I'm never going to settle spot X during the modern era that is well within my sphere of influence, because I can't afford the happiness and science hit.
|
|
#
?
Sep 30, 2013 15:03
|
|
|
It would be interesting if certain buildings became free with each era, maybe starting with ancient buildings in the industrial age. Any city that has them, they'd become free; any city that hadn't built them will get them; and any city that's built from then on starts with them. It could even be a tier 3 order tree policy, but it would probably be too powerful even then, compared to other policies. Alternatively, buildings from older eras could have their build cost reduced dramatically, so ancient era buildings could all be built in one turn in a newly founded city.
|
|
#
?
Sep 30, 2013 15:10
|
|
|
SlightlyMadman posted:It would be interesting if certain buildings became free with each era, maybe starting with ancient buildings in the industrial age. Any city that has them, they'd become free; any city that hadn't built them will get them; and any city that's built from then on starts with them. It could even be a tier 3 order tree policy, but it would probably be too powerful even then, compared to other policies. Presumably that is where gold is meant to come in. Gold is a lot easier to come by than in previous games, and that should allow you to buy out new cities and get them up to speed very quickly. However, this... Phobophilia posted:I don't mind new cities being an initial drain on your empire, because that's the way it's always worked and you always need something to slow down early game expansion. I'm fine with the happiness penalty because happiness is pretty easy to come by in the late game, but the massive science penalties are a bit much.
|
|
#
?
Sep 30, 2013 17:07
|
|
|
I just realised my problem: When do I stop building all the buildings/wonders in my capital, and start making an army? I never want to stop building stuff, and I never end up with a fantastic army. At this point I'm going beyond having any of the roman unique units without having built any swordsmen or anything. I do have the statue of Zeus though so I can probably start on a campaign of death. It's just so hard to let go of 'build everything'. Also can someone give me a good BNW starting build order and tech order, for general purposes? I've read up on a few but nobody seems to agree. None of them mention settlers and this game I found myself settler-less at turn 43. I also restarted a couple of times (I really don't do this often) and rome just got so many lovely production-free starts. edit: and when do you start building caravans? redreader fucked around with this message at 18:11 on Sep 30, 2013 |
|
#
?
Sep 30, 2013 17:50
|
|
|
The other thing that stops me settling late-game is the fact I'd have to build a Hotel in the size 1 new city before I could get the National Visitors Centre, and an Opera House before I could get the Hermitage. Having that new city doesn't just mean you temporarily have one crappy city, it actively makes your most important cities worse if you don't pour thousands of gold into it immediately.
|
|
#
?
Sep 30, 2013 17:52
|
|
|
Gort posted:The other thing that stops me settling late-game is the fact I'd have to build a Hotel in the size 1 new city before I could get the National Visitors Centre, and an Opera House before I could get the Hermitage. Having that new city doesn't just mean you temporarily have one crappy city, it actively makes your most important cities worse if you don't pour thousands of gold into it immediately. I do hate the way national wonders are handled. I realize that they are made to give tall empires an advantage against wide science generating empires, but it's stupid to halt my expansion because I need one building.
|
|
#
?
Sep 30, 2013 18:46
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 29, 2024 02:15 |
|
|
The Human Crouton posted:I do hate the way national wonders are handled. I realize that they are made to give tall empires an advantage against wide science generating empires, but it's stupid to halt my expansion because I need one building. The main offender in this case is the National College. 50% more science in your capital is simply too powerful to pass up. I wish it was more like the National Treasury - a flat bonus that's just as good for Tradition, Honour, Liberty or Piety starts.
|
|
#
?
Sep 30, 2013 18:55
|
|