|
Putin It In Mah rear end posted:What I don't get is how archers are firing at distances of dozens or hundreds of miles depending on the size of the map you're using. It doesn't make sense yo. It just doesn't. The point is, partly, why can archers shoot twice as far as guns? But mostly, why does combat have to start sucking so much after the Renaissance era?
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2014 19:49
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 4, 2024 08:53 |
|
|
When you think of a machine gun nest in the jungle (say on some island in the Pacific) then it really explains it quite a bit.AtraMorS posted:Historically speaking, sticking your infantry right in front of your gatling gun emplacements is a good way to get your infantry shot. Right, exactly.
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2014 19:57
|
|
|
I am setting up a game now. http://steamcommunity.com/profiles/76561197963451623/ Shoot me a message or just add me.
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2014 19:59
|
|
|
As mentioned gatling guns are great for defense. The problem is that in most games (at least my own) you're trying to cut some AI down to size so that you can win whatever way you want, so converting a flexible offensive/defensive unit to a primarily defensive unit is really annoying. I'm really interested to see if they get used in the multiplayer game. Dragongem fucked around with this message at 20:03 on Feb 17, 2014 |
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2014 20:00
|
|
|
Dragongem posted:As mentioned gatling guns are great for defense. The problem is that in most games (at least my own) you're trying to cut some AI down to size so that you can win whatever way you want, so converting a flexible offensive/defensive unit to a primarily defensive unit is really annoying. Maybe in the Second Valetta War... Edit: reminds me to keep some screenshots for post-mortem posts. If anyone cares... Putin It In Mah ASS fucked around with this message at 20:16 on Feb 17, 2014 |
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2014 20:07
|
|
|
Mymla posted:The point is, partly, why can archers shoot twice as far as guns? But mostly, why does combat have to start sucking so much after the Renaissance era? I think the idea is that at gunpowder the idea of fighting hand to hand kind of goes out the window, so now ranged units are the new close combat units and cannons and artillery are the new ranged. The 1 range units were mostly put in so archers and other ranged units would be able to make use of their upgrades. Archers aren't really shooting farther than guns, but rather all combat is now taking place on a larger scale.
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2014 20:44
|
|
|
Bashez posted:A bug to keep in mind (I don't know if it's still around or if it is even a bug or even if it ever existed as I'm beginning to doubt myself.) is the city defense bonus with a garrisoned unit from tradition only works if the unit hasn't taken an action yet, so you want the city to fire first. That’s because “garrison in city” used to be its own action. It was streamlined, I want to say in Gods & Kings. Now any combat unit in a city counts as garrisoned, so attacking and becoming non‐garrisoned is no longer possible.
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2014 20:50
|
|
|
Mymla posted:The point is, partly, why can archers shoot twice as far as guns? But mostly, why does combat have to start sucking so much after the Renaissance era? This is because the paradigm for combat shifts once you hit the gunpowder era. Ranged weapons become the norm, so then instead of guys with spears charging forward supported by archers in the back, you have everyone with guns and some of those guns are support weapons, effectively giving everyone the same range. You want long-ranged combat, use your artillery. Bremen posted:I think the idea is that at gunpowder the idea of fighting hand to hand kind of goes out the window, so now ranged units are the new close combat units and cannons and artillery are the new ranged. The 1 range units were mostly put in so archers and other ranged units would be able to make use of their upgrades. Archers aren't really shooting farther than guns, but rather all combat is now taking place on a larger scale. Right.
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2014 20:56
|
|
|
It certainly makes it lovely that your gatlings and rifles can't shoot back against archers though. And the huge hit in city sieging ability around that era since you can't fit as many units around.
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2014 21:05
|
|
|
WarpedLichen posted:It certainly makes it lovely that your gatlings and rifles can't shoot back against archers though. And the huge hit in city sieging ability around that era since you can't fit as many units around. Who cares? Archers die in one hit to gatlings and rifles and can barely scratch them.
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2014 21:06
|
|
|
Grabbed this with the humble bundle offer, as I'm sure pretty much all the new posters in this thread have. Haven't really played since Civ 4 several years ago. There isn't a Fall From Heaven mod for Civ 5, right? I spent hundreds of hours on that back in Civ 4, but it doesn't seem like there's any around. Any good FFH facsimiles? Also, maybe I'm looking back at Civ 4 with a skewed perspective, but are empires/civs a lot loving smaller this time around? I've played two standard-length games with standard map sizes (8 players) so far and both of the times the civs seemed to stick around three to four cities and there also seemed like there was very little war. Just not big enough of a sample size yet, or are things a bit toned down scale-wise? Also, getting used to the new non-stacking combat is weird as gently caress. I think I like it so far, though.
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2014 21:22
|
|
|
Brave New World, the last expansion, punishes expansion very heavily, so optimal play seems to be around being peaceful with 4 big cities. The science penalty for additional cities is brutal. There's also a huge diplomacy hit with all civs if you start a war, so going for domination is also pretty annoying (still easy since the AI still sucks at tactical battles) It's funny cause the last time I played Civ V at release, there was no science penalty for additional cities so the best way to play was infinite city sprawl. How times have changed.
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2014 21:27
|
|
|
WarpedLichen posted:Brave New World, the last expansion, punishes expansion very heavily, so optimal play seems to be around being peaceful with 4 big cities. What's the science penalty? And man, that really blows. I miss my sprawling Neo Carthaginian Empires 
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2014 21:43
|
|
|
DrPop posted:What's the science penalty? And man, that really blows. I miss my sprawling Neo Carthaginian Empires 5% for every city you own, including puppets. You can still spread out, but you need to make sure that the new city won't blow. This also means burning down lots of enemy cities unless they're in a key position.
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2014 21:54
|
|
|
DrPop posted:What's the science penalty? And man, that really blows. I miss my sprawling Neo Carthaginian Empires +5% tech costs per city. On its own that's not really enough to make additional cities prohibitive, but there are other mechanics as well. Tradition is pretty much universally regarded as the best starting policy tree, and it gives a lot of benefits to your first four cities. Happiness is global, so 80 population in 4 cities costs the same as 80 population in 10 cities, and number of cities also gives a happiness penalty (which can be offset if the cities claim luxury resources, but total population cap is still the same) and science is based on total population. National wonders are a key part of early game strategy, but get exceedingly unpractical with more than 4-5 cities. And so on; there's not any one mechanic that stops sprawling empires, but all of the cumulative effects mean a tall empire has a bunch of advantages.
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2014 21:55
|
|
|
Something to keep in mind, and that a lot of people don't seem to get, is that being flexible is the key to winning Civ V consistently. If there's only 3 good city locations that you can spread to effectively, then you don't necessarily need a 4th just to fulfill Tradition's bonuses. Likewise, even if you go Tradition, you can still make 5/6 cities if there's good enough spots for them. Just make sure whatever cities you're settling can contribute and you're golden. The science penalty is really only there to stop you from making GBS threads out tonnes of cities like you're Polynesia or something  As a side-note, the science penalty is only 3% on Large and 2% on Huge, so if you're desperate to go Wide-As-gently caress then it's worth keeping in mind.
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2014 21:58
|
|
|
Larger map sizes also reduce the unhappiness from population and number of cities I believe. In my experience relying on luxuries for happiness can be a bit unreliable since the AI absolutely loves to passive aggressively ban them one after the other.
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2014 22:12
|
|
|
Bremen posted:+5% tech costs per city. I see. Thank you (and others for insight) for explaining. The global happiness thing kinda had me scratching my head, but I'm getting the hang of it at least.
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2014 22:16
|
|
|
Golden Battler posted:Something to keep in mind, and that a lot of people don't seem to get, is that being flexible is the key to winning Civ V consistently. If there's only 3 good city locations that you can spread to effectively, then you don't necessarily need a 4th just to fulfill Tradition's bonuses. Likewise, even if you go Tradition, you can still make 5/6 cities if there's good enough spots for them. Just make sure whatever cities you're settling can contribute and you're golden. The science penalty is really only there to stop you from making GBS threads out tonnes of cities like you're Polynesia or something That's true, but the bar of "good enough" for a new city spot is fairly high compared to other civ games. It's not uncommon to see weird empires stretched over a continent without contiguous borders. What's everybody's criteria for determining if a spot is worth settling? I would only settle a city if there's enough food and a resource worth grabbing.
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2014 22:30
|
|
|
WarpedLichen posted:What's everybody's criteria for determining if a spot is worth settling? 1. Does it have a new luxury? If so, settle. 2. Does it have an important strategic resource? If so, settle. 3. Would it block someone else from expanding? If so, settle. 4. Is it in a strategic location for warfare? If so, settle. 5. Does it have food and a source of fresh water for specialists? If so, settle. 6. Does it have food resource(s)? If so, settle. 7. Would this make my borders prettier? If so, settle. 8. Do I have the happiness for another city? If so, settle. 9. Do I want another city anyway? If so, settle. 10. Do I want another city but can't be assed to control it myself? 
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2014 22:44
|
|
|
DrPop posted:There isn't a Fall From Heaven mod for Civ 5, right? I spent hundreds of hours on that back in Civ 4, but it doesn't seem like there's any around. Any good FFH facsimiles? Not at all, really. This was also one of my favorite mods for Civ4 (hell, I still play it and its modmods), but there aren't any good total conversions for Civ5. Considering the game's weaknesses re:diplomacy and city-states, I don't think it's too great of a loss. Damned if I don't miss one unit per tile when playing Civ4, though.
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2014 22:57
|
|
|
Poil posted:Simple, if any of the following is true it's a good spot to grab. Addendum- is it at the ismuth of a continent? Settle. Panama Canal style cities can be incredibly important and can expand available trade route opportunities dramatically.
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2014 23:10
|
|
|
Poil posted:Simple, if any of the following is true it's a good spot to grab. 1. A new resource in plains or tundra I would consider not worth it at all. 4 extra happiness that gets cancelled out almost instantly while taking a penalty to science + social policies. Desert salt for example is awful 2. Only coal is always worth it, iron and horses are easy to do without, uranium is a maybe, and aluminum you can get recycling centers for if you really need it 3. Forward settling will get the AI pissy. If you don't care, you might as well just take the city (and burn it) after it gets settled. 4. I suppose that's possible, but usually not worth it - a city gets you an extra ranged attack but costs you a lot in return whereas a fort or citadel costs nothing 5. Yeah, a city with food + rivers is usually very worth it to settle 6. A field of plains with a single cow is not worth the effort in my opinion 7. Pretty borders rule 8. It's easy to get a massive happiness surplus from ideologies, but it's usually not worth settling new cities at that stage. 9. That's true 10. Why would you ever want to puppet for the sake of getting a new city?
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2014 23:15
|
|
|
In the last couple of weeks (I think shortly before the patch), Steam changed the name of my copy to "Sid Meier's Civilization V [publicbeta]". Has this happened to anyone else? It doesn't seem to have any actual consequences, just bugs me.
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2014 23:19
|
|
|
Someone convince me that it's worth playing games on epic pace. A compelling argument would have a whiff of "the extra time allowing elements of subtlety in your strategy not possible on faster game speeds". But just a whiff.
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2014 23:26
|
|
|
Check out the TacTurns mod, it gives you epic-like research times with standard building speeds. You'll get to pump out units and fight wars that don't see your units become outdated in a couple of turns! Personally I find it to strike a nice balance between the rapidness of standard and the boring, empty turns of marathon.
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2014 23:33
|
|
|
Putin It In Mah rear end posted:Someone convince me that it's worth playing games on epic pace. I'm bad at getting started fast enough for classical age wars. So if I'm playing someone that has a big edge in the classical age, like the Greek with Hoplites and Companion Cavalry, and I feel like I want to use those to the fullest, I prefer a slower game.
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2014 23:34
|
|
|
Poil posted:Larger map sizes also reduce the unhappiness from population and number of cities I believe. This is correct. On Huge it's only 1.8 unhappiness per city, rather than 3. Presumably 3.6 for India.
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2014 23:36
|
|
|
WarpedLichen posted:1. A new resource in plains or tundra I would consider not worth it at all. 4 extra happiness that gets cancelled out almost instantly while taking a penalty to science + social policies. Desert salt for example is awful 2. Iron is amazing on water maps and crushing weaker civs with frigates. The recycling comes much later in the tech tree and costs hammers to build that could be spent on more fun stuff. Oil is pretty drat useful for battleships and bombers. 3. Throwing out a settler is way quicker and more convenient. Plus them having less cities means it'll be faster when I beat the poo poo out of them later on. 4. You might not have a GG to spare and at any rate you can only build them next to your borders. Plopping down a hill city is vastly more defensive. 5. No complaints 6. It is in my opinion. 7. Wise words. 8. Frankly, who cares? I want more cities. 9. Indeed it is. 10. I just don't want to micro every drat city I have.  And no, razing cities or even worse not conquering them is totally unacceptable behavior!I'm content at playing on king/emperor so I don't really need to play optimally. This way is more fun for me.  Poizen Jam posted:Addendum- is it at the ismuth of a continent? Settle. Panama Canal style cities can be incredibly important and can expand available trade route opportunities dramatically.
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2014 23:55
|
|
|
Putin It In Mah rear end posted:Someone convince me that it's worth playing games on epic pace. Sorry, the best way to play is still, Emperor, Continents, Standard, Final Destination, No Items, No Fox, No Falco.
|
|
#
?
Feb 18, 2014 00:00
|
|
|
Emperor does feel like a sweet spot of difficulty, Immortal and Deity might as well be different games. Trade routes start generating 5 or 6 science by themselves because the AIs are so far ahead in tech.
|
|
#
?
Feb 18, 2014 00:27
|
|
|
For different map sizes, what is usually a good target number of cities (for Brave New World)? I know 4 cities/Tradition-tall works reliably for Standard maps, but what about Large or Huge?
|
|
#
?
Feb 18, 2014 02:22
|
|
|
Dad Jokes posted:For different map sizes, what is usually a good target number of cities (for Brave New World)? I know 4 cities/Tradition-tall works reliably for Standard maps, but what about Large or Huge? You can make do with 4. Possibly 3. It all depends on what you're trying to do. Again, if you find a good spot for a city, just take it. I'm a big baby that plays on King, but I just beat a Spain game on large where I only had 3 cities until the 1700s. I did find a Petra wonderland though. 5% tech cost increase isn't so hurtful that a 20-pop city won't be a net positive for you.
|
|
#
?
Feb 18, 2014 03:09
|
|
|
Two quick questions: Has anyone tried the one-city challenge as Sweden, and used the bonus to great person ability (+10% GP per declaration of friendship) on huge, 14+ civ maps? Does the bonus *reduce* the cost of great persons, or does it increase the speed great persons are generated? If it is the former, I can see the game crashing if you DOF 10 nations. Also, does anyone know if the AI sustains a science penalty for number of cities if that city is given to them? A tactic I used to use in G&K was to create a 5th city in bumblef**k arctic nowhere, then gift the useless city to an opponent to slow their culture growth. Even better would be to gift the AI a city in the snow with nothing but a bunch of roads leading to nowhere in that city's territory - thus acting as a constant gold-point drain to their economy.
|
|
#
?
Feb 18, 2014 03:11
|
|
|
Slim Jim Pickens posted:You can make do with 4. Possibly 3. It all depends on what you're trying to do. Again, if you find a good spot for a city, just take it. I'm a big baby that plays on King, but I just beat a Spain game on large where I only had 3 cities until the 1700s. I did find a Petra wonderland though. The crappy thing about the 5% tech penalty per city is that it never goes down. AI gives you five cities in a peace deal which you immediately raze? gently caress you, 25% science penalty for the rest of the game.
|
|
#
?
Feb 18, 2014 03:35
|
|
|
Guigui posted:Also, does anyone know if the AI sustains a science penalty for number of cities if that city is given to them? A tactic I used to use in G&K was to create a 5th city in bumblef**k arctic nowhere, then gift the useless city to an opponent to slow their culture growth. That city would slow your culture growth just as much. The only way to avoid a culture cost increase is to immediately raze a captured city. The AI shits out useless cities without any prompting from you, so you should just let them do their dumb thing. Gort posted:The crappy thing about the 5% tech penalty per city is that it never goes down. AI gives you five cities in a peace deal which you immediately raze? gently caress you, 25% science penalty for the rest of the game. I didn't know this, and that sucks. I'm really annoyed that warfare is such a bad idea in BNW.
|
|
#
?
Feb 18, 2014 03:46
|
|
|
to clarify it goes off max cities you've ever had. It's probably suppoued to make it so you take, burn and heal, then take, burn and heal over and over.
|
|
#
?
Feb 18, 2014 03:53
|
|
|
5% is still not the big deal some people make it out to be but yeah, it's not a malus you want to arbitrarily apply to yourself for no good reason.
|
|
#
?
Feb 18, 2014 04:28
|
|
|
Man, they completely overhauled Conquest of the New World. It'll take me some time to fully wrap my head around all these changes.
|
|
#
?
Feb 18, 2014 04:58
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 4, 2024 08:53 |
|
|
It's amazing. Seriously, I've played that thing three times, and I normally don't really care for the Scenarios. I like the idea and all, but the time limits are just too constricting. In my game as England, I settled on Potosi, El Dorado, and the Fountain of Youth, and had about 5000 points at the end.
|
|
#
?
Feb 18, 2014 09:15
|
|