|
Speaking of moronic AI, I'm sharing a continent with Washington right now, and he's saying he's Friendly while a) having no modifiers on the diplo screen other than "we share embassies" (he should have at least some warmonger penalty since he knows I wiped out Shaka), and b) having five times the pointy-sticks rating that I do. He's also out-teched me militarily and is rocking those Minutemen. Thing is, the only land approach to my territory is two one-tile-wide corridors on either side of a lake. I plopped down a couple of Great General fortresses on those two tiles. Does the AI consider that kind of thing when deciding whether or not to attack? Relatedly, should I goad him into attacking me? I'm playing as Monty so the free culture from his units would be nice to have. But I desperately need to fix my economy, so I wouldn't be able to take any war onto the offensive.
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2014 01:23
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 4, 2024 04:57 |
|
|
TooMuchAbstraction posted:Speaking of moronic AI, I'm sharing a continent with Washington right now, and he's saying he's Friendly while a) having no modifiers on the diplo screen other than "we share embassies" (he should have at least some warmonger penalty since he knows I wiped out Shaka), and b) having five times the pointy-sticks rating that I do. He's also out-teched me militarily and is rocking those Minutemen. I wouldn't call it moronic. The ai will pretend to be your friend, only to deliberately backstab you when it thinks it has the chance. They can be deceiful on purpose. You can usually test how faithful they are through trading. He probably won't take into account terrain or citadels, though. I don't think they're smart enough.
|
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2014 05:40
|
|
|
I was gifted Civ V complete two weeks ago as a sort of "welcome back to video gaming" present. I have done nothing productive in two weeks. Also, how the hell do you win a culture victory? Edit: Actually, a science victory too. Degs fucked around with this message at 07:00 on Mar 25, 2014 |
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2014 06:58
|
|
|
Should you build a monument in your capital at all if you're going for Tradition, or is it worth building instead of an initial scout?
|
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2014 07:01
|
|
|
Pollyanna posted:Should you build a monument in your capital at all if you're going for Tradition, or is it worth building instead of an initial scout? If your capital already has a monument when you get legalism, it should give you the next building in the line, i.e. an Amphitheater, but I think it only does so if you already have the technology for it unlocked (Drama and Poetry). I still often build a monument when going tradition, mainly because the +2 culture makes the subsequent policies come in much faster.
|
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2014 07:23
|
|
|
Pollyanna posted:Should you build a monument in your capital at all if you're going for Tradition, or is it worth building instead of an initial scout? I used to think yes but I've been made to believe it's better to save the early hammers. They're more valuable relative to the building you get from them.
|
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2014 07:40
|
|
|
Kinster posted:I was gifted Civ V complete two weeks ago as a sort of "welcome back to video gaming" present. Depends, did you get gifted the vanilla game, Gods and Kings or Brave New World? If Vanilla or G&K, culture victory requires completing 5 full policy trees and then building the Utopia Project World Wonder. Basically build 3-4 cities and puppet everything else. Get as many culture buildings as you can to speed it up. If BNW, then you have to generate tourism (a stat that only starts to matter in the later game) and outpace every other civ's culture. Science remains the same though, research every single tech on the tech tree, these unlock spaceship parts which you can build, they're units you want to move to your capital and "Use" them to build the space shuttle.
|
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2014 09:04
|
|
|
Fano posted:If your capital already has a monument when you get legalism, it should give you the next building in the line, i.e. an Amphitheater, but I think it only does so if you already have the technology for it unlocked (Drama and Poetry). It will remember that information and give you a free amphitheater once you research drama, so you don't need to worry about already having that tech. That said, I've more or less stopped building monuments now when going Tradition. Even if it means taking a few extra turns to get to Legalism, it's worth it in order to speed up your initial build order. And the free amphitheater isn't quite as nice as it was in G&K.
|
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2014 09:23
|
|
|
Montezuma owns. I'm playing him shooting for a domination victory and I've already filled out like two extra policy trees from eating the souls of my enemies.
|
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2014 14:43
|
|
|
Pollyanna posted:Should you build a monument in your capital at all if you're going for Tradition, or is it worth building instead of an initial scout? I'd pretty much always build the scout first. 90% of the time I'd forego the monument entirely, but I'd build it after the scout if 1) I have a high-production, low-food start that needs border growth to get better food tiles, and/or 2) I have a very cramped start where I can count on not finding a culture ruin.
|
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2014 15:03
|
|
|
Gabriel Pope posted:I'd pretty much always build the scout first. 90% of the time I'd forego the monument entirely, but I'd build it after the scout if 1) I have a high-production, low-food start that needs border growth to get better food tiles, and/or 2) I have a very cramped start where I can count on not finding a culture ruin. I think people are asking about scout,monument,other, rather than monument first. The only time you'd go monument first is if you were going for a super early wonder and were willing to sacrifice some early scouting for it, in which case you might do something like monument,worker,wonder (and use the monument to speed your acquisition of monarchy. This is something you should almost never do because it's incredibly risky and you sacrifice a lot of exploration and early infrastructure for it. But, for example, if you are Byzantium and you have a poor faith start, sometimes you just NEED stonehenge.
|
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2014 15:10
|
|
Doltos posted:Montezuma owns. I'm playing him shooting for a domination victory and I've already filled out like two extra policy trees from eating the souls of my enemies. I'm currently nearly finished a one-city run as Montezuma. My one city is wedged in between a mountain and what turned out to be a fairly large lake, in the middle of a jungle. I maxed out the honour tree fairly early. And I have been at war with Shaka, Oda Nobunaga and, for some reason, Casimir III, for the better part of 1200 years. They have literally never stopped funnelling into my jungle death trap. They will accept no deal to stop fighting, since my relatively low unit count and single city apparently means I am ripe for the killin'. It's a constant stream of Hussars, Samurai, Impi and cannons inching through the jungle before getting blown to smithereens and sacrificing their culture and gold to the GREAT MONTEZUMAAAA. I love this game sometimes.
|
|
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2014 15:15
|
|
|
I usually go Scout - Worker - Scout - Monument/Granary/Shrine depending on the ruins/city-states I find. Those early scouts are amazing, sometimes I get 3.Disgusting Coward posted:I'm currently nearly finished a one-city run as Montezuma. My one city is wedged in between a mountain and what turned out to be a fairly large lake, in the middle of a jungle. I maxed out the honour tree fairly early. I'm in the top of a ringed continent littered with lakes. My two starting cities are already at 15 pop while everyone else is at like 8. Casimir III was right below me with Maria Theresa. I'm in the process of slaughtering Casimir but his last city is surrounded by mountains and annoying to penetrate. Maria Theresa is next before I start launching nukes everywhere.
|
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2014 15:54
|
|
|
Does anyone know why Firaxis decided to abandon the idea of single/dual civ DLCs? While I know a lot of people were up in arms about it being able to pick up new civilisations more often was pretty good I thought. Yes the Wonders ones were bloody stupid, but it's still kind of a shame that the game is "over" now, sort of.
|
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2014 16:46
|
|
|
Probably because of how elaborate the leader scenes are they avoided doubling up. Civ 5 has more Civs than any other civ game but fewer leaders. Due to the DLC model people probably would feel slighted if they were resold "old" civs for more money.
|
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2014 16:48
|
|
|
RagnarokAngel posted:Probably because of how elaborate the leader scenes are they avoided doubling up. Civ 5 has more Civs than any other civ game but fewer leaders. Due to the DLC model people probably would feel slighted if they were resold "old" civs for more money. There's plenty of places left for them to add though, with no need to double up. Even if you just look in Europe and Asia there's tons of civs that they could have modelled leaders on to sell as DLC.
|
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2014 16:52
|
|
|
I wasn't a big fan of the initial DLC. It complicated compatibility issues with multiplayer and discouraged major improvements that the expansions eventually remedied. It felt like microtransactions, which really doesn't feel too good for Civ. I hope CivVI sticks with big expansions.
|
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2014 16:59
|
|
|
Taear posted:There's plenty of places left for them to add though, with no need to double up. Even if you just look in Europe and Asia there's tons of civs that they could have modelled leaders on to sell as DLC. The problem is that they really don't. They took up vast swathes of land with each Civ and the only way to go around that is to introduce underwhelming civilizations or double up and release more leaders that have different modifiers for the Civ.
|
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2014 17:03
|
|
|
oops nevermind
Minorkos fucked around with this message at 17:10 on Mar 25, 2014 |
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2014 17:05
|
|
|
Doltos posted:The problem is that they really don't. They took up vast swathes of land with each Civ and the only way to go around that is to introduce underwhelming civilizations or double up and release more leaders that have different modifiers for the Civ. Off the top of my head I could think of Hungary, the Scythians and maybe the Khazars? Ashanti for an African one too. There's tons of still quite important places that aren't in. I'd pay £5 or whatever to have them with fully animated portraits and leaders, for sure. I'd forgotten about the multiplayer issues though, probably because the multiplayer in Civ5 still doesn't feel like it works to me.
|
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2014 17:09
|
|
|
Hungary, Prussia (although Bismark spans that era), Thracians, Muslim Iberia, Gauls, Germanic Tribesfolk, Anglo-Saxons, Scots, present day Mexico/Canada, Australia, Malaysia, Tibet/Bhutan, Southeast Asia, Boyars, Kenyans, Seleucids, and a thousand city-states from antiquity. The problem is most of these areas overlap or are generalized with existing Civs, and that most of these Civs would be identical barbarians running around with spears.
|
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2014 17:19
|
|
|
Echo Chamber posted:I wasn't a big fan of the initial DLC. It complicated compatibility issues with multiplayer and discouraged major improvements that the expansions eventually remedied. It felt like microtransactions, which really doesn't feel too good for Civ. In a lot of ways I prefer the microtransaction DLC model. I'll agree that the big expansions were absolutely necessary for Civ V and there's no practical way they could have recovered from the dismal launch using DLC packs, but if they get their poo poo together and deliver Civ VI in a more polished state with better MP integration then I say bring on some fucken microtransactions.
|
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2014 17:24
|
|
|
They seemed to give up on DLC after G&K because introductions of new subsystems like Faith meant that you'd have to make 2 versions of a civ if you wanted to use those subsystems.
|
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2014 17:26
|
|
|
It's a bummer that you can't get achievements with any type of mods on. I love the small continents deluxe mapscript mod so much, and the SuperQuick game speed mod, but if I have those I can't win achievements, boooooo.
|
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2014 18:28
|
|
|
RagnarokAngel posted:They seemed to give up on DLC after G&K because introductions of new subsystems like Faith meant that you'd have to make 2 versions of a civ if you wanted to use those subsystems. There was a big gap between the last DLC and G&K, then no more after it. I hadn't considered backward compatibility because to me you'd be buying all the expansions if you're the sort of person who wants the DLC. And I don't feel like any of the ones you've listed Doltos are any less of a crossover than (for example) Greece/Rome/Byzantium or Germany and Austria.
|
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2014 18:32
|
|
|
Taear posted:And I don't feel like any of the ones you've listed Doltos are any less of a crossover than (for example) Greece/Rome/Byzantium or Germany and Austria. Well geographical locations aside Austria and Germany were two distinct nations for a long time. Austria was the predominant power in Europe until the 19th century and Germany was a collection of baronys, city-states, kingdoms, and counties before it was united into the German federation. Greece is Hellenic under Alexander which comes much later than Byzantium and Rome, and Byzantium and Rome are separated after 400 AD when Rome split into two kingdoms. They are all distinct civilizations but I can see how they overlap in a geographical sense, sort of. I just think that if you do a Greek Civ you should break it up to Hellenic and Peloponnesian/Delian League. That way you get Athens, Sparta, Corinth, Elis, Argos, Archea, and Thebes. Then again most of those could be considered city-states instead of civilizations. Either way they're culturally and militarily different enough to give different UAs and UIs.
|
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2014 18:47
|
|
|
Doltos posted:Well geographical locations aside Austria and Germany were two distinct nations for a long time. Austria was the predominant power in Europe until the 19th century and Germany was a collection of baronys, city-states, kingdoms, and counties before it was united into the German federation. Greece is Hellenic under Alexander which comes much later than Byzantium and Rome, and Byzantium and Rome are separated after 400 AD when Rome split into two kingdoms. Because Austria is Germany - if you're assuming Germany consists of the culture rather than the modern day nation. Look at any map until around the era of Napoleon and you'll find that the area tagged as Germany does include Austria, since they were the offical Kings of the Germans. Byzantium is a modern day invention and as far as the Byzantines were concerned they were also Romans. Like I say, there's ALREADY a lot of crossover and I don't see why plenty of other civs can't be thrown in with that in mind.
|
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2014 18:53
|
|
|
Austria was Germany in the sense that it ruled over the Germans, but Austria was its own distinct, huge nation for years upon years. Only Poland grew bigger than Austria in mainland Europe (excluding Germany and France during Hitler and Napoleon) and that was when it took over Austria after the Hapsburgs started dying out. Ethnically it could be considered German but ethnically everyone in the northern half of Europe at the time came from the same Rus barbarians that spread through Scandanavia and western Asia. You're right though, Byzantines most likely considered themselves Romans or Justinians. The crossovers are eh at best. I like to think that they're not doing it due to geographical areas but through civilization significance. They took arguably the most powerful rulers from each faction (definitely arguably, I wouldn't use Washington, Wu Zeitan, Bismark, Harun Al-Rashid, Catherine, Maria Theresa, or Dido, and there were probably much better Amazon leaders than Montezuma who sort of doomed the empire single handily) and based the eras of the Civs around those rulers. I'd be much more ok with them using great leaders as a model for more civs than geographical locations, since those do indeed lead to overlaps.
|
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2014 19:04
|
|
|
Doltos posted:I like to think that they're not doing it due to geographical areas but through civilization significance. That is pretty clearly what they are doing and it makes no sense to argue over whether a civ shouldn't be added because it shares a geographical area with another civ. The civilizations are way more about the cool leaders than the civs themselves anyway, to the point I assumed they brainstormed cool leaders from history rather than powerful civs from history.
|
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2014 19:10
|
|
|
Doltos posted:Austria was Germany in the sense that it ruled over the Germans, but Austria was its own distinct, huge nation for years upon years. Only Poland grew bigger than Austria in mainland Europe (excluding Germany and France during Hitler and Napoleon) and that was when it took over Austria after the Hapsburgs started dying out. Ethnically it could be considered German but ethnically everyone in the northern half of Europe at the time came from the same Rus barbarians that spread through Scandanavia and western Asia. Austria was germany in the sense that they're germans, they speak german, they're culturally German. Yes they ran their own empire, but there's nothing to say that the empire couldn't have included the other german speaking nations if not for slight differences in what happened during the development of the Holy Roman Empire. If you went back to the 1700s and tried to explain your concept of Germany to them and how it doesn't include Austria they'd be pretty confused, especially since in essence Austria is just the hereditary German lands of the Habsburgs. The Germany that exists as a nation today is "Kleinedeutschland" because it's the lesser Germany that was formed by the military might of the Prussians, it's not the be all and end all of what makes something German. If you're including Austria in a game that also has Germany, there's REALLY no reason that other places can't be put in too. I'm sure the cost of developing them would never be more than they'd earn by having them around too, it's pretty baffling! quote:That is pretty clearly what they are doing and it makes no sense to argue over whether a civ shouldn't be added because it shares a geographical area with another civ. The civilizations are way more about the cool leaders than the civs themselves anyway, to the point I assumed they brainstormed cool leaders from history rather than powerful civs from history. So, why not add more? That is really what I'm saying here.
|
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2014 19:14
|
|
|
Taear posted:So, why not add more? That is really what I'm saying here. I was agreeing with you.
|
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2014 19:25
|
|
|
Taear posted:Austria was germany in the sense that they're germans, they speak german, they're culturally German. Yes they ran their own empire, but there's nothing to say that the empire couldn't have included the other german speaking nations if not for slight differences in what happened during the development of the Holy Roman Empire. I'm saying they were German in the sense that they came from the same barbarian lines of Goths, Visigoths, Germanic, Rus, Scandinavian fuckfests that produced most of Europe that we know today. Nationalism didn't quite exist before the 19th century so if you went back and asked what they were in the 1700s they'd shrug and talk about their immediate surroundings. Hell Austria just means eastern nation. They also spoke a Germanic language, as did most people east of the Rhine. It didn't make them German any more than it makes Norwegians the same as Swedish because they both spoke the same Scandinavian tongue. Really I think we're both agreeing with each other and this is just semantics. I also want more Civs but to break existing Civs down to subset leaders. Doltos fucked around with this message at 19:37 on Mar 25, 2014 |
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2014 19:35
|
|
|
Doltos posted:Austria was Germany in the sense that it ruled over the Germans, but Austria was its own distinct, huge nation for years upon years. Only Poland grew bigger than Austria in mainland Europe (excluding Germany and France during Hitler and Napoleon) and that was when it took over Austria after the Hapsburgs started dying out. Ethnically it could be considered German but ethnically everyone in the northern half of Europe at the time came from the same Rus barbarians that spread through Scandanavia and western Asia. Who would you use instead of Maria Theresa and Bismarck? The only German I can think of would maybe be Hindenburg, but his later years when he should've been retired anyway weren't so admirable.
|
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2014 20:05
|
|
|
Jedi Knight Luigi posted:Who would you use instead of Maria Theresa and Bismarck? The only German I can think of would maybe be Hindenburg, but his later years when he should've been retired anyway weren't so admirable. Frederick the Great Despite him being the king of Prussia, he was still the Hohenzollern AND he wasn't a complete rear end in a top hat
|
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2014 20:25
|
|
|
Bad start, or did I do something wrong?    
|
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2014 20:53
|
|
|
Doltos posted:Austria was Germany in the sense that it ruled over the Germans, but Austria was its own distinct, huge nation for years upon years. Only Poland grew bigger than Austria in mainland Europe (excluding Germany and France during Hitler and Napoleon) and that was when it took over Austria after the Hapsburgs started dying out. Ethnically it could be considered German but ethnically everyone in the northern half of Europe at the time came from the same Rus barbarians that spread through Scandanavia and western Asia. The Montezuma in Civ V is the 5th emperor Montezuma I. You're thinking of the 9th emperor, Montezuma II who was emperor when the Spanish turned up.
|
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2014 21:04
|
|
|
Ilyich posted:The Montezuma in Civ V is the 5th emperor Montezuma I. You're thinking of the 9th emperor, Montezuma II who was emperor when the Spanish turned up. Ah my bad. Jedi Knight Luigi posted:Who would you use instead of Maria Theresa and Bismarck? The only German I can think of would maybe be Hindenburg, but his later years when he should've been retired anyway weren't so admirable. Well... Germany was never as strong as it was under  ...Don't get me wrong Bismark is one of my favorite dudes out of history but there are a few federation kings and Prussian rulers (The Ottos, Charles Martel, Frederick II) that wielded more power. Maria Theresa is up in the air because the Habsburgs were a huge rear end family that spread their rule over a ton of area with a lot of Dukes and Duchesses. Rudolph I would probably be the premier ruler out of that line since he started it all. But really the point of that was just to say that they should create subset rulers inside civilizations. Like give me an option to pick between Saladin, Alp Arslan, and Suleimon.
|
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2014 21:23
|
|
|
Doltos posted:But really the point of that was just to say that they should create subset rulers inside civilizations. Like give me an option to pick between Saladin, Alp Arslan, and Suleimon. It would actually be kind of cool if your choice of ruler altered your UA / UU as well.
|
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2014 21:39
|
|
|
Putin It In Mah rear end posted:Bad start, or did I do something wrong? That's actually a drat good start (though optimally you would've been on the Hills one tile SW; you would've had a liiiiiiiitle more resources and access to Marble in your capital), you just built some uninspiring expansions. You definitely shouldn't have built Tlalecto and you could've rushed China instead of building Teotihuacan. I know I run an exceedingly bloodthirsty strategy, but I'm not kidding when I say the more enemies you take out early-on, the easier the late-game gets because you spend fewer turns building Settlers and the cities you take will almost always be better than anything you could've built. Not to mention that's one less rival to deal with. Except for Russia, their start probably fuckin' blows 
|
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2014 21:45
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 4, 2024 04:57 |
|
|
Putin It In Mah rear end posted:Bad start, or did I do something wrong? Post the save file and let’s find out.
|
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2014 21:51
|
|
