Civilization V - Civ: causing all nighters since 1991 - Games

The year is 2053, prince difficulty, time victory is off. China and I each own half our continent. However, While I have just discovered atomic theory, have really shitty production, and happiness approaching zero, China is running the continent with mechanized infantry and helicopters. Russia is the same, except they own their entire continent, having defeated Gandhi long ago and having reduced Araba to one city on an island in the middle of the ocean. Relations with China have been good since the dawn of time, we've been allies and such throughout history and have defeated the Ottoman Empire as allies. Following that victory, however, China proceeded to conquer the Siamese and the Egyptians, as well as all five city states on our continent. Both China and Russia are asking me to support them against the other. I'm fearful for the future.

has gandhi raped any of you yet on his birthday [QUOTE=BurnEmDown;25195969]You guys do realize that most of the people on civfanatics' forums actually agree with these complaints? That forum is full of old-time civ players (like myself) and they're not really used to the new features. [b]I particularly agree with the graphics complaint: "7. Bring back the graphics of civ: As many players have noted since the game's release, civ's graphics is absolutely terrible. Rivers and trading posts are just plain ugly. It's just about on par with civ iii if you ask me."[/b] Rivers look awful at the place where they connect with the ocean, and trading posts look horrendous, I find myself not building as many as I should just because they make me sick.[/QUOTE] the graphics are better than civ 4 to me

how do you turn on the hex grid?

Just had my longest game so far which lasted to 1485 AD with Montezuma. Prince, Epic, Standard Continents. On my starting continent there was 5 civilizations (America, Aztec (me), England, Persia, Russia) and 3 city-states. At the first moments, I decided to declare war on Washington since Catherine was in war with him. I captured New York and Boston, and Catherine the rest of Washington's cities. I was happy with the results. This happened in ancient-classical eras. Then Catherine and I decided to declare war on Elizabeth. I didn't really support her in that war, but I got to capture atleast Nottingham. Catherine did the rest of the work. Medieval-renaissance era. But in the later Renaissance era, Darius I said that he has had enough of me, and declared war. I saw before the war with him that Darius I was really advanced in military, he had many units. I then asked Catherine for help, since she helped with Washington and Elizabeth after all, so why not with Darius I too? But she didn't want to help me. I then demanded that she would declare war on Darius I. She didn't accept that either, and I made her angry. Then, after Darius I had captured one of my cities, Catherine joins his party. They both had a huge military, and I had a small one. I defended myself to the last years but then failed. I must say, this game was impressive.

[QUOTE=Sporkfire;25199602]how do you turn on the hex grid?[/QUOTE] There's two buttons next to the minimap, one switches to the strategic view, another turns on and off features like the grid, resources, and yields.

[QUOTE=Sporkfire;25198989]Do you guys find that the game seems to get too easy over time in matches? I was playing on deity (hardest difficulty cant remember its name) and it was hard as tits in the beginning but now after a hundred or more turns or so I got my civ "turtled" up and everyone else is peaceful too... And when they do go to war they hardly do anything. For instance the ottoman empire next to me went to war with someone else and he left 20 destroyers just still chilling at the coast. In other words everyone has a ton of units, but they're not using them even when they do go to war. AND I STILL HAVE NEVER SEEN A NUKE USED. I swear, it's like my game is glitched or something, it's like the AI just says fuck it I don't feel like challenging you anymore.[/QUOTE] I feel like at some point they just throw up their hands and stop moving through eras, because by the time I had entered future era they were just getting into the industrial.

[QUOTE=BurnEmDown;25195969]You guys do realize that most of the people on civfanatics' forums actually agree with these complaints? That forum is full of old-time civ players (like myself) and they're not really used to the new features. I particularly agree with the graphics complaint: "7. Bring back the graphics of civ: As many players have noted since the game's release, civ's graphics is absolutely terrible. Rivers and trading posts are just plain ugly. It's just about on par with civ iii if you ask me." Rivers look awful at the place where they connect with the ocean, and trading posts look horrendous, I find myself not building as many as I should just because they make me sick.[/QUOTE] My civ game before this was CIV III as I said in this very thread and the graphics where so much better in CIV V I was astonished at how they could make a turn based square tiled game into this beautiful hexagonal and smooth looking game

It seems my game crashes after a while of pressing turn in the strategic view but then opens up again and I can keep playing as long as I don't switch out of the view, if I do my whole computer locks up.

[QUOTE=Furnost;25199488]has gandhi raped any of you yet on his birthday the graphics are better than civ 4 to me[/QUOTE] I just met him a few turns ago, but he was very friendly to me. 3 turns after he declares war on Russia and is steamrolling (he's the most powerful empire right behind me). I'm probably low on his list since I'm Rome (so I'm quite far away). [editline]05:38PM[/editline] [QUOTE=Pinut;25198225]My main gripe is that diplomacy is really bad imo.[/QUOTE] Yeah same for me. It doesn't even feel like diplomacy. Also Siam just told me that my war-like behaviour is causing problems, the next turn he declares war on Egypt.

How can any one believe that the graphics are ANYTHING like Civ4? They're worlds ahead.

Guys I don't know why but for some reason in my games Gandhi is just a push-over, he never attacks anyone and is always one of the worst guys around, but Ramkahneg (or something like that, the guy from Siam) is always a superpower, first place if I'm not, he always has the biggest amount of cities, soldiers, highest culture and is always top in the technology tree. In my current game in 1440 AD I am in the middle ages almost in the renaissance, and he is already in the industrial age with artillery! He also has rifles and I fear he will soon have more. Only two guys beside him are technology superior to me, Alexander which just got into the renaissance, and another dude who I haven't met yet. Some say that Siam's UP (unique power) is OP, since they get too many bonuses from city states.

Yeah, I too noticed that. Siam is pretty bloodthirsty in my game. Anyone here only play on future era set? I like all the abilities, sea, air, nukes, and such. But I feel a lot of the challenge is lost at the same time, even if you play on deity. This game is pissing me off, other civs hardly ever attack me :( The one time I actually really enjoyed the game was when Cesar had my empire in a deathgrip and I was desperately trying to fend his attacks off.

[U][B]Game Quirks:[/B][/U] -Connecting a railroad to a harbor gives the railroad benefit to all other cities with harbors. This seems to make coastal cities extra powerful as you don't need to pay insane upkeep for long railroads. -Unit maintenance only increases when passing certain thresholds i.e. 2-4 units you pay X amount, but if you have 5 units you pay more. -Playing on epic or marathon actually "shrinks" the size of maps as it makes units have more turns to move around. Even with reduced production and therefore less units it still has a noticeable effect. -The animation for bombing with air units can sometimes take almost 10 whole seconds before another air attack can be used. I turn off combat animations for this alone. -Overall production seems a bit slower than I'd like on all settings compared to research.[I] Regardless of what speed setting I always feel like I don't get to play around with my new toys enough (either because they get obsoleted so fast or because I can't make more than a couple of them). For this reason I usually play on fast or normal, otherwise I find far too many turns pass without any events, which is unacceptable with the current turn processing time.[/I] -On building a unit that requires a resource and later losing that resource after it is built you will then have that unit fight at a penalty (makes sense). However, certain units like the Atomic Bomb have no penalties associated with later losing uranium. Also, factories and other buildings that lose their resource seem to operate normally. -Destroying a transport by moving a unit over it is unintuitive. If you aren't immediately next to that unit it will default to firing a ranged attack and only damaging it. Similarly, no sound or message is played when a unit is eaten by another naval unit. -Strategic resources are sometimes too concentrated on one space. [I]It is possible to not have a single unit of coal or uranium on an entire 50% of the map, while a single tile on the other side has 8 coal by itself. Luxury resources are finally regional though, which means far off colonies makes sense![/I] -Cultural victory is insanely hard on higher difficulty levels (probably how it should be). -Diplomatic victory is really more like a military victory over city-states as you usually have to liberate almost every one from the AI players at this stage. -Ironclads are still terrible and there is large gap between simple galleys and any improved types of naval units. [U][B]AI Quirks and Limitations[/B][/U] -AI still preforms terribly with water: -If an area is temporarily traffic jammed they may choose to send a unit into clearly dangerous waters instead of waiting one turn until the jam clears. -AI does not build enough navy. This problem is worse the larger the percentage of water on the map is. -Similarly the AI will not escort its massive naval invasions. -AI will mass massive fleets of transports at the "border" of an empire, even if that border is ocean. This results in entire armies that can be devoured by a few galleys in a turn or two. -AI does not actively try to stop a space victory (and likely most other types). -AI does not seem to liberate city-states. -AI will often build more units even when in massively negative gold per turn. -AI won't make much use of mountain chokepoints unless something like a fort already resides there (build them for your allies if you can). -I have never seen the AI build a single air unit...ever. [U][B]Proper Map Settings:[/B][/U] [B]Size:[/B] The single most important factor here. I know a lot of people always request the biggest sizes they can. If they could play a 10,000x10,000 they would. The general rule for size here to to pick you want to give each player space for about five or less cities. Giving players more space means: -Early ages of the game will likely not have any potential for conflict, which also hurts civs with early unique units. -Many civilizations will end up being entirely out of reach. It is not really fun to lose to someone who you only first meet in the industrial age and you find out that they are 3x bigger than you. -The game will lag, hard, especially with AI's. -You waste your own time as having 20 cities fighting 20 cities. Isn't much different than 10 cities fighting 10 cities or even 5 v 5. -Larger maps seems to favor certain culture trees like Order and Liberty and therefore skews the game balance. [B]Playing on epic or marathon means maps will feel smaller than on normal or fast. Fast is about a full map size below Marathon so adjust appropriately.[/B] If you are really worried about being unable to expand as much as you'd like on these smaller sizes remember that this is what city-states are designed for. There are also many map types you can play that give you the best of both worlds, which I explain below. It is important to note that choosing "normal" on continents may not be the same as choosing "normal" on highlands. Start a game and just run your starting units around to test how close you are to other players to give yourself an idea. Then start a new game or adjust the map size accordingly. [B]Map Types[/B]: Most of the information I'm going to give out here relates to playing singleplayer. Continents: This is one of the worst maps types to play in SP or Multiplayer. Why? because the expanses of water are far too larger. On these maps, it is very likely that you could be having an intense game on your continent and then by the time you research ocean going vessels you find that a single AI has already taken over the entire other continent. This is not fun. Also, the AI sucks at having this much water. If you must play this map, reduce the size one level below what you'd normally play and then reduce the sea level. Pangea: If you want to have water in your map and still play with the AI this is a good one. The AI still won't react fast enough to navies boarding it's coasts, but this map still is fine for the AI. Archipelago: This map is an AI nightmare. Multiplayer only for your own good, otherwise, it is a cakewalk. Highlands: The rough terrain is a slight disadvantage for the AI. Humans use the terrain better and are more likely to make use of those super mountain chokepoints. I often have to build the forts for my AI allies so they know where to station their troops. Inland Lake: My personal favorite map. Why? It has land and water, but without putting the AI at a massive disadvantage. The middle lake is small enough that I have frequently seen successful AI naval invasions. Also, by having water in the middle all civilizations are "closer" than if you played pangea or some other land map. Quick transport without needing open borders for all players. Lakes & Great Plains: Great Plains is probably the best AI map, with Lakes coming in close behind it (every so often it'll embark units into a 1 tile lake or build a harbor on said lake). Terra: For those of you who really want the option to colonize new cities at almost all stages of the game Terra is probably the best. Everyone is close enough that they are still threats and can interact, but there's always more room overseas. Without any "distance from capitol" type mechanics and the inclusion of regional luxury resources colonies are very much worth making and are very fun. However, creating and defending colonies versus improving the homeland can be a tough balance even for a human player so the AI of course will suffer a bit here. [B]Time Period:[/B] The only thing here is to make sure that if you start on a later time period that you specify which other civs you will fight. Putting Greece in a Renaissance Era game is simply a huge handicap as all its unique units are obsolete. [U][B]Favorite Map Settings:[/B][/U] Inland Lake: Small 7-8 Players 0 to 2 additional city-states Highlands/Lakes/Plains/Pangea:Tiny 5-7 Players ------------------------------------------------------- [U][B]Civilization/Leader Reviews:[/B][/U] CivName (Player Rating/AI Rating) Out of 5 [B]America(3/1)[/B]: The scouting bonus is OK for human players as knowledge is power and it also helps early on finding the ruins and avoiding barbarians. The buying tiles is an average ability. The minutemen are controversial since they can't use roads and in some situations can actually be worse than the standard musketmen. I find them to be worth the disadvantage. B17 is great if you can last long enough. The AI is absolutely terrible with America and doesn't benefit much from either bonus. Every time I've seen America they are crushed just about by the time they get minutemen. [B]Arabia(4/5)[/B]: I have personally never had a problem with oil before, but even still it does mean that you can trade away the extra oil for goodies. The real winner here is that trade route bonus. It's nice for the big expansive civs, but it really, really helps the AI. Every game I've seen with Arabia in it results in Arabia quickly becoming one of the top two civs. The trade route bonus starts to get out of control and I've seen AI Arabians with 30,000+ gold. The camel archer can also be very hard to finish off and are thus a better than average UU. [B]Askia(3/2)[/B]: Askia really locks you into being a warmonger, but they are decent enough at it. They need to pillage constantly to use their ability. Their unique building gives extra culture, which makes it one of the few buildings that rounds out a civilization more than directly helps their abilities. In this case though, their unique ability is so focused that I don't believe their unique building is useful enough to them. Their unique unit is great and it's pretty much the closest you are going to get to being able to play as Atilla the Hun. Despite the fact that this side should benefit well from the AI bonuses their extreme aggression tends to make them too many enemies and other AI's gang up on them very early. [B]Aztec(1/2)[/B]: Their unique ability to gain culture on kills seems to not give enough culture for how often units are actually killed. Furthermore, their unique unit is often obsolete before most players will even be in conflict with another civ. To make matters worse, even with start location preferences on, there isn't even a lot of jungle around the Aztecs. Even on hot maps with high water, the amount of jungle in the game is minuscule and I can rarely ever benefit from the jungle bonus. The water mill may be the worst building in the game. Not only can it not be built in all cities, but even in places it can be built it often isn't better than the normal water mill since the bonus only applies to LAKES. Even on the map "Lakes", with hot temperature and high rainfaill these guys are only average. [B]Babylon(4/4)[/B]: Their ability, like every science focused civ in almost every 4X game, is extremely good. Their unique building is OK and helps them science whore, as does their early unique unit. Basically, every game you science rush initially, using your early game advantages to out tech neighbors. Once you are an era ahead you have a lot more freedom on strategy. [B]China(4/4)[/B]: A solid civ all around even without needing to be a warmonger from the get go. Their unique ability does favor frequent war, but it also helps the more peaceful china get the first few great generals that could save your ass. Their crossbowman is amazing unless you are underteched, in which case it will do less total damage per turn than a normal crossbowman. However, with the paper maker (which is one of the best unique buildings) you shouldn't be falling behind in tech. [B]Egypt(3/3)[/B]: Good unique ability with a mediocre unique unit. Their unique building is so good that it actually needed a downside, making it the only building I know of that can benefit enemies. [B]England(4/2)[/B]: A great civ on any map with significant water. The speed bonus easily lets you have colonies on the opposite ends of the world and still defend them. Longbowman are one of the top unique units in the entire game. The extra range means you can have an army entirely devoid of siege weapons since longbowman can outrange cities, saving you the research and really letting you exploit this UU. Their other unique unit, the ship-of-the-line is very powerful, cheap, fast and comes at a great time. Considering how bad ironclads tend to be you can easily use this unit until you get destroyers. AI hates water so no surprise at that rating. [B]France (4/5)[/B]: Their culture bonus early on is amazing and allows for fast expands better than almost anyone else. The two back to back great unique units means that if you don't take down France early they will warmonger their way to the top 3 every single game. [B]Germany(4/2)[/B]: These guys are very luck dependent. If you don't end up killing a few barbarian camps early on you are at a massive disadvantage. Though most players will probably play these guys very warlike they don't necessarily need to be at war since their ability is dependent on barbarians and their unique units are still useful to deter enemies, and save production that could be better spent elsewehere.Their unique units are great and if you can survive from ancient age to actually get panzers you are probably going to demolish everyone else. The AI will unfortunately spam their unique pikeman a bit too much, to the point where you can easily build an army of crossbow/swordsman counters. [B]Greece(5/5)[/B]: An absolute powerhouse of a civ if you start in the ancient era. I've only seen AI greece lose once (and it was to another one of the frequent top 3's). Their ability is generally useful. Like Rome, both of their unique units are in the same era, but since only one even needs a resource they are much more useful. Greece tends to explode outward with these two units, giving them a commanding lead which is rarely reversed. [B]India(2/1)[/B]: India's ability is a bit better than it seems, but it really forces you into certain strategies. The larger the map is, the worse their ability and since most of the maps are already a bit big they are at somewhat of a disadvantage. Their walls are ok, but ideally you want to stop invaders at the border and not 1 tile from your cities. A smart player will just pillage everything in India. Their unique unit is short lived and serves only to make sure that India isn't quickly wiped out with an early rush. The AI consistently fails with this Civ because of it's love for expansion and because of how AI bonuses work. [B]Iroquois(3/3)[/B]: An average civ all around. As with the Aztecs, even though the game tries to make your start position friendly for your civ I've found many time I don't actually have that much forest. Also, you won't get much use out of it early on as your cultural borders will be small. The mohawk warriors are average since forests aren't always easy to come by. I kind of think they need map conditions with high rainfall just to remain competitive. Their unique building is well designed though and combines very well with their unique ability. [B]Japan(4/3)[/B]: A great ability, a great unit (samurai), and another average unit (zero). The ability works best for the AI as they are more likely to fight when injured than a player probably is. The only downside is if you are facing a a ranged heavy army and you aren't quick enough to change to using more cavalry units. The zero, while good on paper, is not that useful in singleplayer for either the AI or you as the AI doesn't build almost any air units. [B]Ottomans:(2/2)[/B]: The ability to take over barbarian naval units makes this ability even harder to pull off than Germany's, with less payoff, and also making it entirely useless on maps without water or with little access to it. You can always be guaranteed to find barbarian encampments, but not always barbarian galleys. Their two units are at least average though. [B]Persia(4/3)[/B]: If you play to exploit persia's ability with extended golden ages this is a great civ. However, maximizing golden age timing and frequency is a more advanced civ skill so many players won't benefit as much as they should. Their unique building is good enough to be built in just about every city. Immortals are average. [B]Rome:(3/3)[/B]: I personally love their unique ability. It's really their unique units that are an issue. The legion is great and it's ability to build forts and roads makes them one of my favorites. However, they require iron and their other unique unit, of the same time period also requires iron. This means that if you are somehow unlucky enough to not be near iron it can spell a quick game over. Unfortunately, even if you have iron both of these units get obsoleted rather quickly. [B]Russia:(3/4)[/B]: Siberian Riches is average, as I rarely ever run out of resources and since this is typically a large expansive empire you should have plenty. The unique unit is fine as is the Krepost and they fit Russia's playstyle. For some reason, the AI's bonuses cause Russia's natural expansiveness to balloon out even more and Russia ends up being one of the top 3 every game. [B]Siam:(4/3)[/B]: Somewhat luck based, but overall very good. I say luck based because it really depends a lot on which city states are near you, what type they are, and how many. It also matters which players are near you and how aggressive they are to you and your city-states. The unique ability is great, but there's always the chance that you will invest in a city-state that get's destroyed unexpectedly. Also, since most players will run this civ less expansive than most, maritime city-states don't benefit you as much as if you were a larger civ, so you don't want to have a lot of maritime city-states most of the time. The wat is a great building and should be built everywhere. Their unique unit is kind of like the minutemen in that it has a terrible disadvantage of lowered speed, which means it isn't for killing trebuchets and such. Considering how rarely I see mounted units used, especially against Siam, a defensive civ, the bonus their elephants get doesn't help very much. ------------------------------------------------------ Certain civs tend to lock you into a certain strategy. You can try to do other strategies, but you'll just end up wasting your abilities. [U][B]War[/B][/U]: [B]Askia, Japan, Aztec, China[/B] [I](Oddly enough, Germany, and Greece which can look extremely warlike, aren't mostly dependent on going to war with other players and city-states.)[/I] [U][B]Expansion[/B][/U]: [B]Russia, France, Arabia, Rome[/B] [U][B]Culture/Science[/B][/U]: [B]Siam, India[/B] Most others are fairly balanced.

Fuck Siam, they were all buddy-buddy at first, then they raided me with riflemen, I only had musketeers. I managed to somehow push them back, I moved in and captured their capital, and they begged for peace.

That is one long post. I do disagree with a bit about map size though: [QUOTE=Lap;25200836] [U][B]Proper Map Settings:[/B][/U] [B]Size:[/B] The single most important factor here. I know a lot of people always request the biggest sizes they can. If they could play a 10,000x10,000 they would. The general rule for size here to to pick Ideally, you want to give each player space for about five or less cities. Giving players more space means: -Early ages of the game will likely not have any potential for conflict, which also hurts civs with early unique units. [B]I have to disagree, it all depends on the player. I'm playing a game right now and got to the renaissance age, and the Classical age was only war (though that was partly me being aggressive). Yes there are larger wars later on, but it was like that in reality too, world wars were unimaginable for most of humanity's time due to the logistic problems.[/B] -Many civilizations will end up being entirely out of reach. It is not really fun to lose to someone who you only first meet in the industrial age and you find out that they are 3x bigger than you. [B]In my opinion it's much more interesting that way, not knowing what there is waiting far away. I hate not having surprises. This is allopinion though.[/B] -The game will lag, hard, especially with AI's. [B]Depends on what kind of lag you mean. I'm playing on earth with 14 civs having discovered all continents but the Americas, and the game runs silky smooth. The turns do take a while though, around 10 seconds each (which will rise later on for sure, but not to more than 25 or 30 seconds).[/B] -You waste your own time as having 20 cities fighting 20 cities. Isn't much different than 10 cities fighting 10 cities or even 5 v 5. [B]It's the same thing yeah, but the scale changes a lot. I personally prefer the larger scale.[/B] -Larger maps seems to favor certain culture trees like Order and Liberty and therefore skews the game balance. [B]True, but personally I'm all for imbalances in culture trees, some policies simply did not work as well as others in reality.[/B] [/QUOTE] It's down to opinion really, I've always been a lover of huge maps.

I just played the demo for over an hour and a half, this is definitely one of the best TBS's I've ever played. I just bought the game and I'm waiting for it to install.

[QUOTE=acds;25202084]That is one long post. I do disagree with a bit about map size though: It's down to opinion really, I've always been a lover of huge maps.[/QUOTE] I agree, the great unknown has always been more exciting than being able to predict exactly who/where my enemies/nemeses are.

Fuckin Ghandi man I tell you what

Lap, I agree with every singe one of your points, except some which I have no idea since I didn't play much (like in highlands map or the Aztec and Iroquis civs which I still didn't play). Now that I think of it, it would be cool if Russia's and France's UP's were to switch, because that would allow Russia to expand greatly and their borders will expand quickly too, while Russia's UP will help France's military personality, they would still be able to field nice armies even with only a few strategic resources, something which can somehow be attributed to France in the middle ages I believe. It also seems much more historically correct for Russia to just expand wherever they can for resources rather than make more use of a few resources. [editline]09:19PM[/editline] Wait, are unique powers actually called unique abilities? [editline]09:20PM[/editline] [QUOTE=Micr0;25202107]I just played the demo for over an hour and a half, this is definitely one of the best RTS's I've ever played. I just bought the game and I'm waiting for it to install.[/QUOTE] Civilization isn't an RTS. :colbert:

[QUOTE=ZuXer;25192300]wait, what, how did you get that big and have 15 happiness? I always run out of it[/QUOTE] Good city+state relations and trying to get as many luxury resources as possible via trading, city states, etc. Focus on social polocies that boost culture+happiness. I get about 60 happyness per turn with a pop of aobut 80-90 or so I think. LOTS of wonder production too. Wonders that focus on Happyness and culture do wonders twoards boosting your happiness. Of course I am focusing on getting a culture victory while teching, so I don't build many military units at all. Considering I'm the only one who's teched to sea at this point in my game and I've eliminated the other civ on my island, I'm pretty safe from attack.

[QUOTE=BurnEmDown;25202735] Civilization isn't an RTS. :colbert:[/QUOTE] Fuck I'm retarded, I meant TBS. Wasn't thinking when I posted that.

There are several things that I don't like about this game, but here's two: I don't like how little diplomacy has a hand in the game, it is all down to army size and showing how big your dick is basically. And then we have the music. Who the fuck composed this shit? I love classical music and all but I can't fucking stand hearing the same god damn tune (that sounds like random bits out of every Beethoven's symphonies) every 5 minutes for 7 hours. Couldn't they just create three or four more songs or perhaps you know just rip some of the previous games?

I'm still unsure how some things work. Do I need a road going from Beijing to shanghai here or is it fine as is? [img_thumb]http://img844.imageshack.us/img844/7138/civilizationv2010100220.png[/img_thumb] :confused:

[QUOTE=acds;25202084]That is one long post. I do disagree with a bit about map size though: It's down to opinion really, I've always been a lover of huge maps.[/QUOTE] The lag is pretty bad for me on a quad core and the amount of pagefile caching and memory leaks make everything start to lag. The harddrive lag from having to cache everything that won't fit into RAM (I am using max RAM) is fairly bad on the bigger maps. The AI just makes it worse. I can only imagine this on a nongamer's computer. Everything I'm addressing comes down to gameplay and game theory. I'll let the realism mods have their stab at realism. I'm only interested in gameplay. Having imbalacned culture trees is not good gameplay. Communism has always been one of the best civis/culture trees in all the civ's despite being [B]arguably [/B]different historically, because it was better for gameplay. Your opinion that you like longer games is fine. That's a pacing issue. The only substantial thing that longer games actually changes is the "size" of the map. Larger maps become slightly smaller because units have more turns to move. However, this is also offset by the fact that you have less units per turn due to reduced production. If I really wanted to play a real long game I would probably mod epic or marathon to have a bit higher production of everything. I just don't understand the love for big maps and slow turns. There's a sense of epicness, but just as in my favorite game, Supreme Commander, a game built on epic large battles, playing on the largest 80x80 maps is so large that it ruins the balance AND makes games take forever. To me the turn pacing and size preference comes down to how run-away mechanics work in civ. When a civilization reaches a certain critical level above all the others it essentially becomes mop up time. On larger maps enemies can reach this critical mass before even meeting you. They are kind of playing their own game of civ with their neighbors in isolation from you. Since you have no real effect on them how is it fun to be surprised by them having 3x the score of you or anyone else you've known the whole game. At this point it's time to restart. If I was playing epic or marathon I've spent an immense amount of time to get here, which is pretty sad. Psychologically most players do not like getting broadsided with a game ender like that that they feel they had no way of stopping (which in this case is mostly true). You're basically rolling a die to see if you lose whenever you play a big continents map and first meet one of the other continents. [B]Pinut[/B]: Beijing is connected to the capital. It's all good.

[QUOTE=Pinut;25203385]I'm still unsure how some things work. Do I need a road going from Beijing to shanghai here or is it fine as is? [img_thumb]http://img844.imageshack.us/img844/7138/civilizationv2010100220.png[/img_thumb] :confused:[/QUOTE] It's fine as it is. You see that yellow symbol underneath Shanghai? That means it has a trade route with the capital.

[QUOTE=Mooe94;25203148]There are several things that I don't like about this game, but here's two: I don't like how little diplomacy has a hand in the game, it is all down to army size and showing how big your dick is basically. And then we have the music. Who the fuck composed this shit? I love classical music and all but I can't fucking stand hearing the same god damn tune (that sounds like random bits out of every Beethoven's symphonies) every 5 minutes for 7 hours. Couldn't they just create three or four more songs or perhaps you know just rip some of the previous games?[/QUOTE] I always turn off the music and put my playlist on shuffle when i play civ. Its funny when he song starts syncing with the intro movie

How do I toggle the hexagon overlay?

Press "G"

thanks babe

The last civilisation game I played was Civ 2 . Would I enjoy this if I enjoyed Civ2?