To be brief since I'm running late to work... It almost feels TOO dumbed down. The social policies, while nice, feel far too simple/OP. It's definitely crack like the other civs before it but I'm not sure this one will have staying power with me. The jury is still far from out but that's my impression after one full game.
The game is fun in my initial appraisal. However, the great simplification of the game has definitely given me a personal advantage. The AI at least is fairly stupid when it comes to military matters, and even small, nonproductive civilizations can field extremely powerful militaries.
I stand by my feeling that CIV IV and CIV V will have to co-exist in my mind. Only time will tell.
The AI at least is fairly stupid when it comes to military matters, and even small, nonproductive civilizations can field extremely powerful militaries.
Yea, I think the game will definitely shine in multiplayer (or after they patch the A.I. :-p) It also might be the first Civ I play extensively at higher difficulty.
Oh did you notice in strategic view is pretty much "Board game" view.
I also miss Axemen. (hopefully they come out in a later expansion)
I wish there were more non military leaders. It seems like if you don't want to play a military game your only choices are Cathrine and Caesar.
I've been playing Nebuchadnezzar, since he seems to be the most sciencey.
From what I hear, Civ V makes it a bit more difficult to go for a non-military victory especially now that religions and similar features have been removed.
From what I hear, Civ V makes it a bit more difficult to go for a non-military victory especially now that religions and similar features have been removed.
It'll probably be something that gets fixed in the expansions, like they did with Civ IV. From the one full game I've played it seems like the Space Race is the easiest non-military victory, since you need to produce a whole lot less then you used to in previous Civs.
I lost in the end, but yes. That is just one city. It was mostly a learning experience. I've gotten so used to playing a game where expanding like crazy is the way to go, I learned a lot sticking to only one city. I'm going to try again without the archipelago, so maybe I'll actually have people near me.
Also, there's some sort of bug where oil doesn't appear in screenshots.
Yeah, I've been rocking the few-city approach. I've also learned that if you keep attacking city-states, they'll get scared and band against you, but simultaneously will effect military tactics equivalent to kitten paw bops. Puppet one, another declares war on you. Puppet that one, and another angrily demands that you attack it. They practically write my "to conquor" list.
I think it definitely needs humans for one reason, the AI military strategy is retarded. For example, in one game I didn't finish I had almost no military to speak of. England, which seems to love expanding all over the fuck, builds up a huge army and declares war on me. They storm my weakest and furthest away city and give it everything they've got. I get lucky with a general, and build a citadel right up in their business. It's a Sparta situation. About three of my units fend off an entire gigantic army. Defense is so strong that playing the AI you need almost no military unless you want to go on offense.
Defense is so strong that playing the AI you need almost no military unless you want to go on offense.
Yeap. I basically keep one small offensive army for purposes of killing whatever city states my friends want me to kill. That tiny army is able to hold off any incursion into my lands, even if several civilizations simultaneously attack with massive force.
Feast your eyes upon the mighty Japanese empire. You're puny civilization would fall beneath the economic and military might of Oda Nobunaga. The remnants of a 400 year long campaign. Their battle group eliminated three civilizations and both samurai are at least level seven.
Steam statistics are telling of the game's importance.
Here are today's stats:
Current / Peak 60,019 / 64,110 Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 2 - Multiplayer 58,247 / 63,964 Counter-Strike: Source 51,868 / 62,986 Counter-Strike 40,840 / 44,381 Sid Meier's Civilization V 14,477 / 18,960 Football Manager 2010 13,376 / 14,548 Team Fortress 2 10,643 / 11,020 Left 4 Dead 2 5,981 / 5,981 Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 2 5,831 / 6,371 Empire: Total War 5,828 / 6,347 Condition Zero etc...
Typically, Counter-Strike: Source is the top, and Counter-Strike is the second. Note that this is current: CoD tends to drop off when people get home from school/work.
We talked about this quite a bit at one of our PAX panels - Egregiously Unrealized Potential. Notice how the super hot new game can barely eek by Counter-Strike:Source, or even the original Counter-Strike! To this day, no one can make a multiplayer online PC game of note and top a game that came out in 1999! (This is skewed by the fact that SC2 uses proprietary non-Steam obviously: SC2 has lots of players).
I'm curious, has anyone tried playing the game with the Strategic view? I turned it on, but I found that I glance much more information from the regular map, it's a bit difficult to discern tiles and units on the strat map. Of course, as you see above, I prefer to play with the grid on as well as resource and yield icons.
I'm curious, has anyone tried playing the game with the Strategic view? I turned it on, but I found that I glance much more information from the regular map, it's a bit difficult to discern tiles and units on the strat map. Of course, as you see above, I prefer to play with the grid on as well as resource and yield icons.
It becomes a board game in my mind when I use that mode. I'm better at the game, but I lose a little of the "I'm a ruler of people" feeling.
Playing against friends, I certainly plan to use that. This is a game, and I intend to win.
It becomes a board game in my mind when I use that mode. I'm better at the game, but I lose a little of the "I'm a ruler of people" feeling.
I'd be really interested to see a mod which turned all the 3-D unit and town models into board game like tokens (almost like chess pieces). Combat animations would just consist of tokens falling down when they die. I'm sure there could be other neat stylistic changes that could be made as well to complete the board game like feel.
I'm curious, has anyone tried playing the game with the Strategic view? I turned it on, but I found that I glance much more information from the regular map, it's a bit difficult to discern tiles and units on the strat map. Of course, as you see above, I prefer to play with the grid on as well as resource and yield icons.
I plan to use the strategic view once I get my new video card installed.
Also, I actually started paying attention to what my automated workers are doing, and they are complete morons. On certain tiles they build a trading post, then as soon as they are done, they switch and try to build a farm. Then once the farm is done, trading post. Meanwhile, there are plenty of tiles with animals and such that could use improvements, and they are ignoring them. The workers were never that smart in previous civ games, but they were tolerable. Now they are simply moronic.
I definitely feel like they shipped this game before they finished polishing everything up. Graphical glitches, stupid AI, lag, etc. I can't wait for some patches.
Notice how the super hot new game can barely eek by Counter-Strike:Source, or even the original Counter-Strike!
People can get really stuck in their ways, I suppose. Though CoD probably eclipses both when you add in the console players. Keep in mind that PC gamers are much the minority.
Keep in mind that PC gamers are much the minority.
I love how whenever people say something like this they conveniently forget the 8+ million people playing World of Warcraft.
Also, I actually started paying attention to what my automated workers are doing, and they are complete morons. On certain tiles they build a trading post, then as soon as they are done, they switch and try to build a farm. Then once the farm is done, trading post. Meanwhile, there are plenty of tiles with animals and such that could use improvements, and they are ignoring them. The workers were never that smart in previous civ games, but they were tolerable. Now they are simply moronic.
My policy is to do every by hand. I never trusted automation and often they can disrupt a very sensitive strategy.
No, I separate what I like from what I think is good. I like T&E;, and I think it's a good game. I like Aerobiz, but I understand why it isn't actually a good game. I dislike SC2, but I consider it a good game (in that it is good at executing the particular narrow genre in which it exists).
So, PC gamers tend to like games that I consider good. Good games often (but not always) overlap with games that I like.
There's a big difference. Not everything I like is good, not every good thing is something I like.
Comments
It will be at least November before I can play Civ 5.
I stand by my feeling that CIV IV and CIV V will have to co-exist in my mind. Only time will tell.
Oh did you notice in strategic view is pretty much "Board game" view.
I also miss Axemen. (hopefully they come out in a later expansion)
I lost in the end, but yes. That is just one city. It was mostly a learning experience. I've gotten so used to playing a game where expanding like crazy is the way to go, I learned a lot sticking to only one city. I'm going to try again without the archipelago, so maybe I'll actually have people near me.
Also, there's some sort of bug where oil doesn't appear in screenshots.
This game will be much more fun against humans.
The remnants of a 400 year long campaign. Their battle group eliminated three civilizations and both samurai are at least level seven.
Here are today's stats:
Current / Peak
60,019 / 64,110 Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 2 - Multiplayer
58,247 / 63,964 Counter-Strike: Source
51,868 / 62,986 Counter-Strike
40,840 / 44,381 Sid Meier's Civilization V
14,477 / 18,960 Football Manager 2010
13,376 / 14,548 Team Fortress 2
10,643 / 11,020 Left 4 Dead 2
5,981 / 5,981 Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 2
5,831 / 6,371 Empire: Total War
5,828 / 6,347 Condition Zero
etc...
Typically, Counter-Strike: Source is the top, and Counter-Strike is the second. Note that this is current: CoD tends to drop off when people get home from school/work.
We talked about this quite a bit at one of our PAX panels - Egregiously Unrealized Potential. Notice how the super hot new game can barely eek by Counter-Strike:Source, or even the original Counter-Strike! To this day, no one can make a multiplayer online PC game of note and top a game that came out in 1999! (This is skewed by the fact that SC2 uses proprietary non-Steam obviously: SC2 has lots of players).
Playing against friends, I certainly plan to use that. This is a game, and I intend to win.
Also, I actually started paying attention to what my automated workers are doing, and they are complete morons. On certain tiles they build a trading post, then as soon as they are done, they switch and try to build a farm. Then once the farm is done, trading post. Meanwhile, there are plenty of tiles with animals and such that could use improvements, and they are ignoring them. The workers were never that smart in previous civ games, but they were tolerable. Now they are simply moronic.
I definitely feel like they shipped this game before they finished polishing everything up. Graphical glitches, stupid AI, lag, etc. I can't wait for some patches.
Would people who just play WoW identify as gamers?
So, PC gamers tend to like games that I consider good. Good games often (but not always) overlap with games that I like.
There's a big difference. Not everything I like is good, not every good thing is something I like.
Note to Admin, leave time for me to go back and edit next time. I'd already corrected it.