Civilization V Gods and Kings

When Civ V got out I tried the demo and didn't like it. I felt it was too simplified and too streamlined compared to previous iterations in the series.

The Gods and Kings expansion has rekindled my interest for Civ V. I don't care much for all the DLC though but given that playing a civ game is the ultimate time sink it could be worse.

In any case I have changed my mind about this game and IMO it's not as bad as what fans of Civ IV say but it's not as good as it could have been.

At least with the expansion we have religion and espionage back in the game. I for one don't really like sequels that take away too many things from previous titles.

The game looks great, the design and art direction are flawless and the soundtrack is simply amazing. Some entries in the civilopedia are strange, the language used is very inconsistent sometimes it sounds as if they had been written by teenagers (calling the Mongolian civ "cool" is simply weird).

The hex grid is a welcome change that makes the entire game more interesting but I'm still on the fence when it comes to the one unit per tile limit. It makes sense for tactical wargames but depending on the size and the scale of the map it's really weird. What I mean is that if you're playing a small or standard sized map one tile can be considered to be as big as a the state of Maine and having just one unit makes it look like playing Risk... The thing that annoys me the most is when you're having workers build a road and they have to stop because they can't cross a tile occupied by another worker.

The fact that cities can defend themselves is absolutely great though as it means you can't rush your way to victory and taking a city without siege units is now wishful thinking.

It also brings a strong tactical element with forts and citadels especially when ranged units come into play. Combat in itself is definitely not as random but the AI is having a hard time finding loopholes in a human player's defences.

Truth is it plays like a different game. I miss the health values and I miss the fact that you can't micromanage your cities as well as with previous games.

The big flaw in this game is diplomacy. In Civ IV religion and trade could be used to form alliances and worked really well in order to maintain lasting alliances with AI players. In Civ V you can play nice but in the end it all comes down to the bigger sticks. To a certain point that was the case with IV but in the previous game you could still play a peaceful empire and use diplomacy to fend off potential threat without having to go over the board with the military. In Civ V neglecting your army is suicidal. In Civ IV you had a number of AIs who you should look out for but you knew that you would be ok with peacemongers or if you converted a warmonger and keep him or her busy.

The way cities grow is pretty cool and you have more control when it comes to that so it's not unpleasant at all but I'm afraid Civ V may be a bit repetitive.

There is also the fact that you can get a huge number of bonuses from the synergy between civics and wonders and the fact is that once your empire starts to build up on a combo it becomes unstoppable. You're getting the lead and unless you manage to screw things up by not building up defences you're in for a win. I haven't tried the highest difficulties yet because I'm still learning the ropes and figuring things out but it seems to me that the game is easier than IV and requires much less micromanagement (which is not necessarily a bad thing, it's just different).

I wasn't sold on city states but I think that they add to the diplomacy that is seriously lacking if you're playing a map without any city states.

The civilizations aren't balanced IMO. Some of them seem rather powerful to me and tailored for a specific type of victory. Then again anyone who enjoyed rushing with quechuas in Civ IV can't really criticize Civ V for that.

All in all it's an enjoyable variation but it doesn't make Civ IV obsolete. They are simply different games. Civ V is less epic in the sense that you don't have to deal with stacks of death and it brings a more tactical approach (as opposed to a more strategical approach).

The thing that I dislike the most is the fact that units can embark and even cross oceans which gets rid of the need for transports. This may actually help the AI and it doesn't mean that you don't have to build a navy but it also means that there is much less planning to be done when launching an overseas assault.

All in all it's a pretty decent game. Buildings have maintenance but you can sell them. Taking enemy cities create unhappy faces so sometimes you're better off selling the buildings for cash and razing these cities to replace them with your own.

Religions can be customized and that alone is great but it can be almost game breaking since the bonuses can stack up pretty high if you focus on one aspect and play your civ's strong points.

Great people have their uses and one should always look out for enemy great prophets as they can really mess with your cities. Always keep an Inquisitor ready to counter that and if you see a Great Prophet entering your borders you're better off declaring war and killing him before he converts your holy city.

I've been playing a lot of Civ IV with Fall From Heaven 2 and the Orbis momod so some habits stuck in my first Civ V game. I felt Civ V is rather simple compared to these mods. Going for a decent military and keeping enough defences for the time when the AIs is going to to attack (this is inevitable) is a sure way to avoid disaster.

If you can destroy enemy siege units then you're fine. The AI does a poor job at protecting them when you have some ranged defenders. In Civ IV the stacks of death meant that you could still lose a city because no matter what you did the AI could still come up with a huge number of units and swarm you. In Civ V this is simply not the case.

You even have a limit on the number of units you can produce based on the number of strategic resources you can get your hands on. But that's not a real limitation as you can trade for the extra horses that you need to build up a large number of mounted units if you have some luxury resources to spare.

It gets even easier when you stick to defending your territory and make use of fortified units on hills and ranged units in forts (to make up for the melee penalty some of them have). A human player would try and use siege units with ranged attackers to soften a point in your defence before launching an assault but the AI has a hard time doing that. It is focused on getting near your cities and you can create choke points that will turn into a graveyard for their units. Given the unit per tile limitation the more important thing is the tech lead and not sheer numbers.

Great points Cara. But being a Civ IV fan, I thought Civ 5 was a let down.

Yes, having cities defend themselves is great, but honestly, I've never had such an easy time taking cities as in Civ 5. In Civ IV, they could have 10 pikemen fortified in their city. That could be a bitch to overrun. Specially since they could always produce more as the siege lasted.

I thought the diplomacy was atrocious. There's basically nothing you can do. I rather like Civ IV for that (religions in particular since you had higher alliance potential with same religion civilizations).

The city states is not a bad idea on paper, but in the game, it's lame and extremely repetitive. They have three or four behaviour pattern and that's it. And they don't do anything, really. And having to constantly give them money so they remain you friend is kind of annoying.

I liked the idea of units crossing water. I think, however, it would make more sense if they could only navigate in coastal waters, ocean waters would then require a transport. It would make more sense.

I do like the hex and the one unit per tile. I agree with you that depending of the world map size, it can get a little weird, but I like the way it makes you rethink your strategy and your movements (you don't want your artillery landing on the front lines when moving, but you don't want it too far away as to not reach enemy units and cities).

All in all, I found Civ 5 less imersive game wise. I also found the combat waaaay too easy compared to Civ IV. Seriously, I conquered a AI empire with 3 military units and 1 siege...

From what I read on the back of the Gods and Kings box at the store, I think it would greatly improve the game. I still have not bought the expansion because :

Last point : Steam sometimes suck balls. I decided to finish my Civ 5 game a couple of month ago. A box appeared, telling me I had to update my game. I clicked OK. It downloaded a patch and it started to install it. Then, it stopped and there was an error message. Now, I can't play, I can't uninstall it and reinstall it, because I'll have the same patch problem (I looked on forums, and many people have the same problem as me, with no solutions offered right now...).

EDIT : I decided to open up the Civ Steam problem because I thought my explanation was little bit vague. Of course, it works now. I should've known... But I really did have a problem and people on forums really did have to same problem as me...

I don't like Steam but it's not as if we have a choice. It's either use Steam or skip these games...

By the way I completely agree with you on almost everything.

Simply put Civ V is nowhere as fun as IV. It looks great and you can spend hours playing it and Gods and Kings make it better but the game design is flawed.

Diplomacy sucks. On a larger map money will buy you a diplomatic victory thanks to City States. Forget about having to convince AI civs to vote for you and forget about winning Diplomacy with a smaller empire (you don't get enough cash then you can forget about it).

Basically land doesn't matter. What matters is the number of cities. If you spam cities and get as many happy faces as possible you can turn your empire into a juggernaut. It gets even more ridiculous if you limit the size of your cities to make them more effective.

All in all Civ IV made expansion a matter of choice requiring careful plans. In Civ V you're better off spamming cities.

The AI is inconsistent. Some AIs are pushovers others are just crazy. In Civ IV we had the illusion of AI leaders behaving differently (Montezuma, Napoleon and Louis were psychos, Mansa Musa was a great tech partner, Catherine a backstabber) in Civ V they're all psychos and the question is not whether or not they are going to declare on you but when...

So if you ask me Civ V is an ok game (with Gods and Kings) but an unworthy sequel to a great franchise.

My favourite is still Civ IV with Fall From Heaven or the Orbis Momod.

Oh yeah, and one more thing. In Civ 5, I liked the idea of the public declaration (a civilization saying "that civilization is a dangerous backstabbing thief" or something to that effect). Only, it would be interesting if the opposite was also true : civilizations could publicly praise others. In my game, nothing really happened, no wars between anybody (and I was playing on the large map with something like 10 civs). I had carefully stopped the progression of a nearby civ by planting my cities all around them so they stopped at three cities. They weren't friends with anybody, so I decided to blitzkreig them (I think they even declared war against me first). I pulled it off easily, but unfortunately, until the end of the game, every civilization were always issuing a public statement about how dangerous I was. It kinda got old after a bit. And I wouldn't have conquered each and everyone if they hadn't done that, so it was kind of pointless...

Pointless is the word.

The AIs hate you because you're starting to win the game or they hate you because you're in their way or they hate you because you don't have a big army or they hate you because you have a huge army.

Bottom line they hate you.

The biggest problem is that it makes the game less replayable since it's always the same. Sometimes the AI are going to denounce you and sometimes they will be afraid of you but you will never get a chance to form long standing alliances like you did in Civ IV.

Without a relevant and satisfying diplomacy it feels as if this entire element has been taken away from the game.

I like the espionage element that Gods and Kings bring back but AIs will keep spying on you even if you're on good terms with them and even if you've asked them to stop.

Pointless.

It could have been a great game. The only reason for me to play Civ V is to enjoy the new elements (hex grid and 1 unit per tile mostly) and the more streamlined and casual gameplay (micromanagement is cut down).

Carabas wrote:

I like the espionage element that Gods and Kings bring back but AIs will keep spying on you even if you're on good terms with them and even if you've asked them to stop.

Well, to be fair, in real life the US detains an Israel spy that was doing some spying in the US.

But I agree with all of your post. Reminds me of the time where, in Civ IV, I was allied with Spain and Carthage (all three of us formed one continent and we were all the same religion). All three of us had a long standing alliance. So I conquered all the different continents until I had nowhere to go, so I decided to conquer my allies. My friendship rating was so high with Spain that as I was making a siege on their final city, Isabella was still rated as "friend" and was cordial when I initiated diplomacy...

Now, all this talk about Civ makes me want to start a game. Pity I lent my Civ IV game to my friend. I think I will have to go get it...

I guess you have a point about espionage.

Triactus wrote:

Now, all this talk about Civ makes me want to start a game.

Same thing here.

You should definitely get your Civ IV game back.

Our talk about Civ V in the Cornucopia thread made me look on the internet and here is what I've found: What Went Wrong With Civ V. It's written by a Civ veteran and it goes into much detail.

By the way there is a new expansion for Civ V that is going to be released this Summer: Civilization V: Brave New World but while it will be adding some extra stuff it doesn't look like it will "fix" the real drawbacks of the game.

As far as I'm concerned the impossibility of long term alliances and the bias towards city spamming instead of focusing on expansion really break the game. It has the hex grid, great visuals and a great soundtrack but it's definitely nowhere near Civ IV.

Good link, Cara. It was very interesting. I admit that, even though I've been playing for a while, I'm not a Civ expert. There are some issues that I have that seem to not matter to more experienced players as they know how to counteract them (see happiness). But most (if not all) points the poster made were really relevant and 100% true. I think I will play Civ 4. It sucks on some points because there are features that I liked in Civ 5. The hex instead of the square, buying tiles, the look and animations of units, units that can cross water (finally, you can stop using massive fleets of transports to bring your army from one continent to the next). Still, I had a lot more fun playing the 4th than the 5th... :/

I really like the hex grid and the general art direction of Civ V but I'm not a fan of the ability to cross water (although it helps since the AI had a hard time planning invasions across water in Civ IV).

I'm not an expert either but I really enjoy these games. I like the fact that it's turn based so I can take my time and plan things (I'm not a fan of real time games) and I really like the idea of managing an entire empire. I only play marathon games because I like the epic feel.

By the way if you're looking for a mod other than Fall From Heaven 2 I would recommend The Sword of Islam or The History of Three Kingdoms.

Now I really feel like playing a game of Civ IV.

I've just found out about a Diplomacy mod for Civ V Gods & Kings. I'll have to give it a try, this could fix the biggest flaw in the game.

I've finished my first Brave New World game and it's definitely an improvement. I can't believe how shallow vanilla Civ is considering all that Gods and Kings and BNW have added to the game. To say that this is what the game should have been like when it was released is an understatement.

It's still nowhere near the depth of a game like CK2 (and other Paradox titles from what I've seen) but with BNW it feels complete with a valid cultural option and at last some mechanics to support diplomacy.

It may not make Civ 4 obsolete but it makes for a nice change of pace (what 4 really lacks is the hex grid) with a game that doesn't ask for the same amount of micro.

In any case I've had some fun winning a cultural victory with the Shoshone, collecting great works of art and digging for artifacts but at the end of the day I'm itching for some good old Civ 4 with the Orbis mod (a Fall from Heaven 2 mod).

Following our exchange, I thought it would be a great time to revive this Civ 5 thread. I will probably mention a lot of points that were previously raised, but since it was so long ago and I'm now in my second game, I might have changed opinion or have a better idea of what bothers me and what I like.

Last time, I was only playing vanilla Civ 5. I now have G&K and BNW, but as most of the content is in renaissance and modern eras (like espionnage and world congress), there's a lot of stuff I can't comment yet. So that should be kept in mind when reading my post. I started my game as the Shoshone and am now aroud 900 AD (marathon game on extra large map, starting in 4000 BC). Here are elements that I like and hate about the game :



Graphics :
Hands down the most gorgeous Civ game. They also went for a more traditional, realistic, leader portrayal. In Civ IV, the leaders were meant to be caricatures and funny. I think I like the Civ V look better. The drawback, though, is it takes forever to load a game.



Hex grid :
I really like hex grid. I think it makes for a more fluent unit direction. You can be attacked by so many different directions compared to a square tile that it keeps things interesting.



One unit per tile :
I don't really mind, myself. I think it makes for a strategy overhaul. The Civ IV stacks of doom (like 40 tanks moving on the same tile) was unbelievable and kind of cheesy. As a player, it was also very frustrating to see a huge stack just coming up out of nowhere. At least in Civ V, since the army has to be spread out, you can see it coming more easily. But I agree it makes for a very bizarre game with a one unit only per tile on the tiny map. Another thing that bothers me about the one unit only thing is cities. Since you can't stack units in cities, just one military unit would be too weak to defend a city by itself. So they decide to compensate by having the cities defend themselves with free and integrated catapults. And defense strength. But this makes no sense at all. Where do the palisades and catapult come from? Why do you build walls or military units then?In my game, I had just founded a city a few turns ago when a barbarian horseman unit came up. My little 1 population city (empty of buildings and on the edge of nowhere) was able to easily repel the horseman. But it shouldn't have. The city is basically 50 people huddled in tents and wooden houses they're building. A criminal gang on horses should have been able to pillage that town. What they should do is make a one unit per tile exception for cities (with palisades or structures, they can have military units on top of each other, which they can't in a corn field), or at least a 3 unit maximum or something, and drop the automatic city defense. It would be more real and harder too (cities in Civ IV were a lot harder to overrun than Civ V BECAUSE of military units fortified in the city).



Growth inhibitor :
All Civ games have a growth inhibitor that holds a player back from steamrolling over everything by 10 AD. In Civ IV, it was money. Founding a city would make a dent in the treasury. The concept is having a school for ten people is a lot more costly than having a school for 2000 people, because the cost can be better divided. So following that principle, it takes a while for a city to be self sufficient, money wise, another while for it to actually start making money. And the further your city is from your capital, the more money is lost along the way in corruption and theft. So the more you grow, the more you city are less and less profitable. That can be alleviated of course by some buildings and some tile improvements, like constructing hamlets. It's all logical and realistic. I can get behind that.

In Civ V, all of a sudden, money is not as important. Rather, it's happiness that keeps you from growing: each city you found gives you -3 in you happiness rating, plus each population number adds to your unhappiness, meaning the city you found in reality gives you -4 hapiness (because of it's population of 1). So basically, Civ V is telling my my population is a bunch of hipsters: "Too many people like this, so I don't like this", "it's too mainstream so I don't like it" or "I liked it better before it was cool". It's moronic. In Civ IV, people are unhappy because "it's too crowded", meaning the people think it's too crowded and want the city to get bigger so they have more space. Civ V is telling you that people are unhappy because they have space and they'd better like it crowded? IT MAKES NO SENSE. And you conquer an enemy city, it adds between -11 and -8 happiness. Waaaaa? I understand the concept that if a foreign army conquers a city, the inhabitants will hate the occupiers. But why is the WHOLE civilization unhappy? "I don't like it when my civilization growsand becomes the biggest one around", says no empire's population ever. It's just a complete mess, IMO. That I can't get behind. I'd be tempted to find a mod that negates the happiness factor, but I would use it, since the rest of the game would be unbalanced. Also, I'm around 900 AD in my game. I am struggling with happiness in my 12 city empire. I assume the other 5 civilization on the continent also struggle, since they have 4 cities, 3 cities, 3 cities, 2 cities and 3 cities (so far, three cities changed owner, one of them I conquered off from another). -_- In Civ IV, they would be thriving empires too.



Diplomacy and AI:
Oh. God. Civilization. Wat R U Doin. Civilization. Stahp. Let's agree that diplomacy has never been Civ's strong suit. It's always been rather simplistic. And let's agree that the AI in Civ has never been the best one around. But in Civ V, it took ridiculous heights. In Civ V, what diplomacy? You have like 5 actions : resource exchange, open borders, defense pact, research pact, make war or peace on another. You can also issue statements or demands. The denouncement statement is ridiculously overpowered. Someone says a bad thing about you, everyone start saying bad things about you, and it takes 90 TURNS for a statement to be forgotten. 90 TURNS!!!! ridiculous. That's like a couple of centuries in game. And the AI is awful. In my game, the French offered to give me 1 gold resources in exchange for 1 whale, 1 silk, 1 salt and 5 gpt. Why would I accept that? and if the tables would be reversed, would they? I would get behind that if negotiation would be implemented (because that's how people negotiate. You start off with a demand where you clearly win and meet somewhere in the middle with the other person). Another thing happened in my game. Largely ignoring my vastly superior power (both production wise and military wise), the Celts messaged me one more time saying I was filth and they couldn't wait to squash me with their boot. Ok.... I soon get a message from the Carthaginian saying "Hey, let's get those pesky Celts". I think "sure, why not. They keep insulting me and since I have a war friend, I won't look too much like a dangerous warmonger". I declare war on the Celts. A few turns later, the Celts offer peace and, wishing me to accept, include 1/4 of their cities. And my military units WERE STILL in my territory all the way ACROSS the continent.... *facepalm* Things like that really annoy me. Playing a game like Crusader Kings 2 (which is only two years younger than Civ V) really highlights how diplomacy and AI was screwed in this game.

Note : I just saw one of your post in this thread about a diplomacy mod. I will seriously check it out.


Religion:
This was added with the Gods and Kings expansion. For once, this is, to me, an absolute improvement over the Civ IV handling to religions. You can choose what kind of belief you civilization has, you can create one of 7 religions (I say create because you can rename it as you like when you found it, so this is to me a very fun perk. So say the Totemism followers in my Shoshone empire... ). It adds a very real impact of a religion on you civilization. I would have liked it to actually have an impact in diplomacy (Civ IV's "brothers of the faith" relationship boost). I have two other civilization that share my religion, but I have no boost in relationships... But I guess that is more a bone to pick with diplomacy than religion.


That's it for now, though I'll probably remember more stuff to stay later.

Vanilla Civ 5 is a horrible horrible game. It lacks all the things that make Civ fun.

When starting a game I always consider map size because even if you have a killer computer late game can drag quite a bit and that is incredibly annoying. Loading times are also less significant on a smaller map.

The hex grid is something that I really like a lot. It makes much more sense to play that way.

The one tile unit per tile is annoying when it comes to workers and civilian units. The automatic city defence is a streamlined mechanic that makes the game easier and more casual. It doesn't really make sense (but as you pointed out stacks of doom didn't really made sense either). The real problem with one unit per tile becomes apparent with smaller sized maps in which longbowmen can shoot across the Channel...

Likewise in Civ 4 we had health and happiness. Civ 5 goes down a different path and it makes things a bit weird because of the global happiness... The logic is that you either have to build a tall or wide empire and choose the matching social policies. There are ways to get a new city to pay for itself and there are advantages in keeping some cities small but what I hate is taking enemy cities because either way you end up being screwed. If you puppet them you get a hit to your global happiness, if you take over it gets even worse and if you raze them you get a bad rep (and of course you can't raze capitals). All in all it's pretty bad especially considering that as soon as you've taken a city the AI civs go nuts and start hating your guts (even if you acted in self defence and didn't initiate the conflict).

Diplomacy is pretty bad. That's a fact. There are some ways to play around these limitations but as soon as you start getting denounced it all goes downhill. Best case scenario you end up with two system of alliances facing each other and denouncing each other for centuries. Worst case scenario the AI civs all gang up against you. Trading is a bit silly. Most of the time the AI will only accept deals in which they are ripping you off (but you still have reasons to accept some deals to get some cash for stuff you don't need or some strategic stuff). In this game city states are what diplomacy is for. You have so many advantages to get some client states to provide some services to your empire and that's the only redeeming feature when it comes to diplomacy in Civ 5.

I'm concerned about using mods because it can probably mess up what little balance the game offers. It would take a complete overhaul to change that and make it work (and I'm not even sure about the last part).

Religion is a major improvement in this game. It makes rushing for faith early on worthwhile if only to get the best bonus (or the one most suited to your civ or the map). The annoying thing is the fact that some AI civs will spam missionaries and it's almost impossible to keep up...

That being said what I like about Civ 5 is the social policies and the different way of using Great Persons.

Later on spies and tourism will help shaking things up a bit. Bear in mind that apart from religions, the expansions really add stuff for the mid and late game.

Carabas wrote:

Vanilla Civ 5 is a horrible horrible game. It lacks all the things that make Civ fun.

Yep I agree. The only thing is the (small) annoyances of Civ IV are corrected in Civ V (or rather what is positive about Civ V is absent in Civ IV), so I have trouble simply going back to Civ IV.

Carabas wrote:

When starting a game I always consider map size because even if you have a killer computer late game can drag quite a bit and that is incredibly annoying. Loading times are also less significant on a smaller map.

Yeah. I like to play the biggest and longest game. I plan things so meticulously that I need a large game. But I often get problems like the tiles not loading fast enough after a game load. If I click half the world away, the computer scrambles to recreate the tiles and may crash. So I have to slowly move the camera around the world before playing... -_-

Carabas wrote:

The one tile unit per tile is annoying when it comes to workers and civilian units. The automatic city defence is a streamlined mechanic that makes the game easier and more casual. It doesn't really make sense (but as you pointed out stacks of doom didn't really made sense either). The real problem with one unit per tile becomes apparent with smaller sized maps in which longbowmen can shoot across the Channel...

Haha, I agree it can be bizarre for that longbowman.  But I think you nailed it dead on : Civ V is more casual. Typical of mainstream game to water down its content in order to sale more copies to people who just play a few hours or what not. They don't care about hard core players or realism. That's really annoying.

Carabas wrote:

Likewise in Civ 4 we had health and happiness. Civ 5 goes down a different path and it makes things a bit weird because of the global happiness... The logic is that you either have to build a tall or wide empire and choose the matching social policies. There are ways to get a new city to pay for itself and there are advantages in keeping some cities small but what I hate is taking enemy cities because either way you end up being screwed. If you puppet them you get a hit to your global happiness, if you take over it gets even worse and if you raze them you get a bad rep (and of course you can't raze capitals). All in all it's pretty bad especially considering that as soon as you've taken a city the AI civs go nuts and start hating your guts (even if you acted in self defence and didn't initiate the conflict).

Diplomacy is pretty bad. That's a fact. There are some ways to play around these limitations but as soon as you start getting denounced it all goes downhill. Best case scenario you end up with two system of alliances facing each other and denouncing each other for centuries. Worst case scenario the AI civs all gang up against you. Trading is a bit silly. Most of the time the AI will only accept deals in which they are ripping you off (but you still have reasons to accept some deals to get some cash for stuff you don't need or some strategic stuff).

That's another point. If you're making the game more casual, why uselessly complicate things with global happiness and local happiness (happiness that affect the whole civilization and happiness that affect only the city).

I also hate how they are really forcing us to play two types of way: tall (few cities, but they're really developed) or wide (a lot of cities, but not developed or extremely specialized). What if I want to do both? Isn't Civ supposed to be a sandbox game? Let me handle how I want to play. I can get behind the monetary penalties in expanding (or doing it too fast I should say), but putting in arbitrary barriers, that's just bull. Like you said, overtaking enemy cities puts you so much in a bad spot you don't want to do it. So domination victory is pretty much n/a.

I also agree that it's hard and, for all intents and purposes, useless to have a good relationship with other civilizations. In my first game, the egyptians declared war on me because I was too close to their borders. I quickly conquered their 3-4 cities. From that point on (in the BC era), forget having a relationship with someone. I would constantly get denounced and reprimanded by EVERY OTHER civilization, whatever I was doing (I could be at peace for 3 centuries, it would change nothing), and for the ENTIRE remainder of the game....

In my present game, I founded a city, that to my friend Portugal, was a little too close to their capital for comfort. They sent a reprimand message. I responded "Oh jeez. Sorry about that. I hadn't noticed. Won't do it again. Sorry.". The next turn, out of the blue, they turn hostile and publicly denounce me. I decide "screw that, I'm taking their capital" (their two other cities are elsewhere on the continent (why? I have no clue). After I took it, I signed a peace treaty with them. But the shit storm the others gave me. I am amazed I was able to, a few centuries later, salvage the French and Carthaginian and establish strong friendships with them (but it took some gift giving to turn the tide).

Note : when I started my game, I added the "no city razing" option. So I can't destroy a city I conquer instead of taking it. But I find it really stupid you can't have a "pillage" option. You could only steal what valuables you find, but leave the city standing.

Carabas wrote:

In this game city states are what diplomacy is for. You have so many advantages to get some client states to provide some services to your empire and that's the only redeeming feature when it comes to diplomacy in Civ 5.

I forgot to talk about City States in my previous post. I dislike City states. I don't care for it. I think they could have maybe been a nice addition, but they end up not providing much. Yeah, you can "trade", but it's basically $$ for resources (including happiness). And as long as you keep the money coming, they grant you your resources. The city states are amusing for ten minutes, then it becomes like a generic highly repetitive gadget. It would have been a lot better to keep the "trade" aspect of the city states, but with personalities and decision power like other civilizations.

Carabas wrote:

Religion is a major improvement in this game. It makes rushing for faith early on worthwhile if only to get the best bonus (or the one most suited to your civ or the map). The annoying thing is the fact that some AI civs will spam missionaries and it's almost impossible to keep up...

That has gladly not been my problem so far. In fact, no missionary has visited me yet, while I sent three missionaries convert three other civilizations.

Carabas wrote:

That being said what I like about Civ 5 is the social policies and the different way of using Great Persons.

I agree. It's one of the good things Civ V manages to do (or rather, one of the different in a good way, because I didn't necessarily dislike the way Civ IV handled it). I also quite liked the additions of Great works of art (visual arts and books). I think it added a flavour that was otherwise absent. The only thing is I don't understand is why only Great art works count toward your tourism number, and Great Wonders don't. No tourist has EVER visited the Pyramids, right?  

Carabas wrote:

Later on spies and tourism will help shaking things up a bit. Bear in mind that apart from religions, the expansions really add stuff for the mid and late game.

Yeah, I can't wait to play in the more modern eras. I look forward to the World congress too, though it looks like the UN from Civ IV.

I think you've summed up things pretty accurately.

Regarding city states I think that if you try and embrace the concept without putting too much thought into it then it's ok. I do agree that it's incredibly repetitive though. All you need is money.

Diplomacy is all about having the biggest sticks so you can do whatever you please without bothering about enemy civs messing with your empire.

Frankly Civ 4 feels a bit old but with mods I find it's still playable.

When it comes to Civ 5 I find that keeping a sensible map size really helps with loading times and turns (the definition of sensible depends on your PC but the biggest maps don't seem very playable without some lag).

Quote :

I also hate how they are really forcing us to play two types of way: tall (few cities, but they're really developed) or wide (a lot of cities, but not developed or extremely specialized). What if I want to do both? Isn't Civ supposed to be a sandbox game? Let me handle how I want to play.

Bottom line there are 2 ways that work and make the game much easier. If you stray away from them you're setting yourself for a much harder time but you can get away with it once you're ahead of the competition.

Carabas wrote:

Regarding city states I think that if you try and embrace the concept without putting too much thought into it then it's ok. I do agree that it's incredibly repetitive though. All you need is money.

That's my problem, though. I put a lot of thought in my games (often way too much, just look at my CK2 posts... ). But to better express my appreciation for City states, it's like the Lily missions in State of Decay. You get a message on the radio your fellow survivor is hunting a feral zombie. You swing by, kill the zombie and continue what you were doing. It's just work, it's not fun. Know what I mean? "Oh, I'm 3 relationship points away from losing my friendship status with XYZ City state. Here's 250$ to keep my supply of +3 happiness"... It's not fun. That's why I like CK2. They manage to make everything FUN!

Carabas wrote:

Diplomacy is all about having the biggest sticks so you can do whatever you please without bothering about enemy civs messing with your empire. (...) Bottom line there are 2 ways that work and make the game much easier. If you stray away from them you're setting yourself for a much harder time but you can get away with it once you're ahead of the competition.

I don't quite agree. I used to have a shitty army (meaning 2 scouts and a warrior) and I was never bothered. Now, in 900 AD, I have 2 scouts, 3 swordsmen, 2 catapults and a tireme, they talk to me in the same way. I have the second or third largest army (though half the civilization are on another continent and are unknown. So I don't quite know how I compare against the other 5). I think they just exist as space filler, honestly. I mean, my Shoshone are a rich culture and science oriented powerhouse with a reasonable army. I have money (making around +60 gpt), culture (around +40 or +50 culture points), with the majority of constructed Wonders in my cities. My army, while not the biggest, can at the very least bloody the nose of the biggest warmongers (pretty sure I can conquer most of my 5 known neighbors, if not slap them all around). Plus, since my cities are developed, I can start churning units at an interesting speed. So with all of that, it's not the other civilization that are holding me back from world domination. It's me, my happiness factor.

BNW changes things so that a peaceful game becomes possible but having more money and more troops still help.

Quote :

That's why I like CK2. They manage to make everything FUN!

I completely agree with that statement.

Just thought I'd mention the Vox populi mod:

https://forums.civfanatics.com/threads/community-patch-how-to-install.528034/

I haven't used that many mods with Civ 5 but this one looks like a pretty fine addition to the game. Some of the changes bring back memories from playing Civ 4 (which is still fine but certainly not as easy on the eyes as it used to be) so that's probably a good thing.

Hum, interesting mod. If I ever return to the Civ franchise, I might just try it out. Bridging the gap between Civ 4 and Civ 5 can only be a good thing. Civ 4 is, by far, the best Civ game. Only, the good things that came out of Civ 5 seems to have spoiled Civ 4 for me, as when you go back to play it, it feels like something's missing. :/

I hear you! I've actually tried going back to Civ 4 but it does feel a bit rough nowadays which is why I hope this mod will help getting back into 5.

I'm still on the fence regarding 6, almost picked the Humble Monthly but then there is no way to upgrade to the Deluxe Edition and I know for a fact that when it comes to Civ I want to be able to access all the content.

In the meantime what little I've seen of the mod seems rather encouraging in the sense that it builds on Civ 5's weakest points:

http://civ-5-cbp.wikia.com/wiki/Civ5_CBP_Wikia

The modifications go pretty deep so it is going to take a little time to adapt.