No Mom, just one more turn... (Civ V)

StarBob said:
Yep I mentioned it a few pages back. I don't know why they haven't fixed it yet since it kind of ruins a game if you're trying to win by conquering or you want to help an ally.
Click to expand...

Yeah, it sucked. There was only one Civ left, so I had to do something else to win. Decided to go for a space victory.
 
It is pretty bullshit that the AI will build on areas of the map they know resources will appear in later stages of the game, it completely kills the feel of natural expansion when you see some Civ building a new city some 40 or 50 tiles away from their capitol.

Also which social policies do you find yourself never using? For me I rarely go piety, as patronage and liberty help me feed luxury items into my empire, allowing me to keep happiness very high.
 
I usually go for the right branch of Honor for cheap upgrades. I also like the Order policy a lot when my empire has grown large and it is hard to keep it happy.
 
Matorbogl said:
It is pretty bullshit that the AI will build on areas of the map they know resources will appear in later stages of the game, it completely kills the feel of natural expansion when you see some Civ building a new city some 40 or 50 tiles away from their capitol.

Also which social policies do you find yourself never using? For me I rarely go piety, as patronage and liberty help me feed luxury items into my empire, allowing me to keep happiness very high.
Click to expand...

So the AI cheats even on the difficulty levels where it's supposed not to cheat?
 
Argh. I've been forgetting about this game. I need to come back and play it. So many other things i'm trying to do right now.
 
Yeah really. Glad to see they are patching some important fixes.
 
"Added option to disable auto-unit cycling."

Loverly.
 
Ghenghis Khan? Nice. Already have Nebuchadnezzar through the Steam pre-order. He is quite awesome, tossing his wine around.
 
The amount of bugs / flaws with this game is appalling, and not allowing mods for multipalyer - many of which would be an improvement - is just a crime.
 
Yorick said:
The amount of bugs / flaws with this game is appalling, and not allowing mods for multipalyer - many of which would be an improvement - is just a crime.
Click to expand...

I didn't think it was all that bad after that big patch.
 
Even after the patch I have regular crashes and graphics issues on both my PC and my girlfriend's laptop. There's another patch coming out soon though so I'm hopeful that it'll resolve some of them.

I also found this fix that makes it so you can play mods on LAN if anyone (like me) felt that was lacking.
 
New patch coming out:
http://store.steampowered.com/news/4789/

Can no longer Force End Turn (shift-enter) through blocking notifications. CAN now use it to skip over units which need orders.
Click to expand...
lol, I used that trick before.

Looks like a lot of good AI fixes and gameplay changes but unfortunately not many performance or graphics fixes (I still get some weird artifacts after playing awhile).
 
Looks like a good time... been looking for an excuse to play this again. I have all of next week off so I might actually do it if this patch comes out.
 
I want to get into one of the Civ games this summer (never played them), I am debating between 4 or 5. Basically I am a little more interested in a game about building and managing civilization and for combat not to be the main focus (but still existing). I've heard some mixed things about 5, it seems very love or hate. I hear from some people that going a passive route isn't fun or well implemented as it was in the other games because of the AI attacking you no matter what, so you are forced to be agressive. On the other hand a lot of people tell me 4 is incredibly boring. I am just interested in a strategy game that offers more than building massive armies and rushing opposing groups, that sort of play gets really old for me.

Any recommendations?
 
Civ4 has pacifist routes, but you still need to be ready in case of war.

4 is definitely better than 5 in that regard.
 
Ace is right. The pacing on 4 felt better as well, from what I played of it.

But 5 is better in almost(?) every other way.
 
Acepilotf14 said:
Civ4 has pacifist routes, but you still need to be ready in case of war.

4 is definitely better than 5 in that regard.
Click to expand...

I've gotten through a Civ 5 game with relatively little warfare. I don't know how it compares to 4 since I never played that one, but pacifistic routes are certainly available in 5.
 
AI is more aggressive if you don't build any units at all, they see you as weak. Even if your army is solely defensive you still need one simply to dissuade invasion attempts.
 
ZT said:
I want to get into one of the Civ games this summer (never played them), I am debating between 4 or 5. Basically I am a little more interested in a game about building and managing civilization and for combat not to be the main focus (but still existing). I've heard some mixed things about 5, it seems very love or hate. I hear from some people that going a passive route isn't fun or well implemented as it was in the other games because of the AI attacking you no matter what, so you are forced to be agressive. On the other hand a lot of people tell me 4 is incredibly boring. I am just interested in a strategy game that offers more than building massive armies and rushing opposing groups, that sort of play gets really old for me.

Any recommendations?
Click to expand...

I recommend getting Civ V, conquering everyone on your continent/island ASAP and then peacefully focusing on research or culture, as the other AI fight each other elsewhere.
 
Yorick said:
Ace is right. The pacing on 4 felt better as well, from what I played of it.

But 5 is better in almost(?) every other way.
Click to expand...

If by every other way you mean ' just the combat' then yes.
 
What are the primary differences between the two? I don't mind having to fight here and there, I assume thats natural, but I don't want to deal with AI that is unrealistically aggressive. However, if there is little challenge in 4 when being a pacifist, I cannot imagine that being very fun either.
 
Fighting is a little more tactical in Civ5. In Civ4 you simply build a stack of doom and move that all over the map. In Civ5 you can only have one unit per tile.

I just won a Civ5 game without fighting at all btw. Science victory ftw.
 
Wow, on System Requirements Lab it only goes a third past the minimum mark! I've never had anything below the recommended mark, is it really that demanding?
 
ZT said:
Wow, on System Requirements Lab it only goes a third past the minimum mark! I've never had anything below the recommended mark, is it really that demanding?
Click to expand...

Yes, especially for processor and memory. Toward the end of a larger game you'll be sitting around waiting for the AI turns to process.
 
Lame. CivIV complete is $7 on amazon. Just might go with that.
 
Well, does anyone want to play a Civ5 game? I haven't played any multiplayer really and I'd like to try a game.
 
Personally I think Civ 5 is the better of the two games just because it really pushes a more dynamic combat system and it just looks so much better. Both great games but if you have the money and the system go with Civ 5.

The multilplayer is rough for the same reason the single player is... with two computers bogging down instead of one you might as well be asleep during later turns. I've been playing it with my friend lately and it's really fun, but I think we'd bet a lot better off dropping the size of the map and the number of players to something that won't kill our computers.
 
I liked 5 more because I found the micro management a lot simpler and more user friendly, and of course for the combat. Then again I'm pretty casual when it comes to strategy games so I would say that.
 
StarBob said:
Yes, especially for processor and memory. Toward the end of a larger game you'll be sitting around waiting for the AI turns to process.
Click to expand...

I haven't tried it but apparently the latest patch is meant to improve performance late game a lot.

It really isn't that demanding imo, my girlfriend's year-old laptop manages CiV fine.
 
Eejit said:
I haven't tried it but apparently the latest patch is meant to improve performance late game a lot.

It really isn't that demanding imo, my girlfriend's year-old laptop manages CiV fine.
Click to expand...

My computer was taking about 5-7 minutes to process other player movements in a single turn when there was still 8 civilizations left active. Thats with my Quad core processor and 8 gigs of ram. I think you just haven't gotten into that situation on your laptop if you didn't notice it.

I did happily notice in my last game that it was significantly faster in the late game though, so I guess the patch worked.
 
Krynn72 said:
My computer was taking about 5-7 minutes to process other player movements in a single turn when there was still 8 civilizations left active. Thats with my Quad core processor and 8 gigs of ram. I think you just haven't gotten into that situation on your laptop if you didn't notice it.

I did happily notice in my last game that it was significantly faster in the late game though, so I guess the patch worked.
Click to expand...

Wow really 5-7 minutes? I don't think I ever had anything take that long, though the largest map I played on was Standard. I think late game my turns used to take about 30 seconds to a minute at the longest. I stopped playing for a long time and recently haven't taken a single player game that far, but multiplayer with standard map and everything sometimes takes 1-2 minutes even before the 20th century hits.

I may be running faster because I run it in DX9 and lower as many setting as I can tolerate.
 
Krynn, was that before or after last week's patch? My performance improved quite a bit since then.
 
StarBob said:
Wow really 5-7 minutes? I don't think I ever had anything take that long, though the largest map I played on was Standard. I think late game my turns used to take about 30 seconds to a minute at the longest. I stopped playing for a long time and recently haven't taken a single player game that far, but multiplayer with standard map and everything sometimes takes 1-2 minutes even before the 20th century hits.
Click to expand...

Maybe I'm exaggerating a bit, but I know I timed it on my cellphone for one turn, and it was over two minutes. Then it felt like it got significantly worse the next few turns, so I stopped playing. I was playing on a "Huge" map, with the most AI players possible, and I think only two or three had been destroyed.

@ Shaker, that was like 3 weeks ago I think, so I guess that was before the patch? Maybe it was because I was doing a military victory and there was only 4 nations left and like 3 city states.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

B
From Warren Spector to Arkane Studios: Half-Life 2's cancelled Ravenholm episode
Replies
2
Views
10K
Clan Wolf 2
Clan Wolf 2
Omnomnick
Dota 2 "The International 2016" Event Concludes
Replies
1
Views
16K
Gerzowktz
Gerzowktz
MFL
Fascinating look at the ongoing psychological evolution of flat hieirarchies.
Replies
2
Views
2K
Tollbooth Willie
Tollbooth Willie
Omnomnick
Happy Lunar New Year, Have Some Deals! - ValveTime News Round-Up (9th February 2016)
Replies
0
Views
2K
Omnomnick
Omnomnick
Omnomnick
Dota 2 "The International 2016 Battle Pass" Released
Replies
0
Views
6K
Omnomnick
Omnomnick
Back
Top