Alright boyz, here we go!!! Civ 5 first impressions & tips thread!

[Ben E Lou]

I haven't tried it yet on it. I'm just assuming so. It's a month or two old, 4GB RAM, dual core, not sure about the graphics setup, but it *looks* good. I'm going to do the installation on it tomorrow morning.

[henry296]

Is there somewhere to see every Civs score? That is one way I figure out where I stand in terms of size / tech.

[Buccaneer]

Not a standings like in Civ4 apparently. You can see your score on the Victory screen and then go to the Diplomacy screen to see the other civs.

My first game is on Prince and already I have a good lead (score-wise) after 20 or so turns.

[MizzouRah]

The game runs fine on my desktop pc, most of the settings are medium or low, but I can play at 1900x1200 on my 24" monitor without must hesitation so far.

I'm still a n00b though and have tons of questions I keep having to look up answers to. :)

[henry296]

Not a standings like in Civ4 apparently. You can see your score on the Victory screen and then go to the Diplomacy screen to see the other civs.

My first game is on Prince and already I have a good lead (score-wise) after 20 or so turns.

Thanks. The Diplomacy Screen also shows your score so that is what I was looking for.

[Buccaneer]

Thanks. The Diplomacy Screen also shows your score so that is what I was looking for.

I had thought so but somehow I am not seeing it.

[Buccaneer]

I am loving the idea of a unit-less city being able to defend itself. Had 3 Brutes surrounding my city while I went off and explored the world (very important to do). A passing Ottoman Spears got one of the Brutes and the others splattered themselves silly until I built a Warrior to finish them off. Going to build a War Chariot along with a melee unit to go Brute Encampment hunting.

[MizzouRah]

I really like the interface.. the game has me rattling off hour by hour, that's for sure.

Need to go to bed.. long day tomorrow, but I want more!

[Abe Sargent]

I love the city state thing

[Alan T]

Just finished my second game, this time moved up on Prince difficulty. It obviously was a little more difficult, but still didn't seem that tough to win.

As France this time, won in the 360th turn with a Domination victory. Score of 2095. (about 1700 lower than my previous victory on Chieftain level).

I am finding the Domination victory seems a little too easy to win. Basically one civ took out all of the opponents on his island while I took out all of my opponents on my side. Then I beat him to the punch when we had the only two capitals left.

I actually was going for a United Nations victory this time to try something different, but could only get 8 of the 9 needed votes. I guess the other city states got destroyed before I could get to the other island. A Culture victory was not going to happen, so that left Domination.

I think the big key is getting good strategic position in the beginning. The first 100 or so turns are vital to make sure that you are strong enough military-wise to keep the other civs honest (or better have the other civs on your island go after each other), while trying to expand just a little bit to cover the ground you need.

Not sure if I'll move up from Prince just yet or try another round to see if I just got lucky twice in a row. I never had a feeling that I was going to lose after the first several hundred turns, but it wasn't a cake walk like the first game.

[Big Fo]

I just played my first ever Internet multiplayer Civ game (any version) with a friend of mine. We played a team game against three AI teams of two civs each, it's going pretty well so far. Planning invasions and what we each research and trade is good fun but we probably should have played on King or whatever the level just above Prince is to make up for the team advantage but my friend hasn't had the chance to try any SP yet. Next time we'll do a normal game without teams.

[SackAttack]

Yes, I want the shiny graphics.

No, I'm not finding this game any less addictive for having played the last 200 turns in strategy view instead of "shiny graphics" view.

That, to me, might be the most impressive bit.

Offhand, anybody else getting the 'trade route broken' message from time to time? I figured it meant road degradation, but only once have I found a missing road, and it wasn't even along the path that would've linked my capital to the city claiming trade route loss.

[Cringer]

Yes, I want the shiny graphics.

No, I'm not finding this game any less addictive for having played the last 200 turns in strategy view instead of "shiny graphics" view.

That, to me, might be the most impressive bit.

Offhand, anybody else getting the 'trade route broken' message from time to time? I figured it meant road degradation, but only once have I found a missing road, and it wasn't even along the path that would've linked my capital to the city claiming trade route loss.

I have no idea why it does that. I was getting it a good amount with two cities closest to my capital, and they all had roads and harbors.

[SackAttack]

I have no idea why it does that. I was getting it a good amount with two cities closest to my capital, and they all had roads and harbors.

I do know that the first time I got that message, a road was missing between my capital and a *different* city, and repairing that made the game happy again.

The second time, I couldn't find a single break.

[Chubby]

just saw something new from diplomacy:

playing a continents map, 4 civs, I'm Japan. Each continent has 2 civs and a bunch of city states on it. My continent has a 1 tile connecting path inthe middle with myself on one endand the Romans onthe other end. Thru exploring early on I saw that at the Roman end of the one tile wide connecting path there was a mountain range that creates a chokepoint getting into the 1 tile wide connecting pathso I set up my 2nd city there but set back so that I could set up a chokepoint path of death for the eventual Roman invasion.

I set up a spearman and 2 archers to defend the chokepoint and lo and behold, that fucker invades me as I just started taking out the only city state on my half of the continent. I lose the spearman quick as I was out-teched, drop one archer into the city and soon lose the other archer. Because of the choke point tho, i hold them off while upgrading the garrisoned archer to a crossbowman.

I made quick work of the city state and moveall my forces (a swordsman, 2 Samurai, a crossbowman and a catapult) where I begin to destroy any Roman forces who dare make it into the chokepoint path of death. This is where I see the thing I have never seen before.

I had been trying to get peace form the start of when Rome declared war on us to no avail. Once I set up the chokepoint path of death I stopped trying to end the war. Eventually, Rome offered peace and I tried to get all their gold (500) and they said no. 5-10 turns later, same thing only this time they had 700 gold but still no dice. Then like 10-15 turns later...

Rome offered peace AND open borders on them only AND pretty much all their gold (800) AND like 25 gold per turn AND all luxury resources AND all their good resources (like 7 iron and all their horses).

I natrually excepted and started a scout to scout their territory for my invasion in 10 turns while I'm still getting all their resources for another 20 turns after that :)

[Vince, Pt. II]

Nice, complete capitulation. I like it.

[Galaril]

just saw something new from diplomacy:

playing a continents map, 4 civs, I'm Japan. Each continent has 2 civs and a bunch of city states on it. My continent has a 1 tile connecting path inthe middle with myself on one endand the Romans onthe other end. Thru exploring early on I saw that at the Roman end of the one tile wide connecting path there was a mountain range that creates a chokepoint getting into the 1 tile wide connecting pathso I set up my 2nd city there but set back so that I could set up a chokepoint path of death for the eventual Roman invasion.

I set up a spearman and 2 archers to defend the chokepoint and lo and behold, that fucker invades me as I just started taking out the only city state on my half of the continent. I lose the spearman quick as I was out-teched, drop one archer into the city and soon lose the other archer. Because of the choke point tho, i hold them off while upgrading the garrisoned archer to a crossbowman.

I made quick work of the city state and moveall my forces (a swordsman, 2 Samurai, a crossbowman and a catapult) where I begin to destroy any Roman forces who dare make it into the chokepoint path of death. This is where I see the thing I have never seen before.

I had been trying to get peace form the start of when Rome declared war on us to no avail. Once I set up the chokepoint path of death I stopped trying to end the war. Eventually, Rome offered peace and I tried to get all their gold (500) and they said no. 5-10 turns later, same thing only this time they had 700 gold but still no dice. Then like 10-15 turns later...

Rome offered peace AND open borders on them only AND pretty much all their gold (800) AND like 25 gold per turn AND all luxury resources AND all their good resources (like 7 iron and all their horses).

I natrually excepted and started a scout to scout their territory for my invasion in 10 turns while I'm still getting all their resources for another 20 turns after that :)

Holy shit who is there leader Jimmie Carter?

[Abe Sargent]

I had the "Peace Trety, can't DOW for the rest of the game" bug as well in y first go through.

[GrantDawg]

I picked this up today. Any early mod suggestions?

[Buccaneer]

Why are you looking for an early mod? Is there something you would like to see different? That determines what kind of mod to suggest. But I would suggest learning the game and its mechanics, which I am still doing despite some bugs.

[GrantDawg]

Why are you looking for an early mod? Is there something you would like to see different? That determines what kind of mod to suggest. But I would suggest learning the game and its mechanics, which I am still doing despite some bugs.


I was just curiuos if someone had tweaked stuff already. Usually someone will come with a more "real" feeling game within a few days of games like this coming out.

[Abe Sargent]

I'm beginning to miss things like espionage, religion, and government

[RainMaker]

Is there a reason they dumped religion? Seems like an important part of civilization.

[Abe Sargent]

They do have the social values thingie. It sort of replaces governemnt a little, but its really different and only a few are mutually exclusive. I was Communist, Liberty and Freedom all at the same time with it.

I do like them, I just would like to see the names changed and government, religion and especially espionage added back in.

Also, the lack of different land improvements that we had in Civ 4 makes everybody's land look the same after getting improved, and more things there would help.

[Buccaneer]

Is there a reason they dumped religion? Seems like an important part of civilization.

It was cheesy and gamey in Civ4, espionage was even worse. But I heard the religions were supposed to be in Civ5 but didn't make the cut. If they do add it for an expansion pack, I hope it would compliment the social policies instead of some generic culture and gold boosts (which the game does not need more of).

[Alan T]

It was cheesy and gamey in Civ4, espionage was even worse. But I heard the religions were supposed to be in Civ5 but didn't make the cut. If they do add it for an expansion pack, I hope it would compliment the social policies instead of some generic culture and gold boosts (which the game does not need more of).


It was originally in the game and it got pulled out. Apolyton posted what they found:

Apolyton Civilization Site - Gamefiles show: Religion was removed from Civilization V! (http://apolyton.net/content.php/133-Gamefiles-show-Religion-was-removed-from-Civilization-V%21)

[Abe Sargent]

I think a religious victory would have been mega cool

[Eaglesfan27]

SkipIntroVideo = 0

Making this change will produce a black screen for about 30 seconds with no activity before you get to the main menu.

Also, if you wait about 3-5 seconds and then hit Enter, it will skip past the opening movie.

[Abe Sargent]

I really question some things in this game. For example, roads cost gold to maintain, but forts? Why is that? I don;t get that at all. I mean, I'm sure there is some game based reason for it, like forts suck and are rarely used so let's not make them worse or something, but it feels unnatural.

[ISiddiqui]

It was cheesy and gamey in Civ4

If by "cheesy and gamey" you mean it was really cool, I'd agree :)

[SackAttack]

I really question some things in this game. For example, roads cost gold to maintain, but forts? Why is that? I don;t get that at all. I mean, I'm sure there is some game based reason for it, like forts suck and are rarely used so let's not make them worse or something, but it feels unnatural.

To keep you from plopping them all over the place, not using them for 2000 years, and then just retreating into them when an army comes by?

A 2000-year old fort with no maintenance in all that time probably wouldn't be all that useful.

[Abe Sargent]

To keep you from plopping them all over the place, not using them for 2000 years, and then just retreating into them when an army comes by?

A 2000-year old fort with no maintenance in all that time probably wouldn't be all that useful.

No, SA, my point was that forts DON'T require gold to maintain. Thus the inconsistency I mentioned. To be fair, I wasn't very clear, but the context clues from the last sentance back that.

[Abe Sargent]

I like most of the new stuff though. I adore City States. I love buying land. I enjoy the social policies. And I like natural wonders, even if the game has like 10 and that's it, so I'm seeing the same ones over and over again. Hexes, great idea.

[Izulde]

I downloaded the demo but it won't play. It doesn't show up in Steam even after I go through Setup and when I choose Add Game to Steam, it asks me for a passkey.

...WTF would I have a passkey for a DEMO?

[Alan T]

My third game didn't go as well as the first two.

It led me to two observations:

1) Iroquois really have lousy special unit/building/etc.
2) When there is no iron anywhere near you but everyone else on your continent has plenty of iron it really stacks the cards against you.

I held in until the end, hoping for a culture victory, but just couldn't keep up with the Egyptians, whom ended up finally taking my capital when there were just two of us left.

Ok a third observation: I have yet to see a single game make it until even flight much less space race. Are you all seeing the same? All three games were domination victories.

[Vince, Pt. II]

My third game didn't go as well as the first two.

It led me to two observations:

1) Iroquois really have lousy special unit/building/etc.
2) When there is no iron anywhere near you but everyone else on your continent has plenty of iron it really stacks the cards against you.

I held in until the end, hoping for a culture victory, but just couldn't keep up with the Egyptians, whom ended up finally taking my capital when there were just two of us left.

Ok a third observation: I have yet to see a single game make it until even flight much less space race. Are you all seeing the same? All three games were domination victories.

I'm still only in my first game, but I can definitely see strategic resources being a major issue. Were any city-states near Iron? In my current (first) game, I only had 2 Iron resources, and I've made an arrangement with a city-state to up that to 8. If I wasn't able to do that (and it's going to be expensive to keep it up), I'd be at a severe disadvantage.

[Abe Sargent]

My third game didn't go as well as the first two.

It led me to two observations:

1) Iroquois really have lousy special unit/building/etc.
2) When there is no iron anywhere near you but everyone else on your continent has plenty of iron it really stacks the cards against you.

I held in until the end, hoping for a culture victory, but just couldn't keep up with the Egyptians, whom ended up finally taking my capital when there were just two of us left.

Ok a third observation: I have yet to see a single game make it until even flight much less space race. Are you all seeing the same? All three games were domination victories.



I had a diplomatic vicotry in a game where I was a permanent ally of Japan and they took one continent, and I took another, and I didn;t want to wage war against them, so I just found and allied with all of the city states on these various islands. Plus I never conquered the three on my continent, so I won. I had about 12 future techs in that game. Ended 2012

[Passacaglia]

They brought back future techs?

[henry296]

They brought back future techs?

They were in Civ4

[Passacaglia]

They were in Civ4

Ah, okay. I guess I never got that far. The few times I went "all the way" I think the game was won on points before anyone could get to them.

[bhlloy]

I just won a space race victory in about 2040 where at least 7 of the 12 nations still had their capital so it's not necessarily a race to see who can eliminate everyone else on their continent every time. Just seems to be most of the time :D

[Alan T]

I'm still only in my first game, but I can definitely see strategic resources being a major issue. Were any city-states near Iron? In my current (first) game, I only had 2 Iron resources, and I've made an arrangement with a city-state to up that to 8. If I wasn't able to do that (and it's going to be expensive to keep it up), I'd be at a severe disadvantage.

I had a diplomatic vicotry in a game where I was a permanent ally of Japan and they took one continent, and I took another, and I didn;t want to wage war against them, so I just found and allied with all of the city states on these various islands. Plus I never conquered the three on my continent, so I won. I had about 12 future techs in that game. Ended 2012


The city states don't last long in my three games so far. I tried for a diplomatic victory in my 2nd game and found that every single city state on the other continent had been destroyed, so had to settle for a domination victory when I was one state short.

The only way city states seem to survive in my games is if I destroy the rival civs before they destroy the city states. In my third game with 0 iron, that ended up being impossible for me.

[Abe Sargent]

The city states don't last long in my three games so far. I tried for a diplomatic victory in my 2nd game and found that every single city state on the other continent had been destroyed, so had to settle for a domination victory when I was one state short.

The only way city states seem to survive in my games is if I destroy the rival civs before they destroy the city states. In my third game with 0 iron, that ended up being impossible for me.

Remember, you can release a City State if you capture it in war from another civ, and then it will always vote for you in a diplomatic victory.

[Passacaglia]

Remember, you can release a City State if you capture it in war from another civ, and then it will always vote for you in a diplomatic victory.

Probably not if it's destroyed -- seems like you shouldn't be able to destroy a city-state, or at least if you do, there should be some kind of penalty.

[Jughead Spock]

I'm loving the game. But I'm hating that it keeps wanting to not load - ie, freezes as soon as it's at the point of starting a game. Will just keep troubleshooting that part, but the game itself is fun as hell. Love the one unit per hex and limited resources.

[Alan T]

Remember, you can release a City State if you capture it in war from another civ, and then it will always vote for you in a diplomatic victory.


Ah, yes I keep letting that slip my mind.

[Izulde]

Tried the demo and had a lot of fun. I took Persia and was in the middle of a defensive war with England when time ran out. I was a little disappointed I apparently wasn't the first to discover Writing, as I didn't get the free technology I thought I would (I did, however, get one for the Great Library).

With this new combat system, I don't think I'd ever play any of the previous Civs again. That's how awesome it is and how tedious the stacks of doom would be after that.

I was in the middle of making Dublin my homeboy, working on building a road network from Persepolis to Dublin when the war broke out. Truth is, we probably would have been over-run by sheer numbers because I didn't do an adequate job of army preparation (although I did have a horseman being quickly built in my capital, I probably would have lost my second city).

So tempting to buy the full version...

[Big Fo]

re: how much research progress Civs have made by the end of the game

1st game - Warlord level - I won a Domination Victory in the mid 1900s. I was about halfway through the Modern Era (like bombers and battleships but not jet fighters or missile cruisers) while the other Civs that hadn't been wiped out were in the Industrial Era.

2nd game - Prince level - I won a Scientific Victory in 2041. I had two future techs, two competitors had completed the Apollo Program, a few others were in the Modern Era while the bottom feeders will still in the Industrial Era. Unfortunately nobody would declare war on me late in the game so I didn't get to see the Giant Death Robot in action.

[SackAttack]

Probably not if it's destroyed -- seems like you shouldn't be able to destroy a city-state, or at least if you do, there should be some kind of penalty.

I was under the impression you couldn't, since you can't raze capitals and city-states are kind of de facto capitals.

[Alan T]

2nd game - Prince level - I won a Scientific Victory in 2041. I had two future techs, two competitors had completed the Apollo Program, a few others were in the Modern Era while the bottom feeders will still in the Industrial Era. Unfortunately nobody would declare war on me late in the game so I didn't get to see the Giant Death Robot in action.


I just won a Technological Victory in 2025 as Rome. My game sounds different than yours though. As the norm almost everyone was bloodthirsty and it ended up being just myself and one other civ plus a third civ that was barely holding on.

I was the only one to complete the Apollo program, but I also had absolutely 0 coal or uranium (and almost 0 oil) on my continent. So that led my technological victory choice as I didn't really have much in the way of transatlantic fleet without any modern resources.

[Tasan]

Izulde, I'm right there with you. I played the demo and its all I can do to not spend the $50 on the full game.

[Galaril]

Geez, played first game about 4 hours on standard map on the third level Chieftain I think with 10 city-states, ab undant resources and continents. I was America and quickly built three cities got them up and running and got them all linked with roads. I played peaceful not attacking anyone just so I could grow and that worked good until 1220 AD when damn Russia a real war monger that had been in a long 500 year long confrontation with German who we had sided with alittle attacked us. When she attacked she really brought. Russia attacked two of our cities including the capital with a couple units each and I had not seen it coming so I have very little combat units to battle them. I guess I will be firing up the war machine to deal with this threat. One question:We had just started sending out ships to navigate the oceans and found some new lands owned by France who we traded with. I am not sure if we immediately get those resources for our empire or if we have to get the ship back to one of our maritime cities for it to kick in?

So, I was going to quit and restart but decided to stick my first game out and have now recovered and survived the attacks from Russia. I have started to focus on technology more and am now fielding Minutemen and cannons and have just about completed the Rifling tech which will give me riflemen think 19th century. I am in 1680 so am ahead of everyone else. I lost my one northern city on a peninsula to Russia who razed the city. I still have three large well defended cities and one small growing one on a far distant continent across the oceans.

A few things I have noticed:
-If you build forts and do not quickly occupy them with combat troops another nation will claim them. Also, you can build forts anywhere you want not just in your territory but be careful. I built two forts just outside my territory and another nation sent settlers and built cities right near them thus when the fort was done it was that nation property damn.
-One thing that I don't like about units being able to change to transport ships from land is you can not trap units at the a sea unless you blockade the ocean as well. I guess that is realistic.
-I am playing in the third AI level and the AI is decent.

[Buccaneer]

-I am playing in the third AI level and the AI is decent.

Interesting. I have just been playing around, noticing a lot of fixable bugs, but will not play for real until the first patch or two. Way too many examples (and some personal examples) of an inept tactical AI, esp. in the first 150 turns on normal. An outnumbered, inferior defense can easily hold off much larger superior units because the AI do not know how to use 1upt well, esp. range and embarking attacks. You can use Zone of Control much, much better than the AI can.

Going on the offense in the early game, take 3 range units and 3 ground units (like Swords) plus a worker or scout and see how many civs you take out, even at higher difficulty levels. Problem is that it is easy to draw them out piecemeal (with the worker, for exampe) to slaughter. In the first 100-150 turns, you will encounter nearly defenseless AI cities: 2-3 weak units in each.

Promotions come fast and easy since you get good points just standing around while a few arrows fly at you, not to mention really good points in attacking. Since you will have less units (and can move them better), promotions become very powerful, esp. when the unit is upgraded and do not lose them. Some suggested that playing on huge maps will help slow down the pace but many cannot get huge maps to work without crashing.

[SackAttack]

Interesting. I have just been playing around, noticing a lot of fixable bugs, but will not play for real until the first patch or two. Way too many examples (and some personal examples) of an inept tactical AI, esp. in the first 150 turns on normal. An outnumbered, inferior defense can easily hold off much larger superior units because the AI do not know how to use 1upt well, esp. range and embarking attacks. You can use Zone of Control much, much better than the AI can.

Going on the offense in the early game, take 3 range units and 3 ground units (like Swords) plus a worker or scout and see how many civs you take out, even at higher difficulty levels. Problem is that it is easy to draw them out piecemeal (with the worker, for exampe) to slaughter. In the first 100-150 turns, you will encounter nearly defenseless AI cities: 2-3 weak units in each.

Promotions come fast and easy since you get good points just standing around while a few arrows fly at you, not to mention really good points in attacking. Since you will have less units (and can move them better), promotions become very powerful, esp. when the unit is upgraded and do not lose them. Some suggested that playing on huge maps will help slow down the pace but many cannot get huge maps to work without crashing.

I've played a couple games on huge maps in strategy view with no crashes.

For some reason the game likes to crash whenever I quit, though. That's funny.

[Ben E Lou]

I haven't tried it yet on it. I'm just assuming so. It's a month or two old, 4GB RAM, dual core, not sure about the graphics setup, but it *looks* good. I'm going to do the installation on it tomorrow morning.

Runs perfectly well on my desktop. Not so much on my "souped-up laptop". What kind of specs does your laptop have that allows it to run? Do you run it in DirectX v9 or v10/11?Forgot to check back in. It works fine on her laptop, v10/11. Played it some on the plane and a good bit last night.

[Ben E Lou]

Hmmmm..yeah, I've played nothing but huge maps. Other than the crash I was getting when I first tried to run, I haven't gotten those.

[Lonnie]

I just finished a huge earth map game where I won the Diplomatic race as Rome. I played at prince level and leaned on city states heavily.

I was crashing frequently in the last 100 years or so usually when the view swung across the globe to another unit. The graphics would just freeze. However, I was determined to finish it so I just cranked the graphics all the way down and saved every turn.

I was positioned in the Egypt area at the start so I build along the Nile. The game ran fine until I started exploring the Oceans and scouted out the Americas. I guess it was just too much for my setup. Think I'll stick with standard size maps for a while.

[MizzouRah]

I had a crash last night when playing a tutorial, the screen went black, but I could see my cursor.. had to cntl-alt-del and come back - been fine since.

[Galaril]

I can not get the game to play anything but Direct x 9 though I am above recommended specs. Bummer.

[Galaril]

Interesting. I have just been playing around, noticing a lot of fixable bugs, but will not play for real until the first patch or two. Way too many examples (and some personal examples) of an inept tactical AI, esp. in the first 150 turns on normal. An outnumbered, inferior defense can easily hold off much larger superior units because the AI do not know how to use 1upt well, esp. range and embarking attacks. You can use Zone of Control much, much better than the AI can.

Going on the offense in the early game, take 3 range units and 3 ground units (like Swords) plus a worker or scout and see how many civs you take out, even at higher difficulty levels. Problem is that it is easy to draw them out piecemeal (with the worker, for example) to slaughter. In the first 100-150 turns, you will encounter nearly defenseless AI cities: 2-3 weak units in each.

Promotions come fast and easy since you get good points just standing around while a few arrows fly at you, not to mention really good points in attacking. Since you will have less units (and can move them better), promotions become very powerful, esp. when the unit is upgraded and do not lose them. Some suggested that playing on huge maps will help slow down the pace but many cannot get huge maps to work without crashing.


I agree promotions needed to be made less powerful or AI needs to be ramped up to account for it. As you mentioned another option might be to make promotions less easy to get. I had a group of minutemen get created we march across a allies territory and we got a promotion.LOL.

and This

In the first 100-150 turns, you will encounter nearly defenseless AI cities: 2-3 weak units in each.

You just described all of my early cities until about 1000 AD.:D

[Cringer]

I have played nothing other then huge maps and have been fine, D x 10/11 on my laptop with an i5 and Intel integrated graphics.

[Galaril]

Then it has to be a vista 64 issue.

[Lonnie]

I am running Win 7 64 myself. It might just a be a 64 bit problem.

[Alan T]

After a few games this weekend, I personally find the whole "You don't need as much expansion to do well" to not be that true. In Civ 5, I can still do well with only 3 cities, but I easily do far better with more cities and resources.

As long as you build happiness buildings to keep up with the expansion, the only limiting factor becomes money. You have to be a bit more cautious about what you build to make sure you can afford it is all.

[chesapeake]

My experience appears to be more like yours, Alan. In my current game, (Standard, Continents, Prince) I am Rome and my first 2 neighbors have already been crushed under the boots of my 5 legions. As long as I keep my happiness in the low negatives, I don't seem to be having any troubles. I'm debating whether to pause the warmongering until I can annex my last 2 Japanese puppet cities or to just roll through Babylon's 3 cities next. I'm leaning towards warmongering.

[Big Fo]

Yeah. Although having a large empire means you can find it harder to keep the people happy and acquire new social policies, the edge you get in researching and production seems to outweigh that.

I don't know how many of you guys play the Europa Universalis games but in that series the amount of gold (would be beakers in Civ) it takes to research a new technology is higher for bigger nations, I think something like that would work well for Civ 5 to make having a small or medium sized empire more attractive.

And while I don't miss religion, espionage, or corporations I do miss vassals. If I found a number of cities on a new continent I'd like to have the option of letting them go in order to reduce costs while remaining allies. And the same goes for when I take a few opposition cities, I know they can be rules as puppets but they will build expensive city improvements that don't help much, seemingly won't build work boats to take advantage of pearls/whales like an AI Civ would, or defend themselves. It'd be nice to leave them in the game but as vassals, I don't really like razing cities unless they are in really bad spots and you can't raze cities that were originally capitals anyway.

[Buccaneer]

My experience appears to be more like yours, Alan. In my current game, (Standard, Continents, Prince) I am Rome and my first 2 neighbors have already been crushed under the boots of my 5 legions. As long as I keep my happiness in the low negatives, I don't seem to be having any troubles. I'm debating whether to pause the warmongering until I can annex my last 2 Japanese puppet cities or to just roll through Babylon's 3 cities next. I'm leaning towards warmongering.

Don't annex if you are in the low negatives, just keep rolling.

One of the key strategies is to be really friendly with a Maritime city-state. That way they can provide your empire with plenty of food while you concentrate on better things.

Fo, I don't miss those things either but I think alliance with city-states took the place of vassals. That is something the AI understands (marginally) as well. It just doesn't know how to do 1upt or diplomacy, which were the two things I feared when I first heard about them. Diplomacy they can improve just by having the AI value things far more important instead of offering everything to you when they want peace. I'm not confident on 1upt since the AI could not fight well with something as easy as SoD in Civ4, how does one expect them to handle something more complex? I fear that they will simply give the AI a +33% combat bonus to make up for it.

[Buccaneer]

1.0.0.20 patch has been released. Making baby steps in the right direction...

Modding - Installer and permissions fixes. Should address any
remaining mod download and install issues.
Full screen crash fix. Game will now restart in Windowed mode if
it cannot find a suitable full-screen resolution on first start.
Hall of Fame now records data correctly when using a Windows
username with special characters.
Deal expiration fixes.
Fix for Puppet State production exploit.
Misc crash fixes.

[Cringer]

I am running Win 7 64 myself. It might just a be a 64 bit problem.

Win 7 64 bit on mine. Probably not as simple as that because I have no problems as I stated above.

[PraetorianX]

Enjoying the game so far, but I noticed something odd after I conquered Belgrade.

Belgrade is located on the coast at the very south of the continent (Pangaea) and the only reason I conquered it was that it was located on a narrow pass that led to the other side of the coast and a nice deposit of coal. The damned Siamese are to my north-east so I can't get to the coast that way. There is a big mountain range between Belgrade and Siam.

Anyway so I conquered Belgrade and moved a couple of settlers to go put down a couple of cities on the slim, but rather mineral rich, sliver of land along the east coast.

I wanted to build a workboat as there are some pearls by Belgrade...but I ran into a problem. Despite being along the coast, apparently Belgrade is not coastal. I can't build any ships or anything like a harbour. I can't figure out what the problem is.

I also can't get any work boats over to it because it's cut off by ice in each direction.

Anybody have any idea what the problem is?

[SackAttack]

There's just something amusing about playing as the Indians and conquering the French before the birth of Christ.

Also sneaky how when they offered their capitulative peace treaty - all their gold and resources - they tried to sneak an open borders arrangement in there.

[bhlloy]

I also can't get any work boats over to it because it's cut off by ice in each direction.

Anybody have any idea what the problem is?

I'm guessing this might be the problem - because it doesn't have open access to the ocean/any of your other cities via the ocean the game doesn't consider it a coastal city?

[Chubby]

There's just something amusing about playing as the Indians and conquering the French before the birth of Christ.

Also sneaky how when they offered their capitulative peace treaty - all their gold and resources - they tried to sneak an open borders arrangement in there.

When I got offered that I was allowed into their borders but I did not allow them into mine, just because one side has open borders does not mean both do anymore

[PraetorianX]

I'm guessing this might be the problem - because it doesn't have open access to the ocean/any of your other cities via the ocean the game doesn't consider it a coastal city?

All the seazones in front of Belgrade are open, the ice is several spaces off in each direction.

[MizzouRah]

I haven't played all that much yet, but what does buying tiles do besides expand your city?

[Alan T]

I haven't played all that much yet, but what does buying tiles do besides expand your city?

Lets you instantly expand your city without having to wait on culture but for a price. Useful in grabbing a strategic or luxury resource before someone else can grab it, or for cutting off another civ's access to a different part of land.

[SackAttack]

When I got offered that I was allowed into their borders but I did not allow them into mine, just because one side has open borders does not mean both do anymore

Oh - I guess only if both sides offer it?

[MizzouRah]

Lets you instantly expand your city without having to wait on culture but for a price. Useful in grabbing a strategic or luxury resource before someone else can grab it, or for cutting off another civ's access to a different part of land.

Ahhh. ok.. so if there is a resource I want, I should buy it up?

Do you find yourself buying tiles when you have the money?

[SackAttack]

Ahhh. ok.. so if there is a resource I want, I should buy it up?

Do you find yourself buying tiles when you have the money?

One thing I'd like to know - can the growth of a city usurp tiles (edit: er, still usurp, that is) that other cities had been using? If they aren't being worked, for example?

[Buccaneer]

Ahhh. ok.. so if there is a resource I want, I should buy it up?

Do you find yourself buying tiles when you have the money?

Early in the game, absolutely. 50-55 gold is a bargain compared to bringing in a key resource. You can only work out to 3 tiles and it does get expensive further out. After buying a tile or two, I save my early money for city-states.

[Buccaneer]

All the seazones in front of Belgrade are open, the ice is several spaces off in each direction.

Double-check that the coast hexes are not ocean?

[Abe Sargent]

I just won a game with a city at 102 culture development and did not unlock the achievement for 100+ culture from one city.

[Abe Sargent]

One thing I'd like to know - can the growth of a city usurp tiles (edit: er, still usurp, that is) that other cities had been using? If they aren't being worked, for example?

No, I've not seen that. Culture Bomb is the only way I've seen to take land from an enemy

[Abe Sargent]

Early in the game, absolutely. 50-55 gold is a bargain compared to bringing in a key resource. You can only work out to 3 tiles and it does get expensive further out. After buying a tile or two, I save my early money for city-states.

I save my early money for an aggressive city. I place it near my opponent to challenge their resources, and then buy the land near theirs to lock them off and set my borders.

[Alan T]

I save my early money for an aggressive city. I place it near my opponent to challenge their resources, and then buy the land near theirs to lock them off and set my borders.


I do the same, but I find it pisses them off to no end. So make sure you are ready for the inevitable war that will be coming.

[PraetorianX]

Double-check that the coast hexes are not ocean?

No, the first ocean tiles are ice. Although I could probably reach one ocean tile that's not ice, but surrounded by ice. Cities can reach out three tiles yeah?

Still, ocean or not it doesn't make much sense, especially since there is a pearl resource right there. Work boats if nothing else should be allowed to be built.

[Abe Sargent]

I just checked and there are three achievements I've gotten in my games, and not unlocked. I've gotten Magellan, City of Lights, and Death Before Shame.

[Big Fo]

After my last game where the AI Civs largely left each other alone (on a small continents map), they have pretty much gobbled each other up this time. The game began with eight Civs and is now down to three at the start of the Industrial Age and I only took down two of them. I try to play peacefully but I just enjoy the combat so more on this game than Civ IV. Plus I was next to the Aztecs who I never get along with in any game and the Indians thought it would be a great idea to declare war on me when I had many times more cities and units than they did, that war lasted about four turns before they were conquered.

Based on the games I have played and from reading about other people's experiences this seems to occur regularly on large continents (playing a Terra map this time), the AI likes to scrap but doesn't seem to be very good at naval warfare/invading overseas/founding new cities away from their home continent.

[mckerney]

I just checked and there are three achievements I've gotten in my games, and not unlocked. I've gotten Magellan, City of Lights, and Death Before Shame.

Most likely a problem with Steam. Unfortunately Steam doesn't do offline achievements, I've had times when I lost connection to Steam either on my end or theirs and haven't unlocked achievements I've gotten on other games. No idea if they plan on adding the ability to get achievements offline.

[mckerney]

Based on the games I have played and from reading about other people's experiences this seems to occur regularly on large continents (playing a Terra map this time), the AI likes to scrap but doesn't seem to be very good at naval warfare/invading overseas/founding new cities away from their home continent.

This would seem right from a game I played earlier today. Played on a small archipelago map and won a cultural victory without being attacked, and I don't think that any Civs were conquered. I noticed a few wars between civilizations that shared islands and some city states being conquered, but all civs stayed around. Not sure how much of the peace I maintained had to do with trying to maintain good relations by giving extra luxury resources away and doing research agreements and how much was them not being able to do naval combat. I also wasn't too close to anyone, I only shared a cultural border at sea with Ramses late in the game. Also, in my experience it seemed a lot of the time I'd been attacked in other games was due to other leaders being upset I was settling near them.

[PraetorianX]

BTW, anybody else had a problem with civs not getting going?

Okay, small map and Pangaea.

I (America) am in the south, Persia is to my west, Egypt to my north-west, Arabia directly north, Siam north-east, Ottomans east-north-east.

Early in the game I made two additional cities, Persia added another, and Siam added four or five. Seeing Siam, I decided to be a bit more aggressive in filling up my 'area'. Where I'm located has natural borders (mountain ranges) in all directions with three major passes and two small coastal passes to the south and west.

Siam meanwhile continues expanding in the north and east.

Egypt, Turks, Persia and Arabia seemingly do nothing for quite some time until finally in maybe the Medieval or Renaissance Era, I forget which (btw, I'm using marathon length) Peria starts expanding rapidly to my west, Egypt adds three or four cities, the Arabs add a few cities in the center of the map and the Turks add one at the far north and on the western side of the massive Siamese empire. They also tried to build one down by my southern border, but I dealt with the little bastards.

Anyway, I just found it odd that all the other civs other than Siam took so long to actually do anything. Has anybody else noticed anything like that happen or is it more likely just a freak occurence?

Siam is freaking annoying, though I've got the main pass into my lands from Siam well defended.

Siam also set up shop in a few far flung cities on the other side of the map, which I find annoying but isn't really anything new to Civ. I hate when civs do that though.

[SackAttack]

Got the 'are you sure you wanna attack a city?' popup while the game was thinking between turns.

It never would go away, so I had to force-quit. :(

[Alan T]

BTW, anybody else had a problem with civs not getting going?

Okay, small map and Pangaea.

I (America) am in the south, Persia is to my west, Egypt to my north-west, Arabia directly north, Siam north-east, Ottomans east-north-east.

Early in the game I made two additional cities, Persia added another, and Siam added four or five. Seeing Siam, I decided to be a bit more aggressive in filling up my 'area'. Where I'm located has natural borders (mountain ranges) in all directions with three major passes and two small coastal passes to the south and west.

Siam meanwhile continues expanding in the north and east.

Egypt, Turks, Persia and Arabia seemingly do nothing for quite some time until finally in maybe the Medieval or Renaissance Era, I forget which (btw, I'm using marathon length) Peria starts expanding rapidly to my west, Egypt adds three or four cities, the Arabs add a few cities in the center of the map and the Turks add one at the far north and on the western side of the massive Siamese empire. They also tried to build one down by my southern border, but I dealt with the little bastards.

Anyway, I just found it odd that all the other civs other than Siam took so long to actually do anything. Has anybody else noticed anything like that happen or is it more likely just a freak occurence?

Siam is freaking annoying, though I've got the main pass into my lands from Siam well defended.

Siam also set up shop in a few far flung cities on the other side of the map, which I find annoying but isn't really anything new to Civ. I hate when civs do that though.


I haven't seen that in any of my games so far with one exception: India. They don't spread much at all it seems, ever. Probably because of their penalty to add too many cities.


I have seen quite often a civ will get set back pretty badly because of settlers getting captured by barbarians. They seem to continue to want to settle one spot and if a Barbarian is near, it will keep picking them off. So maybe in some of the cases you have seen it was barbarians causing them problems?

[chesapeake]

One of the key strategies is to be really friendly with a Maritime city-state. That way they can provide your empire with plenty of food while you concentrate on better things.


Great tip, and I unwittingly hit right on it. Smashing Babylon made me allies with Rio, whom Nebby had just attacked. Now I've got growth despite negative happiness. I had to recalibrate the tiles my cities were working to ensure I didn't have too much growth.

[MizzouRah]

Early in the game, absolutely. 50-55 gold is a bargain compared to bringing in a key resource. You can only work out to 3 tiles and it does get expensive further out. After buying a tile or two, I save my early money for city-states.

Thanks Bucc!

[Buccaneer]

For those that are wondering how this game typically plays or wondering that the commotion has been about, read Sulla'a walkthrough and review. He was the one that did the famous early walkthrough when Civ4 had just come out (and taught a lot of us how to play).

American Empire (http://www.garath.net/Sullla/Civ5/americanempire.html)

[Alan T]

Just started playing my first Huge map game. And man huge maps are so much easier than Normal or small maps. It seems the larger the map, the easier the game. My prince level game on a huge map seems easier than my beginner level small map game.

I think the AI just doesn't handle all of these choices in the huge map too well. This is completely opposite of Civ 4 where the larger maps seemed tougher to me. After this game is done, I'll likely go back to a small map, seems more fun.

[Edward64]

Recap of Civ I through IV. Nice to relive the past some.
The history of Civilization: 20 years of Wonders (http://arstechnica.com/gaming/news/2010/09/the-history-of-civilization-20-years-of-wonders.ars)

[Buccaneer]

I have been trying out the City-States strategy playing as Greeks and it has been a lot of fun. I wanted to learn how to manage such a relationship (it's easy if you have the gold and the policies) and what I can get from them (tons of stuff). I'm about to ally with a Militaristic city-state so that will be interesting.

One of the simplest strategies is to sell a luxury good to a civ for 300g, which will give you -5 happiness. Then turn around and pay 500g to a city-state which will give at least 1 luxury good in return.

If you want to maximize city-state relationships, skip the early policies and shoot toward the Patronage one (rah detailed this). Wonders are easy to build even with no build bonuses and not only did I get Great Library but went ahead and built Oracle which gave me a policy for free. It's not even 500bc and I have all but one Patronage policies.

In the meantime, I have been dealing with Barbs and Brutes and my one souped-up warrior is doing the job after being softened by a trireme (using range weapons against the AI is easy, they have a hard time dealing with such). Now I am ready to build the UU Cavalry and Hoplites. Also, the AI doesn't know how to use embarkings and naval units well at all. I got Optics early and while I have to stay on the coast, I can get around really well - sending units to attack Barbs and to get ruins on islands and such.

[Alan T]

I have been trying out the City-States strategy playing as Greeks and it has been a lot of fun. I wanted to learn how to manage such a relationship (it's easy if you have the gold and the policies) and what I can get from them (tons of stuff). I'm about to ally with a Militaristic city-state so that will be interesting.

One of the simplest strategies is to sell a luxury good to a civ for 300g, which will give you -5 happiness. Then turn around and pay 500g to a city-state which will give at least 1 luxury good in return.

If you want to maximize city-state relationships, skip the early policies and shoot toward the Patronage one (rah detailed this). Wonders are easy to build even with no build bonuses and not only did I get Great Library but went ahead and built Oracle which gave me a policy for free. It's not even 500bc and I have all but one Patronage policies.

In the meantime, I have been dealing with Barbs and Brutes and my one souped-up warrior is doing the job after being softened by a trireme (using range weapons against the AI is easy, they have a hard time dealing with such). Now I am ready to build the UU Cavalry and Hoplites. Also, the AI doesn't know how to use embarkings and naval units well at all. I got Optics early and while I have to stay on the coast, I can get around really well - sending units to attack Barbs and to get ruins on islands and such.

So far I have found the militaristic city-states to be pretty under-whelming.

[Cringer]

For those that are wondering how this game typically plays or wondering that the commotion has been about, read Sulla'a walkthrough and review. He was the one that did the famous early walkthrough when Civ4 had just come out (and taught a lot of us how to play).

American Empire (http://www.garath.net/Sullla/Civ5/americanempire.html)

Reading through this thing right now and to be honest, this guy should quit playing this game. It is too easy for him it seems. I am also pretty sure he has called me stupid a few times as well.

[SirFozzie]

reminds me of the No Mutants Allowed reaction to Fallout 3:

"You changed it, thus it sucks."

[Cringer]

reminds me of the No Mutants Allowed reaction to Fallout 3:

"You changed it, thus it sucks."

A lot of his comments do come off as that. Some of his comments I agree with though, like the one unit per tile should be for military only. I hate not have multiple workers on a tile. It is also a touch annoying that cities can work so many tiles now, yet they will never come close to being that big, or even as big as I would get them in Civ IV.

[Big Fo]

I would like cow, wheat, deer, and other food bonus tiles to be more valuable, that would help with city growth.

[Cringer]

I would like cow, wheat, deer, and other food bonus tiles to be more valuable, that would help with city growth.

Agreed. That was one of his points as well. Like I said, he makes some pretty valid points (like that one). Overall though it seems like the guy only plays the game to rip it a new asshole because it is so easy for him. I admit I am taking away a few things from it though, because he talks about how easy it it yet I am pretty sure in my current Prince level game I don't have a very solid chance of winning. I know I have not adapted to this version yet, this will help a little.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Somebody just got a new laptop for his birthday with plenty of horsepower to run Civ5.

Of course, it's for business use.

**giggle**

[Passacaglia]

For some reason, I thought the manual said the one unit per tile was for military only.

[SackAttack]

For some reason, I thought the manual said the one unit per tile was for military only.

I haven't been able to stack workers, but I have been able to stack one military and one civilian unit.

[Passacaglia]

Yeah, you're right:

Units are subject to “Stacking” limitations – two military
units may not end their turn in the same hex, nor
can two non-military units, but one military and one
non-military unit may end their turn stacked in the
same hex.

[PraetorianX]

So far I have found the militaristic city-states to be pretty under-whelming.

Eh, my experience is a bit yes and no.

Sometimes they can give you some pretty crappy units, like a scout. Why would I want a scout? Idiots.

However when they're actually giving you decent units, like when they were giving me cannons, then it's not quite so bad. Could still be much better.

It would be better if they either provide some other smaller bonus (aside from resources) or if the units they provided were in some way unique. Perhaps they could cost slightly less or something, I don't know.

I had several cultural city states providing over half my culture, and I was able to develop some very large cities thanks to maritime ones.

Militaristic though, one decent (or worse) unit every twenty turns or so...for the money you're spending? Eh.

[Alan T]

Eh, my experience is a bit yes and no.

Sometimes they can give you some pretty crappy units, like a scout. Why would I want a scout? Idiots.

However when they're actually giving you decent units, like when they were giving me cannons, then it's not quite so bad. Could still be much better.

It would be better if they either provide some other smaller bonus (aside from resources) or if the units they provided were in some way unique. Perhaps they could cost slightly less or something, I don't know.

I had several cultural city states providing over half my culture, and I was able to develop some very large cities thanks to maritime ones.

Militaristic though, one decent (or worse) unit every twenty turns or so...for the money you're spending? Eh.

Yeah, the issue is that indeed I sometimes do get a nice unit, but even when I do, I still have to pay maintenance on the unit I get so it still costs me. For the gold I pour in, I could just buy the units instead for maybe just a slightly higher cost but with more control of when and where I get it.

[Cringer]

The best way to have a military city-state under your influence would be through completing city-state missions/requests and getting the influence that way instead of paying. SOme of those can set you up for influence over a city-state for a while, then you have some pretty cheap units coming your way. Otherwise, I agree the investment is not worth it.

[Alan T]

The best way to have a military city-state under your influence would be through completing city-state missions/requests and getting the influence that way instead of paying. SOme of those can set you up for influence over a city-state for a while, then you have some pretty cheap units coming your way. Otherwise, I agree the investment is not worth it.


I've sometimes taken the crap units that they have given me and then re-gifted them back to the city state for extra influence. It just ended up being more effort than it was worth. I usually just wait for one of the other city states to ask me to destroy them and then do it.

[gi]

Wife and I are playing a LAN game, having a ton of crashes that freeze either one of our computers...frustrating.

[Buccaneer]

I am now allied with 7 city-states.

[Big Fo]

I am having my most competitive game yet. It is around 1990 AD and the Arabs are the only AI Civ left (I am the French). They have more cities, GNP, and production while I have a bigger population and slightly better tech. They invaded one of the city-states I am allied with so I declared war on them (although they are only a militaristic city-state, Tyre provides me with a ton of oil which I need for tanks and airplanes). For this game I picked a Terra map and we are fighting a war on three different fronts, separated by inland seas, it's pretty fun.

The one thing I don't understand is that the Arab units have a +25% strength bonus for being in friendly territory, but this shows up even when both my unit and his unit begin the battle in my territory. It kind of unbalances things considering that we are at the same technology level.

[Passacaglia]

I've sometimes taken the crap units that they have given me and then re-gifted them back to the city state for extra influence. It just ended up being more effort than it was worth. I usually just wait for one of the other city states to ask me to destroy them and then do it.

Could you gift it to a different city-state instead?

[Alan T]

Could you gift it to a different city-state instead?


yes, you can gift military units to any city state for a small amount of influence (seems very small)

[PraetorianX]

yes, you can gift military units to any city state for a small amount of influence (seems very small)


It IS very small, to the point where it's not even worth it.

Yeah, the issue is that indeed I sometimes do get a nice unit, but even when I do, I still have to pay maintenance on the unit I get so it still costs me. For the gold I pour in, I could just buy the units instead for maybe just a slightly higher cost but with more control of when and where I get it.

Yeah. The last time I looked in my America game I was getting a unit every 17 turns (though that might have gone down as I progressed an age or two).

During that time, lets say I was making...10 gold per turn. 1700 gold, so yeah I could probably buy a unit of my choosing, or even two. Haven't really bothered purchasing units so I'm not sure what they usually cost.



Also, started a new game (Egypt, One City Challenge) and once again I have one civ blobbing hugely while the other follow at a more sedated pace. In this game it's France, in my last game it was Japan, and in my first game it was Siam. It's always one state that goes wild with expansion.

[Alan T]

During that time, lets say I was making...10 gold per turn. 1700 gold, so yeah I could probably buy a unit of my choosing, or even two. Haven't really bothered purchasing units so I'm not sure what they usually cost.




Depends on which unit and if you have any bonuses to lower the cost. Generally units cost between 200 and 800 gold though.

[GrantDawg]

It IS very small, to the point where it's not even worth it.



Yeah. The last time I looked in my America game I was getting a unit every 17 turns (though that might have gone down as I progressed an age or two).

During that time, lets say I was making...10 gold per turn. 1700 gold, so yeah I could probably buy a unit of my choosing, or even two. Haven't really bothered purchasing units so I'm not sure what they usually cost.



Also, started a new game (Egypt, One City Challenge) and once again I have one civ blobbing hugely while the other follow at a more sedated pace. In this game it's France, in my last game it was Japan, and in my first game it was Siam. It's always one state that goes wild with expansion.


How does the one city challenge go? Is there anyway to keep up with other civs while having just one city? Do you have go aggresive to keep the other civs down?

[SackAttack]

How does the one city challenge go? Is there anyway to keep up with other civs while having just one city? Do you have go aggresive to keep the other civs down?

Are you able to at least puppet any cities you conquer, or must you raze them?

[Buccaneer]

You must raze them as you cannot control, even partially, more than one city. I think the main thing in OCC is to be strong enough to hold on to what you got (since you are building a very large, valuable city). Also you have to be prepared to prevent another civ from winning if they are close.

[chesapeake]

What happens if you are forced to take an enemy capital?

[Galaril]

Also, how do we get allies or city states to give us units?

[Buccaneer]

What happens if you are forced to take an enemy capital?

I'm not sure.

Also, how do we get allies or city states to give us units?

Militaristic city states will give you a unit every 17 turns or so if allied. Other allied city states will give one on a occassion if they are really happy with you (I got a general without even fighting). From civs, I don't know, may be via the trade dialog?

[Galaril]

I'm not sure.



Militaristic city states will give you a unit every 17 turns or so if allied. Other allied city states will give one on a occassion if they are really happy with you (I got a general without even fighting). From civs, I don't know, may be via the trade dialog?

Thanks. I get Generals what are they good for other than a golden age or a Citadel? And what is a Citadel for?

[Buccaneer]

I didn't know Great Generals can do golden ages?

I'm waiting for my general to catch up to my troops but I think he will give a 25% boost to strength for those units within 2(?) hexes of him. Classic wargame stuff.

Citadel, if I recall, is a really, really strong tile that probably is meaningless for gameplay.

[Alan T]

I didn't know Great Generals can do golden ages?

I'm waiting for my general to catch up to my troops but I think he will give a 25% boost to strength for those units within 2(?) hexes of him. Classic wargame stuff.

Citadel, if I recall, is a really, really strong tile that probably is meaningless for gameplay.


General's three options are:

1) Start a golden age. (nothing special here)

2) Adds 25% strength boost to all units within 2 tiles. The general counts as a non-military unit so CAN stack with a military unit. It does not combine with a military unit as it did in Civ 4, but you can have it move with a military unit to provide it constant protection.

3) Build the citadel. This building will overwrite whatever improvement is in the hex you choose to build the citadel. Building the citadel consumes the general. The citadel will give 3 points of damage to any enemy unit that ends a turn adjacent to it.

[Abe Sargent]

I used the Citadel once in a one tile ithmus on a hill between me and Egypt. It's wasn;t that hot. It totally kept Egypt out though

[Galaril]

Thanks everyone for the answers.

[Scoobz0202]

Noob question incoming. Never played Civ before and this is for Civ IV, but it's such a basic question I figure I can ask here. (CIV V doesnt run for me so since I've never played before Civ IV and V are no difference to me)

I've played, or I should say I've STARTED to play, a couple games now. I tend to get to about 750 BC and restart because I feel I've made such critical mistakes that it's better to just learn from them and start over. But with the flow of so much information some stuff just goes in one ear and out the other. (I've probably put about six hours of game time in, but probably 10 hours of reading forums, basic strategy guides in. Probably the wrong way to go about it but the first time I fired up the game I was so lost.)

Now to the question. The tiles around my city, they have their production labels (food, commerce, production). When I start to build improvements on them, to get the results from each tile do I have to have a citizen working it? Like early on, my city population is only two or three. Am I only getting commerce, food, production from the two or three tile that i have citizens on or do I get it from all the tiles, but just a bonus from the ones being worked on?

Additional question. One game I started, I got to around 700 BC or so. I decided to open the world builder up, just to see the computer and see how either far behind or ahead I was. Cheating, yes, but I really wasn't using it to find resources. I'm more worried about understanding the game then the victories right now. But my city was in an area of high commerce and food, but there as only ONE production in my city. I noticed I was so far behind and that was probably because it as taking 30+ turns to produce a fucking worker. Is that just terrible placement of the city, being fucked on the map gen, or was there something I could do to make up for that? There was quite a bit of stone nearby that I probably should have utilized earlier, but didn't, would that have made up for it? Or am I totally off base?

And a third question that came up as I was typing this. How quickly do you have to plant your first city? Is that pretty much something you need to do within a few turns? First couple games I was wasting probably six-ten turns trying to find a good place to put my city and then eventually getting my settler there.

Thanks for the input.

1. Citizens working tiles.

2. Had only one hammer in my initial city, was I fucked?

3. City placement. Initial city, how late is too late?

[PraetorianX]

How does the one city challenge go? Is there anyway to keep up with other civs while having just one city? Do you have go aggresive to keep the other civs down?

Well I did this game on Chieftain since it was my first go at OCC on Civ5, so it'll be a little harder on the higher levels.

You have to do a really good job of balancing everything when you do OCC though. It can be easy to get behind if you don't pay attention to one area.

I went with Egypt for one reason and one reason only, +20% production on Wonders. Add with that some of the other bonuses you can get on wonders from policies and such, and you can really benefit by building them. Wonders give culture, plus their bonus, plus Great People points, and are completely free of maintenance.

You need to make certain that you're in a good defensive position as well, as you can't really afford to screw up too much in war. You can take your chances and attack other civs as you see fit, but you have to be vigilant and protect your capital. Walls, Castle, etc. are definitely something worth taking despite the maintenance costs. Especially when you can get some wonders or policies that greatly increase their strength. I'm in the middle of the renaissance era right now and Thebes has a combat strength of about 59.

The biggest problem I've found is gold. You don't really realise how much money you get from trade routes until you have none. You've got to keep an eye on maintenance costs and work with other civs in trading to make some money.

Personally for the city I focus on food and production first, then science and then gold.

If you're only going to have one city, it needs to be big so you can work as many tiles as possible and have what specialists you need to keep up with everybody else.

Production needs to be high because you can't rely on other cities helping by producing units or wonders or whatever.

Science you need to do what you can when you can to keep that high or you'll fall behind eventually. It's not as big a problem early in the game, but later on as the AI have many more cities all producing science you may start to lag behind.


As for my Egyptian game. I started out on a small peninsula that was nearly all grassland with some hills and lots of forests. So I started out in a good location to grow a large population. I had some silk and marble around too so that I could trade.

My first priority was building a worker so that I could get improving some of those hills and improve my production. Only after that did I build a scout (not like I was going to be expanding much anyway) and then an archer to deal with any barbarians.

Kept improving my land, building some wonders and other buildings as I saw fit. Focusing mainly on science and gold producing buildings, along with the defensive ones.

Eventually Rome tried to start some crap with me, I used mainly ranged units and retreated back to Thebes and just nailed the little bastards from a distance. Eventually got a peace treaty out of them by giving some silk.

After that I made a beeline towards getting longswordsman and then cannons, while also working on a castle and The Kremlin.

Rome invaded again, I did the same this time only was more prepared and eventually they gave in. Got a good bit of gold, lots of resources, a very good war all around.

Since then Rome hasn't really been picking fights with me, though I did DoW them once and repeated the previous war more or less. I've sent a portion of my army off to fight away form my home peninsula a few times when somebody needed to be brought back down to size. Gotten some gold from each of those wars as I've kept ahead of everybody else technologically.

As for City States I've mostly kept allied with some maritime once to get more food. I'm also allied to Sidon who have provided me some useful units this time around.

I'm going to continue with this game for awhile longer and see how later era's play and then I think I'll give it a try on Prince level.

[PraetorianX]

Now to the question. The tiles around my city, they have their production labels (food, commerce, production). When I start to build improvements on them, to get the results from each tile do I have to have a citizen working it? Like early on, my city population is only two or three. Am I only getting commerce, food, production from the two or three tile that i have citizens on or do I get it from all the tiles, but just a bonus from the ones being worked on?

You only get hammers, gold or food from the tiles you have a citizen working. But it doesn't hurt to go ahead and improve tiles before you're ready to work them as you'll get a new citizen eventually.

Remember though that in Civ IV a city can only work tiles that are within two tiles of the city.

Additional question. One game I started, I got to around 700 BC or so. I decided to open the world builder up, just to see the computer and see how either far behind or ahead I was. Cheating, yes, but I really wasn't using it to find resources. I'm more worried about understanding the game then the victories right now. But my city was in an area of high commerce and food, but there as only ONE production in my city. I noticed I was so far behind and that was probably because it as taking 30+ turns to produce a fucking worker. Is that just terrible placement of the city, being fucked on the map gen, or was there something I could do to make up for that? There was quite a bit of stone nearby that I probably should have utilized earlier, but didn't, would that have made up for it? Or am I totally off base?

Mines add to production of a tile, and certain terrains have different values so it depends on where you were somewhat. Grasslands are brilliant for growing huge cities, poor producing buildings/units quickly. Though the high population gives you the potential to have a high production value if utilized correctly.

So yes, a few mines probably would have helped, and any resources like stone too.

And a third question that came up as I was typing this. How quickly do you have to plant your first city? Is that pretty much something you need to do within a few turns? First couple games I was wasting probably six-ten turns trying to find a good place to put my city and then eventually getting my settler there.

I usually do right away, unless I see some really good reason not to.

When you start out you're already in a good location. May not always be perfect but it's usually above average. Roaming around looking for a different spot just gets you off to a slower start than the others.

[spleen1015]

1. Citizens working tiles.

2. Had only one hammer in my initial city, was I fucked?

3. City placement. Initial city, how late is too late?

1. Each population works a tile. So, if you have 2 population, then only 2 of those tiles are being worked. You can choose which ones, too.

2. You were likely fucked. I think we need more info to draw a better conclusion.

3. You should be building your first city on the first turn. 99.9% of the time I do and usually on that tile it starts on.

[Scoobz0202]

2. You were likely fucked. I think we need more info to draw a better conclusion.
.

Not sure what more info meant, but I did an overhead shot. It's kind of hard to see, but you might be able to break it down. You can see the three mines by my capital. I may have got started on those too late. I just recall it take sooo lonnngg to get a worker or warrior.

http://i281.photobucket.com/albums/kk203/homan9118/Civ4ScreenShot0000.jpg




Remember though that in Civ IV a city can only work tiles that are within two tiles of the city.


A lot of good information for me in your post but out of all of it this made a lot click for me. I knew you had to build by resouces and what not. That is was essential, but somehow that basic law slipped past me.

[Buccaneer]

3. You should be building your first city on the first turn. 99.9% of the time I do and usually on that tile it starts on.

In Civ4, it was 99.999%, Civ5 shaping up to be about 95-99%, depending on bias start or not.

[Passacaglia]

Remember that in Civ IV, you can use your surplus food to build workers, too.

[PraetorianX]

In Civ4, it was 99.999%, Civ5 shaping up to be about 95-99%, depending on bias start or not.

I'm not sure that I'm too fond of the bias start, I kept starting and restarting games with America and every time it seemed I was stuck in between a desert and tundra/snow/ice with a little bit of plains in between and a couple of city states taking up the nearest good locations. Sort of annoying.

Although such a location can be quite decent for later in the game when you hold the vast majority of the worlds oil. :cool:

[Buccaneer]

I think it is biased towards the UU. Doesn't America have a big bomber or something? But you can always go into advanced setup and not do a biased start.

[Alan T]

Hmm, I think I found a bug... Do you see it?


http://i2.photobucket.com/albums/y19/Turlos/Civ5Screen0003.jpg

[Nogram]

The number of horses?

[lighthousekeeper]

the underwater pyramid?

[Alan T]

The number of horses?


Yeah, for some reason ever since I had a deal with another civ to give them horses for money, since the deal has ended, every turn it keeps adding the horses to my total (and adds gold per turn to the other civ's total).

Now I'm up to 1700 horses available while the other civ is making like 400 gold per turn now.

[Nogram]

I would rather have the gold....


But, you should report this and submit your saved game.

Nogram

[Buccaneer]

I would rather have the gold....


But, you should report this and submit your saved game.

Nogram

It's been a known bug since the release.

Edit: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=384564

[Alan T]

It's been a known bug since the release.

Edit: [BUG] Traded horses expires, resources readded turn after turn - Civilization Fanatics' Forums (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=384564)


Thanks Bucc!


Such ashame I don't think there are enough hex tiles in the map to use up all 12000 horses that I now have :)

[SackAttack]

Too bad that bug didn't happen with iron.

[Buccaneer]

Too bad that bug didn't happen with iron.

Speaking of iron, by late BC I was pulling in 36 iron. It was one of the last Patronage policies that really bumped up resources from a city-state.

[gi]

Figured out that the game doesn't crash much at all in single player. Soon as my wife and I start a LAN hosted game, crashes all the time.

[henry296]

Some quick observations on my next game; a prince archipelago map.

1. Started a on a samll island and built 4 cities plus one on a nearby island. So far on wa and it is 1866.
2. Taj Mahal is a great wonder. It gave me a 22 turn golden age. While I building I also built Machu Pichu at the same time and turned those 2 artists into 2 more golden ages, so I had over 40 consecutive turns of a golden age
3. I'm really levaragin city-states. I'm up to 10 allies. I started with the maritimes states to supply my food while my cities built hills and had a production focus.
4. I get the feeling that it is a little easier than Civ4, I'm moving up a level for my next game. I'll probably go for a tech or diplomacy win.

[Alan T]

Some quick observations on my next game; a prince archipelago map.

1. Started a on a samll island and built 4 cities plus one on a nearby island. So far on wa and it is 1866.
2. Taj Mahal is a great wonder. It gave me a 22 turn golden age. While I building I also built Machu Pichu at the same time and turned those 2 artists into 2 more golden ages, so I had over 40 consecutive turns of a golden age
3. I'm really levaragin city-states. I'm up to 10 allies. I started with the maritimes states to supply my food while my cities built hills and had a production focus.
4. I get the feeling that it is a little easier than Civ4, I'm moving up a level for my next game. I'll probably go for a tech or diplomacy win.


Try another game on a non-water based map and see how you feel. I do agree that Civ V does seem a hair easier (I'm about to finish a game on King level myself that seemed easier than Civ IV's King). The water heavy boards seem to give further advantage to the players though in my opinion. I still don't think the AI understands water strategy too well.

[henry296]

One more thing... I haven't built a single road althought I may build railroads for the production boost.

[henry296]

Try another game on a non-water based map and see how you feel. I do agree that Civ V does seem a hair easier (I'm about to finish a game on King level myself that seemed easier than Civ IV's King). The water heavy boards seem to give further advantage to the players though in my opinion. I still don't think the AI understands water strategy too well.

I got that feeling too. Even into the 1800s I was finding city ruins which allowed me to take a gifted Cavalry and turn into Modern Armor with 2 good city ruins.

[henry296]

Another question. Why can't a stack an embarked military unit with my settler that I'm taking aross the water to another island.

[Buccaneer]

One more thing... I haven't built a single road althought I may build railroads for the production boost.

I easily took over 3 of the 4 civs on my continent with (5) Comp Cav that were then upgraded to Knights. I picked up a bunch of workers somehow and set them building a road daisy chaining from my capital way up north. It took a while and they pretty much got all connected within a few turns. My g/t and happiness were hurting and once the trade routes got established, I instantly went from -3 g/t and 1 happiness to 47 g/t and +7 happiness, plus a golden age in there. It's probably a trade-off between what I got and the maintenance for the roads, but at least I can move units from the north quicker.

Regarding Militaristic city-states, the last three units I got were Knights, exactly the latest and greatest unit that I am fighting with! Had gotten a Catapult and a Scout earlier but immediately gifted those to some other city-state.

The only other civ left on my continent are the French. While other civs were easy pushovers, the French has Longswordsmen and Spearmen, and quite a few of them (plus about 6 cities). I don't think I'll have much problems, esp. using the greatly overpowered Insta-Heal, but the 1upt does make combat a lot of fun. Have to pay much more attention to unit placement.

Like everyone playing the game, haven't seen the AI do anything on the water, except for a few Barb Galleys.

I'm a couple techs from Rifling, still in early AD (on Normal speed). Maybe I ought to go over to Astronomy.

[PraetorianX]

Started a new game last night with the Terra map.

The continent is a sort of reversed L sort of shape, kind of. I'm up north along with India and the Iroquois. Down south across the desert is Japan and Siam. On the western part of the continent are Rome, Ottomans and Egypt.

I was trying to keep India and the Iroquois from spreading into 'my' area where I intended to settle so I found myself getting into it with them diplomatically, neither particularly liked me although Gandhi was too timid to do anything, or even say anything. The Iroquois kept mouthing off at me, annoying little pricks.

Anyway, the Japanese and Siamese suddenly DoW'd me and a couple turns later the Iroquois jumped on as well. Siam and Japan only sent one Japanese unit for quite some time so I was easily able to focus my attention on the Iroquois, destroyed their units and as soon as I started to threaten Grand River they gave me a bunch of gold.

So I heal up a few units and then send one of my archers to take a hill with a good view of the stretch of land that my other two remaining enemies will be coming up through from the south. I get on the hill and GOD DAMN! I nearly crapped myself as there were a TON of units there, a good dozen or so in sight.

And Siam did well of surrounding my units, attacking, destroying, and moving healthy units up to the front line while injured units healed. Dunno if that was the AI or just a coincidence.

Anyway they sort of caught me off guard with that massive attack and my units not fully positioned.

Now the only way into my land from the south is a stretch of about, I dunno maybe seven tiles with Philly on one side and Boston on the other.

They split up their attack with the Japanese making moves on Boston to the east and Siam against Philadelphia on the west coast.

I had to split my defense to try and cover both, and took out a good many units before the Japanese switched west and helped Siam take Philly.

One or two turns later I was able to destroy the last units in the area, but had to recover a bit to try and take Philadelphia. Siam sent a few more units, a few more fights, but eventually I retook the city and then forced a peace from Siam.

The Japanese were a little more stubborn but I got peace from them eventually to.

All in all, it was very fun.

I'm not sure if the AI was just going all clever on me or if it was just a coincidence.

When the Japanese laid off Boston and moved on Philly, I was just preparing my counter-attack and was overloading north of Boston with cavalry, hoping to swoop down from the NE and sweep up all the units while keeping my archers in the NW raining down death upon the Siamese.

So that may be why the Japanese moved. Dunno.

It was fun though. :D

[Buccaneer]

Here's a couple screenshots. The first shows why I love hexes and 1upt. The French had just taken the Aztec capital (before I got my units in place). I got four Knights in place ready to declare war on France, plus a Great General. They have three Spearmen (including the one embarked) plus a Longswordsmen and an Archer. I moved the Great General one hex so the three Knights would get the bonus (plus the 15% for Honor). The Knight on the right went into the forest to take on the Spears and with the bonuses, eliminated them (surprisingly). The next Knight got the Archers with no problems. The other Knight took on the Spears sitting on a hill and managed to inflict 7/10 damage while taking 5/10. But the secret weapon was the Scout coming in and finishing those Spears off. I left the Longswordmen alone, the attacked the next turn and then the Hoplites finished them off.

http://www.operationsports.com/fofc/attachment.php?attachmentid=1941&d=1286043017

The second screenshot is just the next turn, showing off. That means I will have to jump up to level 6 for my next game.

http://www.operationsports.com/fofc/attachment.php?attachmentid=1942&d=1286043017

[Buccaneer]

After that, took a couple of turns to get the capital and then quite a few more French units came out of the mists. Slowly pressed forward, using Insta-Heal when appropriate, facing three French cities in the cloud and then Napoleon sued for peace, offering me his kingdom for my horse.

[henry296]

I used harbors to create my trade routes instead of roads.

Right now I'm getting 42 gold per turn, 17 happiness, 175 culture and 283 science from just 5 cities.

[Buccaneer]

I used harbors to create my trade routes instead of roads.

Right now I'm getting 42 gold per turn, 17 happiness, 175 culture and 283 science from just 5 cities.

I'm researching Compass now, I think I should have made that an early priority.

[Ben E Lou]

Is anyone else playing Marathon speed? I keep reading stories that seem like people are finishing games in just a few gaming sessions (or just one). I'm still on my first game, and it's far from decided. I haven't even made contact with everyone yet. (Huge map, small continents.)

A few impressions:

Diplomacy is striking me as bizarre. An opponent hates me, fights a bitter war with me, then wants to snuggle up and be friends, then attacks again, then wants to snuggle up and be friends. Rinse. Repeat.
Diplomacy also isn't transparent enough. I have no real idea how I'm doing, or if something I did affected the relationship. I miss the easy little numbers from Civ4.
No-stacking rule is great. I like the strategic options it creates with some narrow strips of land.
Maybe it's just how my game is going, but right now I'm having to play purely reactively. Elizabeth attacks from the north, so I send nearly all my troops northward. Iroquois come from the SW, so they go there. Then Catherine comes from the SE, and I turn my attention there. I haven't had a breather to build up my armies or focus on econ for several days of gaming now.
Man, so many of those policies look absolutely delicious. Great to have to make hard decisions in that arena--especially at Marathon where it's 60 or so turns between 'em right now.
Gold is, uh, a little more useful than in previous versions. My current game is what it is, so I can't really focus on it heavily, but I certainly will in my next one.
I used religion heavily in Civ4, but I'm not really missing it in Civ5.
Espionage annoyed me in Civ4. Glad it's gone.
Given that I *haven't* met everyone, I have this fear that our always-at-war continent may be woefully behind the rest of the world. I have this picture of one or two powers' Knights taking over the continent, only to be notice an aircraft carrier parked off the coast, and a cadre of tanks and marines following it. :D

[Buccaneer]

•I used religion heavily in Civ4, but I'm not really missing it in Civ5.
•Espionage annoyed me in Civ4. Glad it's gone.

Yep.

I've read stories about playing on Marathon. One of the earlier thoughts was to take your Civ4 speed and go down one. Don't recall why.

[Ben E Lou]

Yep.

I've read stories about playing on Marathon. One of the earlier thoughts was to take your Civ4 speed and go down one. Don't recall why.Probably impatience. It definitely feels slower. I don't know turn numbers from Civ4, but fwiw, I'm on turn 589, and it's 1388AD.

[henry296]

I think a normal game is longer. A standard game in Civ5 is now 500 turns vs. 400 in Civ4

[Buccaneer]

I looked at the GameSpeed xml file in BtS and Civ5 and they are the same:
Marathon=1500
Epic=750
Normal=500

There are lots of opinions on why Civ5 seems slower.

[henry296]

Saw might what be another bug. I'm getting the 50 production bonus for railroads with no railroads. Does a harbor do the same thing.

Finished my current game with 1949 diplomatic victory.

[PraetorianX]

I only play on marathon. As it is, things still go too fast for me. Unless your unique unit is late game you don't get much use out of them before suddenly it's obsolete.

[Ben E Lou]

Oh...and one more thing:

I disagree that militaristic city/states are useless. At least in my game, they've been *very* useful. More often than not, they've been building a unit with the latest technology. In fact, Almaty built and gifted a knight to me before I could build one myself.

[Abe Sargent]

I only play on marathon. As it is, things still go too fast for me. Unless your unique unit is late game you don't get much use out of them before suddenly it's obsolete.

I think this is one reason why the Aztec are a lousy nation to play, because their unit is useless before you even meet anyone, let alone actually gave enough military units to do something.

I like France's units - both have long periods of use. And both upgrade all the way to Mechanized Infantry when they get long in the tooth

[Ben E Lou]

Oh...and one more thing:

I disagree that militaristic city/states are useless. At least in my game, they've been *very* useful. More often than not, they've been building a unit with the latest technology. In fact, Almaty built and gifted a knight to me before I could build one myself.
...and just now, my second musketman ever was a gift. I'd call that useful. :p

[Ben E Lou]

Didn't realize that you get gold for disbanding units. Very nice use of the extra workers I have after improving everything I can. I'll keep a few around for later discoveries...

[ColtCrazy]

I only play on marathon as well. I don't see the issue with units becoming obsolete too soon. Things seem to hang around a bit.

My game is far from over, but I'm a fairly cautious player early on, focusing on production and growth. My military is typically strong enough to play defense, although in my current game I went on the offensive when Egypt placed a city near my borders (which effectively kept me from growing because I was along the coast). I took two cities and got a nice peace settlement.

Loving the game. I was a huge Civ 4 fan, but I think this one is a tick better.

[Alan T]

Oh...and one more thing:

I disagree that militaristic city/states are useless. At least in my game, they've been *very* useful. More often than not, they've been building a unit with the latest technology. In fact, Almaty built and gifted a knight to me before I could build one myself.


Do you keep your military forces pretty strong? I still find myself gifting or disbanding almost every unit a military state gives me. Either it puts me too much over the maintenance level or it is a useless unit for me. However admittedly, I almost always keep a pretty close to full force around as I find the AI to be pretty aggressive to me on higher levels if I expand too close to them.

[Ben E Lou]

Do you keep your military forces pretty strong? I still find myself gifting or disbanding almost every unit a military state gives me. Either it puts me too much over the maintenance level or it is a useless unit for me. However admittedly, I almost always keep a pretty close to full force around as I find the AI to be pretty aggressive to me on higher levels if I expand too close to them.Well, keep in mind that this is my first game, it's on marathon, and I'm surrounded on three sides by hostile AIs. ;) The answer to your first question is "I keep my military forces as strong as I possibly can, keeping in mind that I am constantly having to replace ones lost in battle." It is taking 30-40 turns for me to build good units in most cities, so getting on every 17 turns from one city-state, and every 20 turns from another is HUGE.

[Alan T]

That might be another difference. I've been playing faster paced games, just because I've been trying a bunch of different strategies to see what I like the best. So I'm finding no problem getting troops fast (I actually usually just buy troops as I need them though instead of building them). On a slower game, that might be a bigger issue I assume.

[gi]

Figured out that the game doesn't crash much at all in single player. Soon as my wife and I start a LAN hosted game, crashes all the time.

reduced graphic settings to Medium, no crashes in two hours of gaming with LAN play.

[Ben E Lou]

Speaking of the three sides, I *might* be able to take out Liz up north, and reduce that to two. That's my immediate objective.

[Passacaglia]

Doesn't it seem wonky that the gift is every 17 turns whether it's normal or marathon?

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

I'm loving this game. The military aspect is much more manageable IMO. I also have a much easier time understanding why unhappiness and drops in income occur. I also think it's easier than Civ4, but I thought that was overly-difficult, so I prefer this level of difficulty.

[Ben E Lou]

Speaking of the three sides, I *might* be able to take out Liz up north, and reduce that to two. That's my immediate objective.Speaking of AI issues, there's very little land left that I know of. *MAYBE* there's enough for one more city on our continent. I'm halfway into England, and I've encountered *four* English settlers hanging out. Looks like the AI doesn't know very well when to stop building those suckers.

[Alan T]

Speaking of AI issues, there's very little land left that I know of. *MAYBE* there's enough for one more city on our continent. I'm halfway into England, and I've encountered *four* English settlers hanging out. Looks like the AI doesn't know very well when to stop building those suckers.


I've never encountered 4 settlers sitting around, but I've noticed the AI likes to keep one handy at all times at least. They seem to wait and wait and wait for some opening somewhere (razed town, or whatever) that they can slip a city in.

[Buccaneer]

Of the 11 city-states I am allied with, I think 3-4 of them are Militaristic. Do get some good units (Knights and Musk), some clunkers (Scout and Catapults). I gift the ones I do not need, as well as disband most of the workers I get during my battles.

Last night, I embarked 4 Knights and a Great General to the other continent and started in on the Americans until I got tired of fighting. Been doing battles all weekend and while fun, it's actually boring because the outcome is inevitable. I started the game doing wonders and social policies, then switched to military; I think now I'm going to work on the peaceful techs and see I can get culture way up. Or maybe a science victory.

One of the things to make Civ5 successful for me is that I don't want the game to be another military rush, esp. combined with the lack of AI defenses and stupidity. That was what Civ4 ended up being. Not only do I wish that the patches with significantly alter the balance militarily but to strengthen the value of buildings and wonders to where you have to make a hard choice of whether to build a small army or to build up culture, happiness, gold, GP, etc.

[Abe Sargent]

Do you keep your military forces pretty strong? I still find myself gifting or disbanding almost every unit a military state gives me. Either it puts me too much over the maintenance level or it is a useless unit for me. However admittedly, I almost always keep a pretty close to full force around as I find the AI to be pretty aggressive to me on higher levels if I expand too close to them.

I finished a game where I was allies of an adjacent military c state for most of the game, and it made all of my military for me, I didn;t make any myself, instead focusing on growth and the occasional naval unit. I was happy with it.

[Abe Sargent]

I've never encountered 4 settlers sitting around, but I've noticed the AI likes to keep one handy at all times at least. They seem to wait and wait and wait for some opening somewhere (razed town, or whatever) that they can slip a city in.

I've seen that a bunch too, the one hidden settler ready to go.

[JPhillips]

I just got the game on Friday. So far, two times entering the Renaissance, two crashes.

[RainMaker]

Is the crashing happening because of computers or because the game sucks?

[spleen1015]

I haven't had a single crash and Steam says I have played 53 hours.

[Alan T]

I haven't had a single crash and Steam says I have played 53 hours.


Same here. Steam says I have played 91 hours and no crashes.

Probably related to specific hardware/software settings that Civ V has a problem with if someone is having crashes.

[gi]

Same here. Steam says I have played 91 hours and no crashes.

Probably related to specific hardware/software settings that Civ V has a problem with if someone is having crashes.

Crashes still happen in multiplayer for me, but after turning down graphics to medium, they happen a lot less.

Most up to date graphics drivers seem to solve a lot of issues.

[PraetorianX]

Eh, my computer is below the min. specs and I haven't had a single crash, and the game runs fine.

[Lonnie]

I had freezes when playing huge maps, but I updated my video drivers which were way overdue and haven't had any issues since.

[Ben E Lou]

Doesn't it seem wonky that the gift is every 17 turns whether it's normal or marathon?
Interesting. If this is correct, that's not wonky; it's plain dumb. And that would explain the discrepancy about the usefulness of this, too. Even in my most productive cities, there's very little of use that I can build in 17 turns on Marathon level. I've now gotten my "first" of several different unit types through gifts, despite the fact that the moment I research a tech that gives a new unit, I set at least one city to work building said new unit. I'm just getting them faster from city-states than I can hope to produce them. I don't know what 17 turns represents in the faster-moving levels, but it just makes sense that without any scaling there, it'll be most valuable on marathon.

[JPhillips]

I haven't timed it, but it certainly seems longer than 17 turns on epic.

[henry296]

Try another game on a non-water based map and see how you feel. I do agree that Civ V does seem a hair easier (I'm about to finish a game on King level myself that seemed easier than Civ IV's King). The water heavy boards seem to give further advantage to the players though in my opinion. I still don't think the AI understands water strategy too well.

Started another game on Prince. This time it was continents. I did a good job of taking the lead among the 4 Civs on my continent. Once i discovered the other continent America had dominated wiping out 2 of hte other civs, plus some city-states and the 3rd civ is on life support. We'll see if I can manage a culture or tech victory, but I'm definitely behind.

[Alan T]

I've found so far in my games on King level that I actually benefit from not wiping out my opponents. I actually need them for various things it seems and overextending myself cripples my civilization if I do it too quickly.

I have lately found striking through their hearts, ripping out their capital and one or two other of their best cities and then settling for a huge peace settlement works best.

I then have the best resources (or multiples), the best land, and 2 or 3 opponents that aren't going to be able to muster anything of a challenge. Their lands are split apart and often can't form trade routes, they have lousy land or positioning. I then sell those resources back to them every 30 turns for extra cash as well.

[AlexB]

Tried the demo for CiV after playing only the patched vanilla Civ4 - the demo made me buy straight away, but the Warlords & BTS packs for 4.

First impressions were that I didn't like the 1upt for non-fighting units, didin't like the 1upt for narrow passes, diplomacy was just weird (guess I'd get used to that though), hated the GUI, menus, etc, hated only one unit in each city

Really liked range attacks, but preferred religion over civics, and the speed of Civ4

I may well revisit CiV in a year or so when all patched up with mods as I am sure it will be better then.

[Ksyrup]

OK, I'm pissed. I'm on vacation and can't access CivV because I can't connect to Steam (I don't know why - might be some sort of firewall issue or something), Anyway, I thought I didn't need Steam or to be online to play the game after the first time I fired it up? WTF! This pisses me off to no end.

[RainMaker]

Well I've started playing on my older computer and while it's slow later on, it's been working.

Is anyone else finding this game pretty easy? I thought there was all this talk about making the AI much smarter. But all I'm seeing is that they make stupid decisions throughout and seem to bite themselves in the ass when they don't need to. The game just seems really easy on levels that gave me a challenge in Civ IV.

[Buccaneer]

The game just seems really easy on levels that gave me a challenge in Civ IV.

And that sums it up for the initial release of Civ5. A lot of discussions as to why that it and despite all of whining about missing Civ4 features, it's not that. The game was designed to attact a more casual gamer audience (and they succeeded) but it will be interesting to see where Firaxis goes with the major patches. I think the game boils down to the AI not being able to build and use units effectively and cannot determine accurate cost/benefits when chosing to build. The game has a lot of fun elements and it is fun to play but it's hard not to win or be winning.

[Jughead Spock]

OK, I'm pissed. I'm on vacation and can't access CivV because I can't connect to Steam (I don't know why - might be some sort of firewall issue or something), Anyway, I thought I didn't need Steam or to be online to play the game after the first time I fired it up? WTF! This pisses me off to no end.

Try disabling/unplugging your network card. It will probably be fine with letting you play offline if you have no network connection at all, I imagine.

[Ben E Lou]

That's really odd, KSyrup. I installed it on a laptop and was able to play just fine on an airplane without any available internet connection.

[Neon_Chaos]

OK, I'm pissed. I'm on vacation and can't access CivV because I can't connect to Steam (I don't know why - might be some sort of firewall issue or something), Anyway, I thought I didn't need Steam or to be online to play the game after the first time I fired it up? WTF! This pisses me off to no end.

Turn on Steam and use the Go Offline function.

IIRC, Steam should still be active, just in Offline Mode.

[Ksyrup]

I can't get on Steam to change it to offline mode.

[Neon_Chaos]

I can't get on Steam to change it to offline mode.

If you don't have an internet connection, running Steam should trigger the "Go Offline" option.

What happens when you try running Steam?

[Ksyrup]

It gives me an error about not being able to connect.

[Ksyrup]

I have an internet connection, so I don't know what the problem is.

[Passacaglia]

Maybe try turning off your internet connection?

[Neon_Chaos]

I have an internet connection, so I don't know what the problem is.

Must be the firewall wherever you are connected.

You need to be disconnected from the internet in order to trigger the Go Offline option when starting Steam.

Try disabling your Network Card Connection via Networking in your Control Panel.

Then try Steam again.

[Ben E Lou]

Now all of this has got me mildly curious. Did I just get lucky to be able to play on the plane with no issues? I mean, I didn't toggle modes or do any other fancy-dancy stuff. I just hit the little Civ5 icon on my desktop, and the game loaded up.

[Butter]

You were auto-hooked up to the plane's pay-per-hour WiFi. Expect a large bill any day now.

[Honolulu_Blue]

It's odd. Last night I ran into the same problem Ksyrup is having with Steam. For the first time, I was unable to start Steam in an off-line mode. I was connected to the internet at my house and every time I tried to launch Steam, it would try to connect and then give me an error message saying it couldn't connect and to check my internet connection or go to the Steamworks page.

I re-booted, same thing. No option at all to work in the off-line mode.

I managed to fix this by going to www.steampowered.com (http://www.steampowered.com) and logging into the webiste with my user name and password. As soon as I logged in, my Steam fired right up and I was connected and had full access to all of my stuff.

I have no idea why this happened, but it worked.

In the past, I have always been given an option to start in "off-line mode" if Steam couldn't connect to the internet. Not sure why I didn't have that option this time around.

[Honolulu_Blue]

Now all of this has got me mildly curious. Did I just get lucky to be able to play on the plane with no issues? I mean, I didn't toggle modes or do any other fancy-dancy stuff. I just hit the little Civ5 icon on my desktop, and the game loaded up.

Unlike most of my Steam games, I don't have a desktop Icon for Civ V. I was never given the option the make one during the installation process or I would have. I think the reason is because I pre-loaded the game and then installed it, as opposed to just installing without a pre-load. I had issues with "Left 4 Dead 2" when I pre-loaded it. I am done doing that.

Any idea how to make a Desktop icon now?

[Ben E Lou]

Oh wait. Now that I think about it, the DVD was/is still in there. That may have made a difference.

[PilotMan]

Any idea how to make a Desktop icon now?


Go to your Steam games library, right click on the game, select create desktop shortcut. Is that what you were asking?

[Honolulu_Blue]

Go to your Steam games library, right click on the game, select create desktop shortcut. Is that what you were asking?

Yes. Thanks!

[spleen1015]

I was able to play on my laptop while on a plane last Tuesday afternoon. I haven't tried since, but I didn't have any issues last week.

[Buccaneer]

Sigh, I had predicted stuff like this. I hope you guys get the Steam problems resolved. It is inconceivable to me that a third-party product could prevent you from playing a single-player game.

[Alan T]

Hope you guys work out your steam issues. I'm not a fan of steam myself, but luckily haven't had any further problems with steam since the whole issue I had at the civ V launch when I needed to change the steam server I connected to.


As far as the game goes, I just realized how easy it is to "steal" a diplomatic victory in the right condition. On my recent game, playing on King level, I took over my continent that contained 4 civs as the Americans. The other continent was completely dominated by the Persians with only 3 civs on it. I don't know how the Persians did it, but they hit future era in the 1800s (right when i got to modern era). They had 12,000 gold and gaining 550 gold per turn. I had a pretty solid setup, but nothing to compare to that.

I had more people, production and land then them but they were so far ahead in technology and finances that I ruled out the ability to beat them in a space victory or even domination victory. (I probably could do domination victory if I focused on military techs and a pinpoint strike on their capital but am actually tired of domination victories). I was too large to get a culture victory. Even though I was about 100 points behind them, I didn't think I would be able to catch up to their score for a time victory, even if I held out that long from all other victory conditions, which was unlikely.

So that left diplomatic victory as my best option. This was one of the first times they didn't kill off all of the city states. In fact, 15 city states were around (perhaps that is the full number we started with even). I had 6 in my control, he had 5 in his. 9 were needed for diplomatic victory plus the United nations. I bee-lined for Globalization, but just as I teched it, Persia actually finished building the United Nations. Since he had over 10,000 gold, I was pretty scared of what would happen next. 9 turns passed though, and I concentrated on saving up my money. I had about 3800 gold saved, and 1 turn before the first UN election, I poached 3 of Persia's city states to get my total of 9 and then hit next turn.

That led to the Diplomatic victory for me by the skin of my teeth.

The question I have to ask is , with that much money why didn't Persia bury the city states in money so I couldn't poach them. I guess a limitation of the AI. That is three straight wins at King level though. I'm debating moving up another level or not. I actually started looking at the achievements, and am finding those kind of neat. I am 38/120 right now, and might try to see how many of them I can knock out while on King level :)

[Buccaneer]

AlanT, that was an amazing win, congrats. I would be shatting bricks during those 9 turns (as the AI can bribe CS but not too wisely, apparently).

but am actually tired of domination victories

You too, huh?

In my game, I got a clear shot at China's capital via embarking (imagine me in Tallahassee and the cap is Tampa). But I want to try out something and will send most of my forces overland.

[Coffee Warlord]

Sigh, I had predicted stuff like this. I hope you guys get the Steam problems resolved. It is inconceivable to me that a third-party product could prevent you from playing a single-player game.

Yep. The primary reason I still haven't bought the game.

[spleen1015]

I know for me, I don't believe I'll be in situations where I need to play the game without having an internet connection. So, I don't have this to worry about too much.

Even if I did, I don't think I would let this sort of thing prevent me from buying it. I'll still get to enjoy the game, just not as much as I want if you run into this situation often.

[Ben E Lou]

For me, I guess it doesn't really matter. I play a few text sims, and the latest version of Civ. That's it. The DVD is in my drive right now, and there's a fair chance it stays there until the first expansion pack comes out. ;)

[SackAttack]

For me, I guess it doesn't really matter. I play a few text sims, and the latest version of Civ. That's it. The DVD is in my drive right now, and there's a fair chance it stays there until the first expansion pack comes out. ;)

Even though it doesn't have to be in the drive? ;)

[Ben E Lou]

Well, just speculating about whether that's why I was able to play on the plane without jumping through any hoops.

Plus, why would I take it out?

[SackAttack]

Well, just speculating about whether that's why I was able to play on the plane without jumping through any hoops.

Plus, why would I take it out?

Shrug.

No reason to if you're not using the drive for something else, I guess.

Just saying I don't think the game actually uses the disc for anything once Steam has downloaded the game.

[Buccaneer]

That is interesting. I recall that the DVD had no game executable files, except to install and to start Steam. I also wonder if you were in off-line mode prior to your trip? This is my first experience with this since all I play are Civ, FBCB and OOTP. Come to think of it, I like the idea of eLicense more than I do Steam.

[Ben E Lou]

That is interesting. I recall that the DVD had no game executable files, except to install and to start Steam. I also wonder if you were in off-line mode prior to your trip? No idea on that one. Seems odd that I would be, given that all I did was install it on the laptop while I was packing, made sure it would open, then shut it down, finished packing, walked out the door, and opened it again on the plane and played.

[Ksyrup]

Came back to it a little while ago, fired up the computer, and it now works. I didn't do anything differently. However, a bit of lurking on a Steam support forum suggests that people were getting the same error yesterday and linked it to the release of the Left 4 Dead 2 demo on Steam. If true - an unrelated demo offered through Steam prevented me from playing a single player CivV game - then Steam can suck my left nut. That is fucking ridiculous.

[henry296]

Hope you guys work out your steam issues. I'm not a fan of steam myself, but luckily haven't had any further problems with steam since the whole issue I had at the civ V launch when I needed to change the steam server I connected to.


As far as the game goes, I just realized how easy it is to "steal" a diplomatic victory in the right condition. On my recent game, playing on King level, I took over my continent that contained 4 civs as the Americans. The other continent was completely dominated by the Persians with only 3 civs on it. I don't know how the Persians did it, but they hit future era in the 1800s (right when i got to modern era). They had 12,000 gold and gaining 550 gold per turn. I had a pretty solid setup, but nothing to compare to that.

I had more people, production and land then them but they were so far ahead in technology and finances that I ruled out the ability to beat them in a space victory or even domination victory. (I probably could do domination victory if I focused on military techs and a pinpoint strike on their capital but am actually tired of domination victories). I was too large to get a culture victory. Even though I was about 100 points behind them, I didn't think I would be able to catch up to their score for a time victory, even if I held out that long from all other victory conditions, which was unlikely.

So that left diplomatic victory as my best option. This was one of the first times they didn't kill off all of the city states. In fact, 15 city states were around (perhaps that is the full number we started with even). I had 6 in my control, he had 5 in his. 9 were needed for diplomatic victory plus the United nations. I bee-lined for Globalization, but just as I teched it, Persia actually finished building the United Nations. Since he had over 10,000 gold, I was pretty scared of what would happen next. 9 turns passed though, and I concentrated on saving up my money. I had about 3800 gold saved, and 1 turn before the first UN election, I poached 3 of Persia's city states to get my total of 9 and then hit next turn.

That led to the Diplomatic victory for me by the skin of my teeth.

The question I have to ask is , with that much money why didn't Persia bury the city states in money so I couldn't poach them. I guess a limitation of the AI. That is three straight wins at King level though. I'm debating moving up another level or not. I actually started looking at the achievements, and am finding those kind of neat. I am 38/120 right now, and might try to see how many of them I can knock out while on King level :)

I just had a similar vicotry. It was a prince continents game with 8 civs (4 on each one). Washington dominated the other island wiping out everyone except for about 3 Japan cities including the city-states.

One my island, I basically wiped out India, leaving them with 1 city. Siam wiped out Germany, but the city-states were left along except for one. i ended up as an ally with all city-states. There was one that I hadn't met yet. I won a diplomatic victory after Washington entered the Future Era when I was still in Moden.

[Alan T]

Ok, I'll admit that I am wrong about militaristic city-states.

In a game yesterday, I was Greece, so I decided to play up the city-state aspect and make use of that special ability. It so happened the two city-states that I started out next to were both Militaristic. So I decided what the heck, why not and allied them early on. I built alot of my strategy (including choosing the entire policy tree to benefit city-states relationships) in fostering my city state relations with them and any other city-state I encountered.

The game ended up being my best game yet. Even though I was on King level, I ended with a score of somewhere around 4500. (most of my wins have been between 2800-3500 for the most part). I built my first two warriors earlier on, but then don't think I built another unit the entire time. I just upgraded the units I got as I went and used that cash instead.

I still got a bunch of useless spearmen/scouts/etc that I just disbanded, but it was a bigger boost then I had assumed it would be.

Now perhaps a big part of this was being Greek plus the policy traits I chose significantly reduced the amount of money I had to put in to keep the city states as allies, which made it worth it.. but I just figured that I would post here about the game.

[Buccaneer]

Don't disband them, gift them to another city-state. They don't have to move to be gifted.

[Alan T]

Don't disband them, gift them to another city-state. They don't have to move to be gifted.


Well, I was disbanding them for the 30 gold or so they gave in my territory.

[Buccaneer]

That makes sense, tended not focus on gold since I get so much of it through various means.

[Alan T]

Ok, this is neat :)


Here is a conversion of my last Greece game to html format for a html replay :)

http://www.fool-x.net/civ/greece.html

[Alan T]

Hmm, you can't see the Babylon in that for some reason. they were in there as well.


Edit: ok fixed it

[Flasch186]

FWIW, Im back to playing FM'10

[spleen1015]

Ok, this is neat :)


Here is a conversion of my last Greece game to html format for a html replay :)

http://www.fool-x.net/civ/greece.html

That's cool, but are you supposed to be able to see the map as well? All I see is a tan background and the hexes as cities grow, etc. It would be better if I could see the map.

[Alan T]

That's cool, but are you supposed to be able to see the map as well? All I see is a tan background and the hexes as cities grow, etc. It would be better if I could see the map.


I thought I had seen the map before, but guess it has just been the hexes. I agree would be neater if it had the map too

[Edward64]

I've been playing it on and off, still trying to figure the optimal early strategy. How about some of you posts your top tips for the less fortunate?

[Buccaneer]

Edward, what type of victory are you interested in?

[JPhillips]

The German ability seems way overpowered. Between converting barbarian camps and two militaristic allies I easily have the most powerful military in the world and I've only built one land unit.

[Buccaneer]

Desipte many flaws and problems with the game (it does have the potential to be a great game), I think they did a good job on the diversity of civilizations/leaders. I think you can win, various ways, with any of them. But of course, some are much better than others. Here is one person's view on the leaders, which I tend to agree with more than some of the views:


Tier 0: God tier. The best civ goes here.

Alexander - Just awesome. Hoplite would be good on its own but because Companion cavalry is borderline broken and comes in same time period its usefulness is a bit diminished. Also city states are awesome and Alex can pretty much keep alliance with all of them.

Tier 1: Really good civs go here.

Darius- With golden ages being quite powerful in CiV Persia’s UA is really nice. Also immortals are solid early game units and satrap’s court is a building you want to build everywhere in late game if you have spare hammers.

Ramkhamhaeng - Another abuser of city states with powerful UA. I already like knights and Naresuan’s elephants increased strength makes them unstoppable force in medieval ages. Wat is a nice improvement to already useful university with bonus culture and lower maintenance.

Wu Zetian - A strong UA that basically gives your fighting force 20 % strength boost (generals giving 45 % bonus instead of 25 %) with more great generals to start golden ages with. Cho-ko-nu is a great replacement of crossbowman and paper maker might be the best building in the game.

Nebuchadnezzar II - Stupidly powerful UA can net you ridiculous slingshots. Bowman is also a great unit but Walls of Babylon just sucks. Also not available for poor peasants who bought just the normal game

Tier 2: Average civs go here.

Askia - UA is solid but not that great unless you can somehow abuse it. Mandekalu Cavalry gets bonus against cities and is again solid unit but not all-around great. Mud pyramid mosque is great culture boosting building (and free maintenance to boot) but not a high priority to me.

Elizabeth - Has sea dominance but that is kind of situational ability when AI doesn’t really threaten you there anyway. Only reason England is not in the bottom bracket is the longbowman. With range 3 you can outshoot cities in medieval era and just conquer them without fear of losing units.

Gandhi - Has probably the most powerful UA in the late game. War elephant seems really nice but I haven’t tested it properly. Unique building on the other hand is just garbage and keeps India from upper bracket.

Augustus - Rome has some nice unique units but they are kind of slow and don’t come to play as soon as I liked. Also if you lack iron you are screwed. UA is nice but not great. Rome is solid civ but nothing more imo.

Napoleon - I really like land grapping ability of France’s UA. Unfortunately its UU’s are not that great. Foreign legion comes too late to matter and Musketeer can become obsolete before you even manage to build any.

Oda Nobunaga - UA is obviously powerful and Samurais are nice but Zeroes are come too late and their bonus is too minuscule.

Ramesses - UA is nice but on higher difficulty levels is still not enough to get early wonders. Burial tombs are super-nice but War chariots are a bit meh.

Harun al-Rashid - UA is just crappy. A few extra gold per turn will not matter much and oil comes too late. Camel Archer looks solid and bazaar nets you bonus happiness for a building you were going to build anyway.

Tier 3: Below average civs go here.

Bismarck - UA is a gimmick that can be really powerful but more likely gets you very little especially in higher difficulties where AIs settle so fast that new encampments are rare. Landsknecht is cheap but I’d rather have a small elite army than large normal army and panzer once again comes too late to matter.

Catherine - UA is frankly not that great. Small production boost here and there + extra resources are usually wasted as it is better not to maintain too big army anyway. Cossack can be good if you go that route but krepost is too bland as I never build barracks anyway and the bonus is too small to start doing so with Russia either.

Hiawatha - All uniques require forests which you might not have and are not that great either. Bah.

Montezuma - Floating gardens might be nice later in the game but I feel that Jaguars and sacrificial captives’ bonuses are too small to really matter.

Suleiman - A undeniably weak UA combined with quickly obsolete Janissary and I never use Lancers/ Sipahis either.

Washington - UA is not that great and UU’s are quite weak. B17 comes too late and minuteman replaces again quickly obsolete musketman.



The other thing about Bismark is that he definitely becomes over-powered playing at Marathon.

One of the key things when thinking about early Unique Units is their upgradability. Most of them, whether strong or weak early, do have good upgrade paths and their bonuses are kept throughout (which may be partially nerfed in the first major patch, along with the dozens of other over-powered stuff). I took Greek's Comp Cav (dubbed the Four Horsemen Wonder since they can single-handedly conquer everything) to a Knight and then to a Cav.

[Buccaneer]

I've started a new game, as the Babylonians, so I can work on growing fewer cities to a big size and ramping up production. Did lousy at that in my first long game.

[Alan T]

I agree with Bismark (Germany's) UA being not as useful as Jphillips thinks. Maybe it is another case of me preferring to play on small maps and faster paced games, but Barbarians usually are wiped out after a fairly short period of time. After that it is fairly worthless.

Regarding Alexander in Buc's list, I mentioned previously that my best game ever so far was using him. The City States UA is no joke. I didn't even build any Companion Calvary either (which are very overpowered), since all of my units in that game were gifted to me. So if I had those, I imagine it would have been even easier.

So far I agree Greece has been the easiest game so far. (I've played I think 10 or so different leaders thus far.) My least favorite was Hiawatha

[Buccaneer]

I have a high personal interest in playing Hiawatha and with a standard bias start, he does end up in a huge forest. I've read that with certain improvements and the Longhouse, no one can out-produce him, and that the Mohawks are good, esp. upgrading. That intrigues me but I haven't heard a lot of good things from those that actually played him.

[Alan T]

I have a high personal interest in playing Hiawatha and with a standard bias start, he does end up in a huge forest. I've read that with certain improvements and the Longhouse, no one can out-produce him, and that the Mohawks are good, esp. upgrading. That intrigues me but I haven't heard a lot of good things from those that actually played him.


I pretty much put alot of random in my games, just to make sure I try different leaders in different conditions. So the one or two times I have played him, I had hardly any woods around. So I am sure that influenced my decision.

[Alan T]

Up to 51 achievements unlocked now. I unlocked a ton today in one game. Finally beat the game in a one city challenge. The one city challenge seems tougher to me in Civ V than it was in Civ IV, but maybe it is just circumstances (no iron or coal anywhere near me or any of the city states, but my rival civs had plenty of both).

Managed a cultural victory for the first time, unlocking that achievement as well as several of the complete policy tree achievements. This was also the last victory condition I had to beat, so unlocked the achievement for winning a game in all methods too.

[henry296]

I decided to play a different style of game this time, focusing on military. I've just finished wiping out my entire continent, but Siam has done the same thing on theirs. However, they have already reached the modern age, while I'm just about to reach the industrial age. I had some happiness issues while expanding that slowed my growth and science. Either I try for a tech victory or do my best to attack him once I can build a navy.

[AFShadow]

New Civ- Mongols and scenarios coming next week in Free DLC:Sid Meier's Civilization V DLC Next Week - Blue's News Story (http://www.bluesnews.com/s/115196/sid-meier_s-civilization-v-dlc-next-week)