Civilization V

[thinkingork]

I think I am the only person who play this game multiplayer exclusively.

[Blackadar]

This is one of the things I find most annoying about Civ 5’s “Small is not just beautiful but mandatory” mechanics – to conquer the world, I must either destroy it, or else go to a whole lot of extra effort to get over the “mistake” of not razing conquered cities.

This would be fine if the name of the game was Barbarian. But dammit, it’s called Civilization and if I conquer the world I want a vast host of cities who bow to my will, not just a mostly empty world of smoking ruins.

This just isn’t correct. In my first game, I had more than 15 cities. Small is not mandatory. As you increase in difficulty, the penalties make it more difficult to grow super sized, but it’s not impossible.

[infornography]

I haven’t had much difficulty keeping peace. Early game is tumultuous and I typically kick every empire off my landmass as soon as possible. Then I do what I have to to get peace with the remaining City States on my landmass. From there it is not too hard to live peacefully. I send whatever warriors, scouts, and crap units I have to embark across the oceans exploring until I can get a destroyer out there, and otherwise just focus on establishing treaties and building my cities/wonders.

[Blackadar]

On the first few turns. What do I do? Normally I make a scout, sometimes 2 then I start a settler. I guess “What is the build order?”.

Typically I find the barbarian menace a huge problem at once. If I were to use that gold trick to get two settlers at once, Id have to have a few warriors to escort them first. I would guess a build order might be something like: Scout, Warrior, Warrior, Settler + Gold bought settler?

Since you begin with a warrior, it’s more like scout, worker (you need the happiness quickly), purchased settler, settler.

[roBurky]

To those complaining that they want a huge empire but are prevented by happiness limits - what about ignoring happiness? The drawbacks to unhappiness don’t seem as bad as they were in Civ IV, so I think it might be a valid way to play to embrace it and be a horrible warmongering empire that brutally oppresses its miserable citizens. I might give that a go in my next game, as a contrast to the my current playstyle of a single controlled city.

[Anaxagoras]

To those complaining that they want a huge empire but are prevented by happiness limits - what about ignoring happiness? The drawbacks to unhappiness don’t seem as bad as they were in Civ IV, so I think it might be a valid way to play to embrace it and be a horrible warmongering empire that brutally oppresses its miserable citizens. I might give that a go in my next game, as a contrast to the my current playstyle of a single controlled city.

“You will suffer! You will ALL suffer! (Join the army! Release your pent up aggression.)”

[wonderpug]

Does the game have the option of “Terran” style maps? They were my favourite in Civ 4 (All major civs in the Old World+some minor, long sea journey to smalller new world with just minor civs)

If this was already answered I missed it.

What you’re looking for is in the advanced game setup options. If you go there you get a whole slew of map choices above the standard few, and the one you’re looking for is “Terra.”

[Therlun]

If this was already answered I missed it.

What you’re looking for is in the advanced game setup options. If you go there you get a whole slew of map choices above the standard few, and the one you’re looking for is “Terra.”

Terra is the real Earth though, I think he was asking for a random map with the old world/new world split.

[Enidigm]

To those complaining that they want a huge empire but are prevented by happiness limits - what about ignoring happiness? The drawbacks to unhappiness don’t seem as bad as they were in Civ IV, so I think it might be a valid way to play to embrace it and be a horrible warmongering empire that brutally oppresses its miserable citizens. I might give that a go in my next game, as a contrast to the my current playstyle of a single controlled city.

You can’t ignore happiness because of the crippling military penalty you receive after a certain level of unhappiness, 10 or 20 or so. After that point all military unit have to endure a 75% strength penalty, which should obviously be a significant deterrent.

[wonderpug]

I’m pretty sure “Earth” makes a map that looks like our planet, while “Terra” puts everyone on a randomized continent with a large New World second continent out there to be discovered.

[Spock]

I’m not sure 75% military is all that crippling. If you ignore happiness, you can make a huge military to compensate. In fact, I kinda wish there were more a “sliding scale” for unhappiness, because as is, there’s no difference between -20 happiness and -200 happiness.

I have a newb question about build order. Should I not be building an early Monument?

[pg1]

In fact, I kinda wish there were more a “sliding scale” for unhappiness, because as is, there’s no difference between -20 happiness and -200 happiness.

That’s one thing Civ 5 does bad, it doesn’t scale on larger maps or more civs or longer games that well. A lot of the limits or numbers are the same across vastly different settings.

[Dan_Theman]

I have a newb question about build order. Should I not be building an early Monument?

FWIW (I’m hardly an expert let alone very good player), I build Stonehenge as my capital’s version of a Monument - no upkeep, much more culture, and nobody else can make it after you have. I also look to do a granary as soon as I’m able to help boost my citizenry in the ealy game to get a nice boost to production/gold.

In short, I tend to hold off on the monuments until I have more cities and they’re already up and running decently well.

[DaleKent]

FWIW (I’m hardly an expert let alone very good player), I build Stonehenge as my capital’s version of a Monument - no upkeep, much more culture, and nobody else can make it after you have. I also look to do a granary as soon as I’m able to help boost my citizenry in the ealy game to get a nice boost to production/gold.

In short, I tend to hold off on the monuments until I have more cities and they’re already up and running decently well.

You’re better off allying a naval city-state than building granaries. As an ally, capital gets +4 food and every other city gets +2 food. Sort of like a free granary. ;)

the best bit is naval city-states bonus is cumulative, so if you have two allied it’s +8/+4!!!

[jpinard]

You’re better off allying a naval city-state than building granaries. As an ally, capital gets +4 food and every other city gets +2 food. Sort of like a free granary. ;)

the best bit is naval city-states bonus is cumulative, so if you have two allied it’s +8/+4!!!

That just gave me a crazy idea. I’m going to do a map with 2 civs, and maxed out city-states. This should be cool.

[Therlun]

I’m pretty sure “Earth” makes a map that looks like our planet, while “Terra” puts everyone on a randomized continent with a large New World second continent out there to be discovered.

Oh, I must have missed that. Sorry then.

[Deadbuffalo]

Right, the unhappiness definitely doesn’t scale to map size since there are only so many different types of luxuries. I think in my last game, that limit was around 160 total population and 20 or so unhappiness from number of cities. After that you either let your civ stay unhappy (growth check) or you end up spending all of your gold/production cycles on happiness buildings, decreasing the ability to get city state influence and buy an army. You can’t really conquer indiscriminately anymore, because the added unhappiness will at least temporarily push you into the deep red, which should slow you down a bit. I don’t think I’ll be playing many games on maps larger than standard, although my overall preference in the series has been for smaller, faster games as well.

When you have all the luxuries all your cities just constantly cycle in we love the king day, so your cities will grow as soon as you’re happy.

I think that’s what I don’t like about Civ 5. I razed a city in the same spot twice last game. My choices are raze or puppet, or negotiate a peace if I am winning a war. If I raze, then someone else will settle the spot again, and probably attack me once we share a border. If I puppet I’m stuck with additional unhappiness that prevents me from conquering elsewhere or continuing to grow my civilization (more happiness building maintenance). If I negotiate a peace then I am going to repeat this cycle at least one more time. I’m probably better off resettling the area with my own settler, but that has it’s penalties too. With a victory like that, how do you win a war besides complete annihilation? That or just focus on the original capitals and use the constant border wars for xp farming. But that’s a little too gamey for my tastes.

I wish I could see what buildings a puppet has so I can decide if it would be worth annexing or not as well, but I think I’ll try raze and resettle for my next game.

[DaleKent]

The next mod I want to do (after I add hardwood as a strategic) is quantitative luxuries. So basically, luxuries would work like strategics, with the amount harvested of the luxury adding to your happiness, instead of a straight 5.

This would help growing empires as you take on new lands and more luxuries, your happiness grows in relation to the number of harvested luxuries.

[pg1]

I haven’t had much difficulty keeping peace. Early game is tumultuous and I typically kick every empire off my landmass as soon as possible. Then I do what I have to to get peace with the remaining City States on my landmass. From there it is not too hard to live peacefully. I send whatever warriors, scouts, and crap units I have to embark across the oceans exploring until I can get a destroyer out there, and otherwise just focus on establishing treaties and building my cities/wonders.

Haha, so to get peace you must war every Civ off your island? Sounds like peace is hard then. I’m talking about keeping peace while sharing borders with Civ neighbors instead of holing up on an island alone.

Right, the unhappiness definitely doesn’t scale to map size since there are only so many different types of luxuries.

With a victory like that, how do you win a war besides complete annihilation?

Civ 5 mostly seems like a war game to me so once you get that big army going you should just keep going until someone stops you. Trying to peacefully build up and incorporate your conquests into your empire seems pointless after a while.

I wish I could see what buildings a puppet has so I can decide if it would be worth annexing or not as well, but I think I’ll try raze and resettle for my next game.

Yeah I really dislike a lot of the hidden info. I’d like to be able to tell what policies a Civ is going after and see direct numbers in diplomacy like you get with city states.

The next mod I want to do (after I add hardwood as a strategic) is quantitative luxuries.

What other things should be modded? Perhaps city states always requiring 250-500-1000 as the payments? Isn’t there also some hard numbers like 10-20 unhappy citizens bring penalties, etc? All those things should scale to various factors at the start of a game I think.

[Lizard_King]

I would like to see a little more strategy to the city-states’ approach as well. Today in my single city playthrough, I had an alliance with a single city state trigger hostility from two erstwhile allies who were obviously maneuvering unsuccessfully around that c-s at me. It was probably the highlight of the game in terms of consequences catching me off guard, and I liked it a lot. I’d like to see more permanence and effect to the trade relationships with all entities in the game, with more of an emphasis on controlling supplies of strategic goods rather than just luxuries taking center stage. I’d love to have stronger empires force weaker ones to be their supply monkeys in more literal ways than the unfair deals they offer after apparently reading the minds of my whiny citizens. And I’d like a more nuanced system of alliances than [hostility][--------------------no cooperation except occasional trade and requests for open borders----------------------] [tiny space*]

*where you fit deals that are actually symbiotic or accidentally interesting.

Anyway, great game. I’m much happier now that in my larger games I’ve cranked down the graphics and sped it up.