For reasons not known to me, I cannot launch the game today. It launched fine last night.
Reldan
3502
Okay, I misunderstood you then. But yeah, everything in Civ 5 revolves around gold. Buildings are all just ways to trade gold production for culture, happiness, food, or military units. Gold in and of itself, however important, doesn’t actually win you the game so managing this asset is the true key to winning.
pilonv1
3503
Wasn’t it discovered that changing your city Gold Focused rather than Producing Gold/Wealth was a much better solution?
Hey guys, I am trying to figure out how unit maintenance is determined. I think the formula is (constant)(Number of Units)(constant)^(No. of Turns). In order to confirm this, or any other possibility, I need data points. If you could while playing record the following information and post it here later at your convenience, I could hopefully nail it down. Right now, I am only interested in games of difficulty Prince (4) or higher on map sizes Standard or larger. Please give data in the following form.
[Header]Difficulty:Map Size:Game Speed[/Header]
*)Number of Units: Turn: Unit Maintenance
…
Example,
Prince (4):Standard Map:Standard Speed
4:51:3
6:101:8
8:125:12
8:149:15
The best data points are late game, involve a lot of units, and are not close to another data point (i.e. do not feel compelled to record unit maintenance every turn, every 50 is just fine). If the Autocracy perk that lowers maintenance is used, please say so.
One last thing, the best place to look up unit numbers is the military overview, which can be found in the drop down menu in the upper left corner of the screen.
Actually, I just noticed those the next time I used the archer. I’ll blame it on being colorblind, plus the fact that it is still giving me combat odds on those units in hexes I can’t see and attack.
Yeah it is. Plus, in game help should actually help. When you have the 5th game in a series and suddenly add LOS to combat (at least I don’t remember it in the others) the fact should not be buried in the Manual.
When I have time on the computer I’m going to be playing the damn game or doing internet stuff. I will be happy to RTFM if it is in the bloody box.
In all fairness, I wasn’t very clear or specific about that part, probably because as much as I enjoy talking about civ there’s a point in every post about it where I realize I’d rather be playing it.
I know there’s a mod that purports to restrict the game to 1 gold/unit/turn globally, perhaps you could look at what they changed in order to avoid having to reverse engineer it. I installed it and am still getting unpredictable results for deleting x number of units vs x+1,2,3… and unit types, so I’m not sure what the answer is.
That’s interesting, I wonder to what extent color coding helps make the UI more accessible, and if solutions can be modded for that particular issue.
Yeah it is. Plus, in game help should actually help. When you have the 5th game in a series and suddenly add LOS to combat (at least I don’t remember it in the others) the fact should not be buried in the Manual.
When I have time on the computer I’m going to be playing the damn game or doing internet stuff. I will be happy to RTFM if it is in the bloody box.
Manuals as they used to exist are obsolete, along with people that insist it’s your fault if you don’t get something that is explained in them only. They exist as references, and basic game concepts should be clearly explained in game or by the UI itself. The RTFM guys crop up periodically to state their version of good videogame citizenship, and they should be thought of as something like seeing an Amish guy extol the virtues of horse and buggy transportation. This particular manual seems fine but not particularly worth reading when the details I’ve tried to reference (for instance, what each parameter in Advanced Options actually changes about game setup) are usually nonexistent. The results from asking here, though, are almost always good.
In this case, though, I think the game might have fallen prey to an honest mistake in not factoring colorblindness, as that particular item is well explained by the visual prompts that exist. Would it help if the highlight circles were white or something else?
“Obsolete” is not the same as “things you don’t like”. The Civ5 manual is well-written and quite comprehensive on fundamental game mechanics – unit upkeep is the only significant omission. If you can figure out the game without reading the manual that’s fine, but if you can’t and are wasting time and getting aggravated due to game mechanics that are clearly described in the manual… that’s just stupid.
erikg88
3509
Chris, I’m kind of curious about why you’re such a staunch defender of this game. Do you think it blows Civ 4 out of the water, do you find the criticism completely unjustified, etc.?
What’s wrong with reading his posts? Agree or disagree, he actually argues all his points very well (including criticizing Civ 5 so he can hardly be called a fanboi). The poll shows that a majority likes the game (flaws and all), Chris is just vocally arguing why - but if you look into old Civ IV thread you’ll find him just as active there, which brings me to the conclusion that he just likes Civ alot, knows a lot about the game and has insights to offer.
I had absolutely no problem figuring out LOS from the information offered on screen and I haven’t read a single line in the manual. More information on screen also presents a more cluttered UI and possible information overload and for all it’s flaws, I think Civ V balances this well. There’s a huge manual for those who wants all the details (although a few are omitted - on purpose or by accident). I prefer that’s its digital, since I have a two screen setup and also an iPad - actually with the excellent support of two screens, I’d wish I could open the Civiliopedia in a window on the other screen.
The only combat specific information I need is the chances of success on attacking a unit I’m yet not at war with. On the other hand, that might make combat even easier, since I’ve never seen a battle go another way than predicted (basically making it a canned animation of a result I already knew).
erikg88
3511
I have no problem with his posts. It’s just that I’m curious about his motivation – I’d expect this sort of active defense from a PR rep, but I’m pretty sure he’s not on Firaxis’ payroll.
I’ve posted extensively about what I like and dislike about Civ5, and yes, I do think it blows Civ4 out of the water despite the justified criticisms. Most reviewers and customers seem to like it, by the way, so you really ought to be wondering about the staunch detractors rather than the staunch defenders…
That you would only “expect this sort of active defense from a PR rep” is a sad testament to Internet forum culture. Is only endless bitching acceptable without question? edit: No, I’m not employed or paid by Firaxis or Take 2 or any other game company.
Agree on both counts, and your second point is another change from Civ4 I’m very happy about. The Civ4 battle predictor was so screwy that any prediction not close to 0% or 100% was basically worthless, with the actual outcome distribution across many battles far different from the predicted one. Civ5 battles still can deviate on either way of the prediction by a few points, as they should, but the prediction seems to match the long-term result distribution.
erikg88
3513
slow up, you don’t have to defend yourself to me. Of course you are not a shill for Firaxis. And we don’t have to worry about internet forum culture.
I actually don’t really get all the CiV hate here myself, for me personally it’s much more fun than Civ IV - and I really LOVED Civ IV. CiV is just more interesting to me, though yeah it’s not perfect (neither was Civ IV when it came out). But I’ve already put about 40 hours into CiV and had some incredibly satisfying strategy gaming “moments” and I look forward to many more.
Dejin
3515
I was having great fun with it until I discovered that the AI does a horrible job with its navy and that it does not build an air force at all. The navy is particularly a problem, since some AI personalities will not be able to carry out an invasion against you if you have any naval units at all, which means you can pretty much ignore them if you’re not going for a domination victory. The lack of air force was a big disappointment, but I suppose it doesn’t have much impact in terms of the game being challenging – although now that I think about it, I might not have been able to use nuclear bombers against Germany if they had had fighter interceptors.
Admittedly I probably played more Civ V before I discovered these problems than 80% of the purchasers will play in their lifetimes. Steam claims I’ve played 115 hours, although some of that time was Civ sitting in the background while I was working on other stuff.
Razgon
3516
I have a gnawing suspicion that the issues with the AI and its navy is the exact reason every unit can embark like it can today, to not cripple it completely.
There are other things that seems to be built up around what the AI can and cannot do, but then again, I could just be very attentitve to that kind of thing after Elemental doing exactly this.
I don’t really think so. This particular change also benefits human players, it has a predecessor in Rise of Nations, and the AI still isn’t very good at naval invasions despite it. Besides, Civ5 seems to recycle much of the old Civ4 AI code in terms of empire management and production, and that AI could build transports.
Regarding airplanes, I wonder if the AI never builds them due to its general overproduction of military units. Tanks need oil just like airplanes, so if the AI always prefers combustion to flight it might simply have no oil left by the time it develops flight. This would also account for my observation that the AI occasionally builds destroyers (which don’t need oil) but not battleships (which do).
rezaf
3518
Yeah, I wasn’t too aware of the AIs navy issues, my only truly big game having been on a pangea map.
However, on the small continents map I’m playing now, Siam gobbled up their entire continent and are way, way bigger than I am. They are also way ahead of me scientifically, probably in future tech territory.
They have not built the Apollo Program, though, for some reason.
Anyway, I was getting slightly nervous when they dow’ed me … but they have done VERY little in terms of trying to actually fight me.
Their only notable achievement was sending a Giant Death Robot through the territory of some city states allied with them (and before that across the sea) to me. When I noticed it, I have to admit I was worried for a moment.
But it turned out the thing, when alone, sucks.
A small bomber flotilla (3 units) and some cruise missiles disposed of it without much trouble before it could get anywhere close my cities.
Maybe I’ll try a fractal map next, it seems to have a chance for maps that aren’t a pangea-like big blog of land (that game was a slog later on) but still feature a lot of land that’s connected to other land.
rezaf
Dejin
3519
That could be. Certainly in my last game, Germany had a huge number of tanks, although I did do my best to free up some oil for him ;-)
Yeah, I think Chris is onto something. Build preferences aren’t that hard to tweak, so it likely does have to do with the AI’s desire to push out units ASAP.
On a related note, I often get the message that my military is much weaker than an opponent’s. However, I concentrate my forces and crush the enemy units even when they arrive en masse or in one-on-one battles because they might be significantly lower tech and I’ve got great generals. My guess is the AI and the advisors in part look at the number of units to help arrive at their assessment. In that way, the overbuilding of units helps one AI nation keep opposing AI nations at bay. It would be a sensible strategy if that was the case.
