My bad then. The rest stands.
Rest assured I'm not happy with the level of influence religion has in this country. That said, very few people in America are stuck any earlier in history than the late 1800s.
"extra faith from quarries"??! you have a problem that? it makes perfect sense... there are these glorious things called Cathedrals all though UK and Europe and indeed all over much of the world and history like Karnak or the Temple Mount or Angkor Wat etc etc... these buildings were all beacons of faith to the communities around and were made from different forms of stone that doesnt grow on trees but are mined in Quarries!
You lost me with those words
It's going to take some time to really tell how well the diplomacy system has been tweaked, but tweaked it has been for sure. The first link I posted is a good starting point, but I will sum up what I've encountered so far.
Some of the negative modifiers are gone, like the "You are trying to win the game the same way we are" (way to destroy any immersion with that one). Completely obliterating a Civ that attacked you will not get you a warmongering status, going to war constantly with other Civs though will. "Don't settle cities near us" has an influence only in the early game it seems, later on they don't seem to care where you settle. Modifiers also fade out in a much more logical fashion, which is represented by how bold the modifier is shown in the info tab, here is an example: http://forums.civfanatics.com/...
To have any kind of positive relationship with a civ you need to establish an embassy first, Open Borders agreements come into play
in the early Middle Ages now. You also need both an embassy AND a Declaration of Friendship to set up a Research Agreements, so spamming RAs or the AI cancelling them by attacking you, well, it hasn't happened to me. RAs also function differently as well as Great Scientists, but that's another story.
A very cool concept involves being able to promise things to the AI Civ. Say they ask you, as they normally do, to stop settling cities near them. You can tell them to shove it, but you can also promise them it won't happen again. If you keep that promise for a certain number of turns you actually receive a bonus positive modifier. I am not 100% certain if this wasn't added in a patch, but it definitely wasn't there the last time I played the game. There are other kinds of promises as well, like promising a civ that captured a spy of yours you won't spy on them any more etc.
Several things worth noting:
- leaders automatically contact you to renegotiate expiring deals.
- Tom Chick did note correctly that the diplomatic influence of religion isn't as big as in IV, but it still matters. If you spread a religion to a civ that doesn't have one, they will actually love you for it. Civs with other religions don't seem to mind you too much, but they don't like when you try to covert them forcefully with missionaries, not one bit. Some civs love spreading their religion (Austria), some really don't care much beyond keeping their own cities free of infidels.
- Adopting one of the last 3 SP trees will have some impact on diplomacy, civs who chose the same policy tree as you will like you more. Just like in Civ IV this doesn't have a game-changing impact on diplomacy, but it does add flavour to it
- civs can't vote for themselves for a diplo victory, and that includes you, so playing nice actually pays off.
-One of the many new CS missions involve you denouncing another Civ.
- one game Napoleon went around bullying all the City States under my protection and then attacked me. Seems like the AI keeps a tab on CSs a bit more than before. Another time a civ liberated a CS. That never happened in vanilla.
Overall it all leads to this: it is significantly easy to make friends with other civs. In fact it might even be too easy, believe it or not.
Is it all perfect? Hardly, every now and then the AI will still act a bit wacky, but the non-stop denouncements and DOWs haven't been happening so far. Same goes for the tactical AI and empire building AIs - not perfect, but noticeable step-up from vanilla, and I no longer get the feeling that the AI has no idea how to play the game.
Oh, how terrible, now you can't take over entire civilizations with 2 units, truly a dreadful idea. Making combat more tactical by not having units insta-kill each other is the worst thin ever!
Yeo, absolutely.
Some of this is pretty cool. Too bad it's almost all undocumented and/or strictly under-the-hood. It's not as if games like Sins, Civ IV, EU, MOO, and Gal Civ haven't managed a transparent, manageable diplomacy system that fits neatly into the rest of the game.
What exactly do you mean? If you want to know the modifiers, you can always consult the tooltips which have been improved, I even linked an image as proof. Leaders popping up to ask me to promise something or renegotiate a deal seem as transparent as is necessary. Overall the only thing Civ V doesn't have in terms of transparency in direct comparison to Civ IV are actual numbers next to the modifiers, everything else is the same. I hardly think this is such a big deal. And of course it's under the hood, I most certainly don't want the AI leaders to come out and say "I like you 4 points less because you bullied a CS I am fond of, I also hate you because we are both trying to win the game the same way."
I found out most of this by actually playing the game, since a lot of it was never mentioned by Firaxis. Which means it was transparent enough for me to notice it in such a short period of time.
When you're not busy actually playing the game -- here's a cookie, by the way -- take a look at Sins of a Solar Empire, Civilization IV, pretty much any Paradox game, or Galactic Civilizations. Diplomacy in Civ 5 remains a mostly inscrutable clunky black box of the worst irrational behavior this side of your ex girlfriend.
I'd rather have the 10% growth rate bonus.
Was the enemy warrior overweight? Did the crossbowman hit him with details of maintaining a balanced food intake? You did say that the warrior did not come close to dieting in three hits....
Sorry for being very cheeky - I just couldn't resist it. I'm curious on how the 100 HP system will work myself, but it isn't released in Europe until Friday.
You keep fighting the good fight TC
Are you talking to me? I haven't given any reasoning.
I have played them ALL, as well as the recent Endless Space. Did you somehow miss all the changes I listed? Or the part where I said that they aren't as irrational as before? Now you sound irrational.
Thanks for the rundown. That's certainly enough to make me want to give it a go. It still sounds a little rigid though. The reason why I like the Total War model is because it embraces reality. A nation isn't just a little happy little territory that always wants everything good for everyone else.
It also wants to grow, and sometimes it'll use violence to do that. Being labelled a warmonger or a threat just for settling, or indeed just waging an isolated war with a neighbour seems too harsh.
At the very least you should be able to offset that by showing goodwill towards others, like you would in real diplomacy. That's why Total Wars system works, in my opinion. It's all quid pro quo, like our own international real politik.
The old rounding of damage and 10 was better. Ex: They had "100" hp, according to the computer, and it rounded it to fit in the 10. So doing 99 damage made you do 10/10, which was much better, I mean really, lowering it to 1/100 hp is way worse than just finishing it. Its a boon for the attacker and the defender. The attacker loses space to move up a healthy unit, and the defender has to waste a turn to destroy it. I like the immunity idea of Civ V player way more than the 100 too. And on top of that, of all things, the instant "full hp" heal only adds 50 to your 100 hp, its basically shit, no longer can u hold off for a longer amount of time with few units, cuz if u have 10/100 hp, you only get 60/100, which is shit, when the AI is doing 30 damage a turn from one enemy...
Lol, funny. You make like the 100 HP system, it makes fighting longer, but harder, so if you like it harder, then its great for you. I just hate it because it drags it out longer and I just wanna be able to 1 hit a unit 2 eras of tech behind me.
BTW, the industrial era policy thing is s***. Policies were for you to follow in peace... Maybe they could do a public policy type thing with three trees and you choose one. You can have the option of participating or not swell. That would be nice.
Don't remember that countless times she controlled her husband? I bet deep down she secretly was just using him. Btw, she didn't give him advice, he was all ready to flee and she forced him to stay and forced him to fight, which increased the government's power, and it increased her control over him. She was a sneaky little b****. I also think Constantine would be a good idea. I know that he was the Eastern Roman Empire, but that is almost the same thing, considering that it evolved into the Byzantine.
I know right? Does he even like anything?
Ewwwwww.... You like that ugly road spam???