Posted: 10/26/2014 2:11:21 PM EDT
|
Anyone else playing?
Love it so far with 2 big gripes. First is how my allies suddenly turn against em and declare war. Had 2 allies with me against the Slavic fucker (who kept attacking everyone) and the minute his last city fell, they declared war against me for helping them! Go from super friendly, owing my a dozen favors to hating my guts in 1 turn. And has anyone had any luck with covert ops? I ran a campaign as ARC last night, with the covert ops perks and for some reason when I had a city's covert ops level raised, as soon as I got close to the point where I could do a siege worm or coup, it would reset back to zero. |
|
Quoted: Anyone else playing? Love it so far with 2 big gripes. First is how my allies suddenly turn against em and declare war. Had 2 allies with me against the Slavic fucker (who kept attacking everyone) and the minute his last city fell, they declared war against me for helping them! Go from super friendly, owing my a dozen favors to hating my guts in 1 turn. And has anyone had any luck with covert ops? I ran a campaign as ARC last night, with the covert ops perks and for some reason when I had a city's covert ops level raised, as soon as I got close to the point where I could do a siege worm or coup, it would reset back to zero. That reflects my gripes from several Civ games, and it has gotten progressively worse. Civ has moved too far in making the game a chess match against the player and ignoring the roleplaying aspects of the game. The two worst offenders are (1) the utterly ridiculous AI behavior, where they suicide into you to stop you from winning the game; and (2) forcing you to pick a "victory" condition and focus on nothing but that with a handful of superspecialized cities. The most fun I had with civ games was just enjoying making my civilization the most powerful on the planet and rollplaying as the superpower. Sadly, that is largely gone from the game now. Civ II was the best.
|
|
Quoted:
I will say that this game rekindled an interest in Civ5. I got that one during a steam sale for a few bucks and never got into it. The hex grid and not being able to stack combat units just makes it inferior to Civ4. I've only played Civ 5 and BE, but stacking units sounds pretty fun. I'm on my 2nd runthrough. Playing as ARC is pretty cool once you learn to properly run covert ops to steal from the AI. I don't recommend keeping any cities you get from a coup. Trade them to the closest rival of the original owner and watch them go to war and weaken themselves for it while you profit. The fucking siege worms are ridiculous. I had one hang around my capital at game start, just out of city range and kill anything that was sent out. It took a lot of units and a long time to wear it down and kill it so I could start exploring and developing. The transporter satellite is under appreciated. My last playthrough, I lost 6 ships and 12 land units just establishing a beachhead and taking the nearest city against Brazil. But once I owned the airspace, I was able to port in my sabers and lev tanks and steamrolled him. |
|
Quoted: I will say that this game rekindled an interest in Civ5. I got that one during a steam sale for a few bucks and never got into it. The hex grid and not being able to stack combat units just makes it inferior to Civ4. I can not disagree more about unit stacking and the hexes. Unit stacking prevented interesting or dynamic military strategy. You simply walked your stack against theirs and hoped you would had larger numbers, better rolls, and higher tech. Not to mention the way cost resolved was always in favor of the defender. I.E. someone could have a thousand archers on a square, three hundred swordsman, two hundred axemen, and one spearman and that one spearman would somehow be able to kill all thirty thousand of my horses. Everything about the hexes are better than the squares. Big fat crosses promoted odd gameplay choices and city layouts. Flanking is now more interesting and dynamic. You have to think about your military movements and unit placement a little bit more because it now actually really matters. Many people who have played the Civ games prefer four, and I understand why. Almost everything about it is built from a fundamentally more complex and interesting set of rules. What Firaxis did right in Civ 5, though, is make combat and city placement an actual thing.
|
|
Quoted: I can not disagree more about unit stacking and the hexes. Unit stacking prevented interesting or dynamic military strategy. You simply walked your stack against theirs and hoped you would had larger numbers, better rolls, and higher tech. Not to mention the way cost resolved was always in favor of the defender. I.E. someone could have a thousand archers on a square, three hundred swordsman, two hundred axemen, and one spearman and that one spearman would somehow be able to kill all thirty thousand of my horses. |
|
Quoted:
Two problems with the hex thing: (1) the AI can't handle it; and (2) the map is too small. If they could fix this it would be better than the deathstack. But as it stands the AI has massive problems taking player cities. Quoted:
Quoted:
I can not disagree more about unit stacking and the hexes. Unit stacking prevented interesting or dynamic military strategy. You simply walked your stack against theirs and hoped you would had larger numbers, better rolls, and higher tech. Not to mention the way cost resolved was always in favor of the defender. I.E. someone could have a thousand archers on a square, three hundred swordsman, two hundred axemen, and one spearman and that one spearman would somehow be able to kill all thirty thousand of my horses. Two problems with the hex thing: (1) the AI can't handle it; and (2) the map is too small. If they could fix this it would be better than the deathstack. But as it stands the AI has massive problems taking player cities. Like hell they do. Are you playing on chieftain or something? Maps are huge also |
