Anyone bought it yet?
I bought it last week and like the game so far. It runs very well (no bugs as in Civ4) and the gameplay is mostly smooth, once you get used to a few annoying changes.
I played Civ 5, but never tried 4.
Its pretty fun. Although I think the diplomacy thing is alittle hyped up, but disappointing... Half the time everyone doesn't even want to trade and demands NEVER work, unless I totally rough that person up til he has 1 city and he finally opens his borders...
City-state diplomacy is worst, I'm more powerful than them, and I have to pay them tribute to get in their good graces. Hell they should be trying to be in my good graces.
Other than disappointment in diplomacy, its pretty fun. I swear the Russian woman flirts with me a lot too...
Diplomacy never was the strength of Civ games. I think the addition of nation states is good, but the bribe to gain friendship thing is a bit stupid.
The global (un)happiness also takes some time getting used to. I like that they added a whole bunch of social policies though, this makes a cultural victory much more interesting.
MrFancypants;5403736Diplomacy never was the strength of Civ games. I think the addition of nation states is good, but the bribe to gain friendship thing is a bit stupid.
They really should sort it. It always has had way too many loopholes and certain tactics to 'cheat' it. A bit like in rome total war.
Granyaski;5403944They really should sort it. It always has had way too many loopholes and certain tactics to 'cheat' it. A bit like in rome total war.
That's true. In Civ5 you can offer an AI player access to your luxury resources for 45 turns in return for money and then declare war. Very useful if you want to make sure that he doesn't spend his money on new units that may mess with your invasion plans.
In the total war series the loopholes applied more to the tactical game though (you don't even need diplomacy there except to sell your map information to as many AIs as possible).
but the game is good?
superwierdo024;5404929but the game is good?
Yes, it is fun. Much smoother than Civ4 in my opinion. The only people who are going to really dislike it are Civ2 fanatics.
ah okey i played Civ2 so i think i will try this one to out
MrFancypants;5405049Yes, it is fun. Much smoother than Civ4 in my opinion. The only people who are going to really dislike it are Civ2 fanatics.
oh great. Civ2 is my favourite one.
I'll watch some videos and see what I think.
No! I'm Spamacus!
17th June 2003
So far I'm liking this game a lot. There are a few things I haven't liked, but from what I've read the game is even more moddable than it's predecessor.
What I like: 1. The graphics are gorgeous. 2. Military strategy doesn't resort to using a single stack of doom. 3. City-states make diplomacy feel more immersive. Absolutely love the culture system and how it affects borders. Borders feel much more organic than in previous games.
What I don't: 1. Individual civilizations feel like they have lost some "flavor" and don't feel as unique. 2. In Civilization IV there was a very noticeable difference between Spain and India. Isabella was a bit of a zelot who would backstab you in a second if it suited her. Gandhi was the pacifist who seemed quite loyal to you if you made the effort. Now, not so much. Everyone goes to war with everyone seemingly regardless of past relationships and current needs. 3. I miss the role play that was present in the Rhye's and Fall mod for IV. It seems like in V the AI is trying too hard to win rather than just be it's own civilization. 4. I miss naval transports. You really had to plan a coastal invasion. Now every unit can enter the water on its own. I guess with the new 1UPT feature transports would have been almost useless. 5. Other stuff I can't remember. 6. World Wonders don't seem as unique anymore.