Civilization V Discussion

[Shnercropolis]

Hence why I prefer playing on Chieftain, I always seem to be hanged up on and condemned like crazy on Warlord.

Agreed. I've played many games on higher difficulty, and they always just try to steamroll right over me early in the game. I'll have a three pact alliance immediately before anyone even hits renaissance trying to invade my borders.

That's why you have to play as the Huns. You get the best early game units(in my opinion)

Like, my friend once called me an asshole because I attacked in the early game and destroyed like 2 civs and 4 city-states.

[Ashihara no Nakatsukuni]

Agreed. I've played many games on higher difficulty, and they always just try to steamroll right over me early in the game. I'll have a three pact alliance immediately before anyone even hits renaissance trying to invade my borders.

That's why you have to play as the Huns. You get the best early game units(in my opinion)

But it's lame playing the same Civs all the time. I like to switch it up.

[Horusland]

That's why you have to play as the Huns. You get the best early game units(in my opinion)

But it's lame playing the same Civs all the time. I like to switch it up.

I only play as Japan, because I don't like the game giving me ''New [insert city]'' when it doesn't have any more city names. I have around 50 Japanese cities memorized. Part of my otaku obsession.

How does the suggestion system work in Civ V?

[Layfet]

Civ 5 is fun and it has a whole lot more detail, sure it is slow at first, but it really picks up and seems more realistic. Personally though, my favorite is Civ Revolution.

[Horusland]

Civ 5 is fun and it has a whole lot more detail, sure it is slow at first, but it really picks up and seems more realistic. Personally though, my favorite is Civ Revolution.

I had that on my Xbox. The advisers fought and pushed each other angrily while speaking gibberish. I liked it.

[Saurisisia]

Civ 5 is fun and it has a whole lot more detail, sure it is slow at first, but it really picks up and seems more realistic. Personally though, my favorite is Civ Revolution.

Surprisingly though, I liked the espionage aspect in Rev as it seemed far deeper and more interesting than in V. In V, all you can do is steal technology and once in a while learn that the civilization you're spying on is making plans either against you or a rival civ. In Rev, though, you can also sabotage unit and building production and city defenses, making them more susceptible to attack.

Another feature that I missed from Rev was talking to other civ leaders about their rivals, to figure out how they view them. That way, you can try to persuade the guy to attack someone who was warring against you if that guy didn't like them. The only ways I can see how the other civilizations view each other in V is by paying attention to the notices indicating that such and such are now friends or such and such has condemned or declared war against someone else.

And yeah, the advisers were entertaining, my favorites being the Science and Military advisers. They were always amusing.

[Maklohi Vai]

Well this thread died for a while. I'm reviving it because I have found one more awful example of Civ 5 BNW diplomacy, and I thought you guys might like to know.

I'm Arabia and am basically the international hegemon on most fronts. The Iroquois and Greece are to the east, and they don't like each other. Portugal is to the west and is tiny but really really annoying. In the Medieval Era, Greece declares war on the Iroquois. As the latter is one of my main trading partners, I want to defend them. Ergo, I send my troops into their territory and completely encircle their capital, creating a line that the Greeks can't penetrate, a sort of passive resistance. I don't declare war on Greece, nor do they declare war on me. The plan works and the Greeks back off after a couple centuries of stalemate.

Flash forward to the Renaissance. Portugal has been sending prophets into my territory and then being annoying about it (and spying), so I line up my forces around their border before I attack. I had to get a lot of troops from far away, so some had to stay there for over a dozen turns. Portugal clearly notices this, and sends me one of those messages saying, "We see your troops at the border. Don't be a coward, if you're going to attack then attack." The player is then given two options: 1. Declare war. 2. Say "Our troops are merely passing through the area." I chose option 2 because I wasn't ready to fight quite yet. Of course, I declare war 5 turns later and completely annihilate them, etc. etc.

Flash forward once more to the late Industrial Era. Greece has declared war once again on the Iroquois, whom I still consider allies and actually fought with me against the Portuguese. I therefore try to implement the same tactic that I used the first time around, sending my troops to encircle the Iroquois capital. After about 8 turns, the Greeks get the message and retreat, but they don't negotiate peace. I keep my troops there. Then, out of the blue, the Iroquois denounce me and are now "guarded," with their primary reason being "You made a promise with other civs to move troops from their border, and then broke it!"

Besides the obvious bullshit that this thing could change a relationship from allies to a denunciation, it also means that my conversation with Portugal earlier (the one with the two options), was not actually private. That makes zero sense whatsoever to me. What do you guys think?

[Wisconsin9]

Well this thread died for a while. I'm reviving it because I have found one more awful example of Civ 5 BNW diplomacy, and I thought you guys might like to know.

I'm Arabia and am basically the international hegemon on most fronts. The Iroquois and Greece are to the east, and they don't like each other. Portugal is to the west and is tiny but really really annoying. In the Medieval Era, Greece declares war on the Iroquois. As the latter is one of my main trading partners, I want to defend them. Ergo, I send my troops into their territory and completely encircle their capital, creating a line that the Greeks can't penetrate, a sort of passive resistance. I don't declare war on Greece, nor do they declare war on me. The plan works and the Greeks back off after a couple centuries of stalemate.

Flash forward to the Renaissance. Portugal has been sending prophets into my territory and then being annoying about it (and spying), so I line up my forces around their border before I attack. I had to get a lot of troops from far away, so some had to stay there for over a dozen turns. Portugal clearly notices this, and sends me one of those messages saying, "We see your troops at the border. Don't be a coward, if you're going to attack then attack." The player is then given two options: 1. Declare war. 2. Say "Our troops are merely passing through the area." I chose option 2 because I wasn't ready to fight quite yet. Of course, I declare war 5 turns later and completely annihilate them, etc. etc.

Flash forward once more to the late Industrial Era. Greece has declared war once again on the Iroquois, whom I still consider allies and actually fought with me against the Portuguese. I therefore try to implement the same tactic that I used the first time around, sending my troops to encircle the Iroquois capital. After about 8 turns, the Greeks get the message and retreat, but they don't negotiate peace. I keep my troops there. Then, out of the blue, the Iroquois denounce me and are now "guarded," with their primary reason being "You made a promise with other civs to move troops from their border, and then broke it!"

Besides the obvious bullshit that this thing could change a relationship from allies to a denunciation, it also means that my conversation with Portugal earlier (the one with the two options), was not actually private. That makes zero sense whatsoever to me. What do you guys think?

That's been a problem since vanilla, and it's always bugged me that first contact between two continents goes bad because one country lied to another country that was wiped out three thousand years ago.

[Saurisisia]

Well this thread died for a while. I'm reviving it because I have found one more awful example of Civ 5 BNW diplomacy, and I thought you guys might like to know.

I'm Arabia and am basically the international hegemon on most fronts. The Iroquois and Greece are to the east, and they don't like each other. Portugal is to the west and is tiny but really really annoying. In the Medieval Era, Greece declares war on the Iroquois. As the latter is one of my main trading partners, I want to defend them. Ergo, I send my troops into their territory and completely encircle their capital, creating a line that the Greeks can't penetrate, a sort of passive resistance. I don't declare war on Greece, nor do they declare war on me. The plan works and the Greeks back off after a couple centuries of stalemate.

Flash forward to the Renaissance. Portugal has been sending prophets into my territory and then being annoying about it (and spying), so I line up my forces around their border before I attack. I had to get a lot of troops from far away, so some had to stay there for over a dozen turns. Portugal clearly notices this, and sends me one of those messages saying, "We see your troops at the border. Don't be a coward, if you're going to attack then attack." The player is then given two options: 1. Declare war. 2. Say "Our troops are merely passing through the area." I chose option 2 because I wasn't ready to fight quite yet. Of course, I declare war 5 turns later and completely annihilate them, etc. etc.

Flash forward once more to the late Industrial Era. Greece has declared war once again on the Iroquois, whom I still consider allies and actually fought with me against the Portuguese. I therefore try to implement the same tactic that I used the first time around, sending my troops to encircle the Iroquois capital. After about 8 turns, the Greeks get the message and retreat, but they don't negotiate peace. I keep my troops there. Then, out of the blue, the Iroquois denounce me and are now "guarded," with their primary reason being "You made a promise with other civs to move troops from their border, and then broke it!"

Besides the obvious bullshit that this thing could change a relationship from allies to a denunciation, it also means that my conversation with Portugal earlier (the one with the two options), was not actually private. That makes zero sense whatsoever to me. What do you guys think?

I kind of had problems like that when playing on Prince difficulty, though in my case I get denounced left and right and then gang up on me for no real reason. Though I suppose doing diplomatic business with the guy everyone hates counts but that's just how I roll, befriending and trading with everyone regardless (well, it's mostly the other leaders sending me requests but I rarely turn them down). I guess I'm just too nice with everyone for Prince difficulty.

[Maklohi Vai]

Well this thread died for a while. I'm reviving it because I have found one more awful example of Civ 5 BNW diplomacy, and I thought you guys might like to know.

I'm Arabia and am basically the international hegemon on most fronts. The Iroquois and Greece are to the east, and they don't like each other. Portugal is to the west and is tiny but really really annoying. In the Medieval Era, Greece declares war on the Iroquois. As the latter is one of my main trading partners, I want to defend them. Ergo, I send my troops into their territory and completely encircle their capital, creating a line that the Greeks can't penetrate, a sort of passive resistance. I don't declare war on Greece, nor do they declare war on me. The plan works and the Greeks back off after a couple centuries of stalemate.

Flash forward to the Renaissance. Portugal has been sending prophets into my territory and then being annoying about it (and spying), so I line up my forces around their border before I attack. I had to get a lot of troops from far away, so some had to stay there for over a dozen turns. Portugal clearly notices this, and sends me one of those messages saying, "We see your troops at the border. Don't be a coward, if you're going to attack then attack." The player is then given two options: 1. Declare war. 2. Say "Our troops are merely passing through the area." I chose option 2 because I wasn't ready to fight quite yet. Of course, I declare war 5 turns later and completely annihilate them, etc. etc.

Flash forward once more to the late Industrial Era. Greece has declared war once again on the Iroquois, whom I still consider allies and actually fought with me against the Portuguese. I therefore try to implement the same tactic that I used the first time around, sending my troops to encircle the Iroquois capital. After about 8 turns, the Greeks get the message and retreat, but they don't negotiate peace. I keep my troops there. Then, out of the blue, the Iroquois denounce me and are now "guarded," with their primary reason being "You made a promise with other civs to move troops from their border, and then broke it!"

Besides the obvious bullshit that this thing could change a relationship from allies to a denunciation, it also means that my conversation with Portugal earlier (the one with the two options), was not actually private. That makes zero sense whatsoever to me. What do you guys think?

That's been a problem since vanilla, and it's always bugged me that first contact between two continents goes bad because one country lied to another country that was wiped out three thousand years ago.

Oh, that's annoying for sure. I last had that happen a month ago, and I distinctly remember I was Greece and when I got to the other main continent, Russia was already pissed at me.

Well this thread died for a while. I'm reviving it because I have found one more awful example of Civ 5 BNW diplomacy, and I thought you guys might like to know.

I'm Arabia and am basically the international hegemon on most fronts. The Iroquois and Greece are to the east, and they don't like each other. Portugal is to the west and is tiny but really really annoying. In the Medieval Era, Greece declares war on the Iroquois. As the latter is one of my main trading partners, I want to defend them. Ergo, I send my troops into their territory and completely encircle their capital, creating a line that the Greeks can't penetrate, a sort of passive resistance. I don't declare war on Greece, nor do they declare war on me. The plan works and the Greeks back off after a couple centuries of stalemate.

Flash forward to the Renaissance. Portugal has been sending prophets into my territory and then being annoying about it (and spying), so I line up my forces around their border before I attack. I had to get a lot of troops from far away, so some had to stay there for over a dozen turns. Portugal clearly notices this, and sends me one of those messages saying, "We see your troops at the border. Don't be a coward, if you're going to attack then attack." The player is then given two options: 1. Declare war. 2. Say "Our troops are merely passing through the area." I chose option 2 because I wasn't ready to fight quite yet. Of course, I declare war 5 turns later and completely annihilate them, etc. etc.

Flash forward once more to the late Industrial Era. Greece has declared war once again on the Iroquois, whom I still consider allies and actually fought with me against the Portuguese. I therefore try to implement the same tactic that I used the first time around, sending my troops to encircle the Iroquois capital. After about 8 turns, the Greeks get the message and retreat, but they don't negotiate peace. I keep my troops there. Then, out of the blue, the Iroquois denounce me and are now "guarded," with their primary reason being "You made a promise with other civs to move troops from their border, and then broke it!"

Besides the obvious bullshit that this thing could change a relationship from allies to a denunciation, it also means that my conversation with Portugal earlier (the one with the two options), was not actually private. That makes zero sense whatsoever to me. What do you guys think?

I kind of had problems like that when playing on Prince difficulty, though in my case I get denounced left and right and then gang up on me for no real reason. Though I suppose doing diplomatic business with the guy everyone hates counts but that's just how I roll, befriending and trading with everyone regardless (well, it's mostly the other leaders sending me requests but I rarely turn them down). I guess I'm just too nice with everyone for Prince difficulty.

That's my problem too. Can't be nice to everyone.

[Wisconsin9]

Did I tell you guys about the game where I managed to avoid pissing anybody off? Turns out that if you sell lots of luxuries at low prices to your neighbors, don't settle too aggressively, don't make denouncements or declare friendship, and spread your religion across most of your continent in a short time, just about everyone'll leave you alone. I didn't have to fight a war until 1814.

[Maklohi Vai]

Did I tell you guys about the game where I managed to avoid pissing anybody off? Turns out that if you sell lots of luxuries at low prices to your neighbors, don't settle too aggressively, don't make denouncements or declare friendship, and spread your religion across most of your continent in a short time, just about everyone'll leave you alone. I didn't have to fight a war until 1814.

Aka sell out?

[Saurisisia]

That's been a problem since vanilla, and it's always bugged me that first contact between two continents goes bad because one country lied to another country that was wiped out three thousand years ago.

Oh, that's annoying for sure. I last had that happen a month ago, and I distinctly remember I was Greece and when I got to the other main continent, Russia was already pissed at me.

I kind of had problems like that when playing on Prince difficulty, though in my case I get denounced left and right and then gang up on me for no real reason. Though I suppose doing diplomatic business with the guy everyone hates counts but that's just how I roll, befriending and trading with everyone regardless (well, it's mostly the other leaders sending me requests but I rarely turn them down). I guess I'm just too nice with everyone for Prince difficulty.

That's my problem too. Can't be nice to everyone.

Even though it's hard not to be since sometimes the civs have better militaries or overall technology than I and I have to remain on their good side.

[Wisconsin9]

Did I tell you guys about the game where I managed to avoid pissing anybody off? Turns out that if you sell lots of luxuries at low prices to your neighbors, don't settle too aggressively, don't make denouncements or declare friendship, and spread your religion across most of your continent in a short time, just about everyone'll leave you alone. I didn't have to fight a war until 1814.

Aka sell out?

AKA try not to get wiped out early in the game and then just roll with it.

One of my favorite things about that game was this little thing I had going with Carthage the whole time. I had a bunch of city-state allies around Carthage, which had an enormous military. The military was funded by tributes. Whatever was left of the tributes was used to buy cheap luxuries from me. I then gave the money as gifts to city-states in exchange for copies of luxuries, which I proceeded to sell at low prices.

[Maklohi Vai]

Aka sell out?

AKA try not to get wiped out early in the game and then just roll with it.

One of my favorite things about that game was this little thing I had going with Carthage the whole time. I had a bunch of city-state allies around Carthage, which had an enormous military. The military was funded by tributes. Whatever was left of the tributes was used to buy cheap luxuries from me. I then gave the money as gifts to city-states in exchange for copies of luxuries, which I proceeded to sell at low prices.

Sneaky economics. I like it.

Oh, that's annoying for sure. I last had that happen a month ago, and I distinctly remember I was Greece and when I got to the other main continent, Russia was already pissed at me.


That's my problem too. Can't be nice to everyone.

Even though it's hard not to be since sometimes the civs have better militaries or overall technology than I and I have to remain on their good side.

Yeah, I know what you mean. Don't make the man with the gun angry.

[Wisconsin9]

AKA try not to get wiped out early in the game and then just roll with it.

One of my favorite things about that game was this little thing I had going with Carthage the whole time. I had a bunch of city-state allies around Carthage, which had an enormous military. The military was funded by tributes. Whatever was left of the tributes was used to buy cheap luxuries from me. I then gave the money as gifts to city-states in exchange for copies of luxuries, which I proceeded to sell at low prices.

Sneaky economics. I like it.

The best thing about it was that it just happened. Nobody tried to make anybody dependent on anyone else and it still came out that way.

[Potenco]

Ive always found the Egyptians to be the best civ to play as personally

[Wisconsin9]

Ive always found the Egyptians to be the best civ to play as personally

Fuck Egypt. If you don't wipe 'em out fast, they'll hog all the wonders and be a powerhouse late game.

[Potenco]

Ive always found the Egyptians to be the best civ to play as personally

Fuck Egypt. If you don't wipe 'em out fast, they'll hog all the wonders and be a powerhouse late game.

Precisely why I love being them, take all the cultural wonders and score a cultural victory but alwys build plenty of science buildings too.

Ive found that a scientific citory is easiest because scientific power increases your military power in some regard, meaning that having a strong military doesent detract from my main goal

[Maklohi Vai]

Sneaky economics. I like it.

The best thing about it was that it just happened. Nobody tried to make anybody dependent on anyone else and it still came out that way.

I'll try to sneak my way into that one at some point.

In other news, I'm now at war with Japan because their culture is too damn strong to get me the cultural victory I want quick enough.

[Horusland]

I just got the game and the Gods and Kings expansion pack for my birthday.
What does the GnK pack add to the game?
(Sorry, but I can't search it myself because my connection is too slow.)

[Ainin]

I just got the game and the Gods and Kings expansion pack for my birthday.
What does the GnK pack add to the game?
(Sorry, but I can't search it myself because my connection is too slow.)

"It adds both religion and espionage mechanics to the game as well as reworking the combat and diplomacy features."
Wikipedia

[Wisconsin9]

I just got the game and the Gods and Kings expansion pack for my birthday.
What does the GnK pack add to the game?
(Sorry, but I can't search it myself because my connection is too slow.)

Religion, espionage, some new units, buildings, techs, and civs, a bit better diplomacy, and some changes to a few social policies.

[Horusland]

"It adds both religion and espionage mechanics to the game as well as reworking the combat and diplomacy features."
Wikipedia

Reworking combat? How?

I just got the game and the Gods and Kings expansion pack for my birthday.
What does the GnK pack add to the game?
(Sorry, but I can't search it myself because my connection is too slow.)

Religion, espionage, some new units, buildings, techs, and civs, a bit better diplomacy, and some changes to a few social policies.

I sure hope Romania is among them.

[Maklohi Vai]

"It adds both religion and espionage mechanics to the game as well as reworking the combat and diplomacy features."
Wikipedia

Reworking combat? How?

Religion, espionage, some new units, buildings, techs, and civs, a bit better diplomacy, and some changes to a few social policies.

I sure hope Romania is among them.

It's not.