[no players] Uninformed criticism spoken loudly; lurker's thread.

[Sullla]

I'm not getting baited into another argument, Rowain. You are welcome to your own opinions on this subject, and please respect my feelings as well.

Perhaps people could respond to the substance of my post, which was on the civ choices of the players, instead of trying to pick another fight with me?

[TheArchduke]

I concur with you on Persia being the best pick.

I think you do underestimate the longbow though. Range 3 is nothing to sniff at as a layer of 2 longbows in a row are nasty business for any army. If he can rush them then one neighbour is in much trouble indeed.

On America I agree, a worthless civ as buying land is useless and the +1 sight wears off after the first 20 turns quickly.

I do hope that we will have 1-2 more CIV V PBEMs as I think that despite the short SP shelf life, CIV V MP could be interesting.

[kalin]

@Sullla: If you were referring to me, I didn't want to pick a fight. I wanted to say that for me, I found my duel games of civ5 with my friend enjoyable and that I think there may be potential for multiplayer games here at RB. My biggest issue is the technical part: civ5 MP improved (it was unplayable before) but still no PBEM, sigh; also the game is slow...

Regarding choices, I agree with you Sullla. Egypt, Rome would also be pretty good. My impression at the moment is that on a small map rushing IW is very effective.

Kalin

[Lewwyn]

I'm not getting baited into another argument, Rowain. You are welcome to your own opinions on this subject, and please respect my feelings as well.

Perhaps people could respond to the substance of my post, which was on the civ choices of the players, instead of trying to pick another fight with me?

It's just Rowain Sullla. He doesn't speak anything other than angry blunt...

I'll respond, though. What makes England a bad pick? I haven't played this since it first came out, but I do remember owning with Siam's brokenness.

[Sullla]

Yuris posted this in his thread:

Florence is a cultured city state. That makes it a perfect target for Worker steal, there is no reason at all to befriend a cultured CS in early game.

Now stealing a worker from a city state is a very strong move in Civ5. It's one of the reasons why actually building a worker is almost a sucker's play in the game (you can get a free worker from Liberty social policies, or steal a worker from a city state, or trade your resource to an AI and sell for enough cash to buy a worker).

However, I believe that cultural city states are considered to be the #1 option for befriending, especially in early game. Maritime food has been nerfed endlessly, and the current metagame doesn't emphasize infinite city sprawl until much later (since that has also been nerfed endlessly). An early alliance with a cultural city state is considered to be the top way to go from what I've seen, as it allows you to rush through social policies while you only have 1-2 cities and the policy cost is cheap.

I'm not trying to criticize Yuris' play here, I'm more surprised that his comments don't seem to value the cultural city states. The general consensus from what I've read is that they are considered to be the best. Militaristic city states are the ones you go after, because they still suck pretty hard.

[Commodore]

I think everyone except maybe Dave is flailing around a bit here, so no surprise Yuri's metagame is rusty. A free worker is still a free worker, it's still worth it right? How hard is it to get back in the city state's good graces?

Actually, that reminds me...how many city states typically spawn on a small map like this?

[Rowain]

I'm not getting baited into another argument, Rowain. You are welcome to your own opinions on this subject, and please respect my feelings as well.

Perhaps people could respond to the substance of my post, which was on the civ choices of the players, instead of trying to pick another fight with me?

The thing I responded too was also part of your post else I would have difficulties to respond to it. Of course if you think it wsa meaningless I will not continue with it.

I respect your feeling that Civ5 is 'not very good'. I even share it. I'm just amused that from all the problems Civ5 has you constantly pick the one (the exploitability) that was also in effect in its predecessors and that is the one the player has the possibility to avoid.

[Gaspar]

I think everyone except maybe Dave is flailing around a bit here, so no surprise Yuri's metagame is rusty. A free worker is still a free worker, it's still worth it right? How hard is it to get back in the city state's good graces?

Actually, that reminds me...how many city states typically spawn on a small map like this?

I believe that there are 2 city states for every great empire, so in this game 10 city-states.

Also, free worker is a free worker but its not great, since improving tiles is only of moderate importance beyond getting luxes hooked.

[kjn]

The thing that strikes me when reading about how Oledavy approaches the game, the UI, and also fits with my limited experience playing Civ Rev is that the entire game is set in a "stuff happens" environment.

It doesn't matter what you do, especially with the management of your empire. You don't build settlers or workers or new population - you receive it. Similarly, exploration isn't centered on map knowledge and contact with the other civs, but on receiving stuff via city states, ruins, or landmarks.

This can make for a good game, but it isn't a Civ game.

[Gaspar]

Pretty much the primary thought I get when reading the reports, particularly Dave who seems to be the most "up" on current strategies is that as opposed to Civ4 where you make things happen, in Civ5 stuff happens to you.

Maybe that's an oversimplification, but its definitely how I read what's been written.