Posts: 4,443
Threads: 45
Joined: Nov 2009
Most of their games seem to involve a lot of statecraft and seem somewhat dry. Its not really my cup of tea. I like 4x games that either have a design component or at the very least make a worthwhile attempt to avoid having all X's stand for EXpand(GalCivII -_-').
I heard of SotS and it seems like something I would enjoy.
In Soviet Russia, Civilization Micros You!
"Right, as the world goes, is only in question between equals in power, while the strong do what they can and the weak suffer what they must."
“I have never understood why it is "greed" to want to keep the money you have earned but not greed to want to take somebody else's money.”
Posts: 3,045
Threads: 49
Joined: Mar 2004
Paradox has been growing and diversifying, it's not just the grand strategy-oriented stuff any more and hasn't been for a while now. I hear where you're coming from on some of their titles, but there's a lot more to Paradox these days than that. 
Posts: 2,880
Threads: 16
Joined: Sep 2010
So I tried a game with the new patch. Nothing has really changed. Great Scientists and Research Agreements are still massively overpowered, while tile yields are too low. Especially in the beginning, everything feels super slow compared to civ 4. Firaxis said they'd done "significant turn time improvements" but I don't notice it- I still had to wait at least 5 seconds between each turn, even early on, and I have a pretty recent computer with a good video card.
The AIs are still dumb as a brick, and make up for it with their massive gold and happiness bonuses. I lost when Siam managed to stumble into a diplomatic victory, since none of the other AIs seemed interested in buying city states away. I spent all my gold on just one CS, but couldn't even keep that as an ally.
oh yeah, and the "big changes" of increasing city distance by 1, and adding the aqueduct, don't really matter at all. The increased city distance is just annoying, it makes it a lot harder to fit in cities where you want them. Very annoying having them blocked by a city who's borders you're not even touching. And with the aqueduct, the main bottleneck (with landed elite) is happiness and production, so I never felt like I even wanted an aqueduct.
Posts: 141
Threads: 4
Joined: Apr 2006
It's quite amazing that this is the first time in my 'civ life' that I don't even have any urge to play this game anymore.
It was clear from the patch notes that they are trying to fix something that's not salvageable. All the negative implications to make it harder to play instead of rewarding you doesn't sound like a game I want to play. I am sure even firaxis don't really know what to do with this wreck of a game.
At least they can make some more cash from fools who buy the new DLC. 2k is probablly proud of them.
Posts: 8,293
Threads: 83
Joined: Oct 2009
Good thing they had a free demo or else I would have probably bought this game lol.
Posts: 4,781
Threads: 25
Joined: Sep 2006
For legalism Shoghigh's Temple takes proity over monument. Because it takes less upkeep. This will be fixed in patch so you will not have much time to enjoy!
The AI still is usless below Inmortal because it has to build to many units in order not to get killed off right away. Inmortal + Diety AI's are much stronger because they have so much extra prodution they get eat the extra unit building and keep on going.
Posts: 25
Threads: 1
Joined: Jan 2011
With the patch, I think they finally got the basic structures right to where they ought to be; cities will now actually reach a decent population by the end of the game with the various mid to late game food bonuses. (Primarily Granary + Aquaduct + more cows on the grassland.)
Another plus is that the revamp of the Tradition & Liberty trees have made that part of the tree quite fun; choosing between multiple policies that all do good things for your empire.
On the down side it was obvious I had already won the game by the time my cities were large (when the notification came in that the AI reached the Renaissance era after I had over half of that era's techs. So it was just a matter of choosing which way to win.) Still the AI would probably perform better in techs on a map larger than Duel where there are more players to sign research agreements with.
Also the AI is still just as dumb as ever; French AI fully researching the Honor branch; barely touching Tradition, not touching the Liberty branch at all.
Posts: 6,787
Threads: 131
Joined: Mar 2004
joncnunn Wrote:With the patch, I think they finally got the basic structures right to where they ought to be; cities will now actually reach a decent population by the end of the game with the various mid to late game food bonuses. (Primarily Granary + Aquaduct + more cows on the grassland.)
FWIW, that's considerably more historically accurate than the typical behavior in Civ games. Population exploded with the industrial revolution; to take a random Western city as an example, London never exceeded a million population until about 1800, compared to 7 million now. Pretty much entirely the opposite of Civ games, when cities grow fastest in ancient times then don't even double in size between 1 AD and 2000 AD.
Posts: 3,140
Threads: 26
Joined: Feb 2009
T-hawk Wrote:FWIW, that's considerably more historically accurate than the typical behavior in Civ games. Population exploded with the industrial revolution; to take a random Western city as an example, London never exceeded a million population until about 1800, compared to 7 million now. Pretty much entirely the opposite of Civ games, when cities grow fastest in ancient times then don't even double in size between 1 AD and 2000 AD.
I don't know if London is the greatest example... A large part of its growth was due to the massive increase in prestige and power of Britain, which had moved from being on the periphery of Europe and a fairly middling regional power, to being one of the leading economic and military powers with a reach that stretched across the world.
Rome had a population of over a million in the BC years and I think some Chinese cities did as well, so being a centrepoint for a huge and vibrant empire can make big cities well before the industrial revolution.
Your statement about population rises is accurate though. The 19th and 20th century were marked by phenomenal rises in population first in the western world then globally.
Posts: 25
Threads: 1
Joined: Jan 2011
While true for Civ 4 in most cases; in Civ 2 & 3 your cities were caped at size 12 until Hospitals; and it was really common to have size 24 cities by 2000 AD.
I played on a Civ 4 BTS duel size map recently, and built Sushi's. On duel size map, corporation bonuses are several times larger than they are on a normal sized maps; so I ended up with +12 food in every city from Sushi's (along with +20 hammers from Mining Inc) which did result in several cities built in BC times having more than double their population by the time the game ended.
T-hawk Wrote:Pretty much entirely the opposite of Civ games, when cities grow fastest in ancient times then don't even double in size between 1 AD and 2000 AD.
|
