Posts: 2,880
Threads: 16
Joined: Sep 2010
If you want lots of marginal cities, the order policies are the only way to go. If you have both the order social policy and the forbidden palace, every city produced 0 unhapiness. And with communism (last policy in order) every city is +5 hammers, so the city center tile produces 7 hammers. You can build fishing villages to your hearts content, with no downsides. Well, it does increase the social policy cost, but if the cities build monuments then they will cover that pretty quickly, and at that point you don't really need any more.
This is actually my preferred strategy at the moment. Take very few social policies early on, save up culture points and great scientists, beeline to the industrial era with your great scientists, and immediately take 4 policies in Order to get communism. It's wonderful how much production this adds to your empire.
Although i'm not sure if this is actually the kind of "fishing village" that you guys are talking about, or if this is actually just pure ICS. It's also only possible in the late game. For the early game, though, I like how you're not penalized for distance, so you can found cities all over the world to claim important resources. Any city that claims a new luxury resource pays for itself.
Posts: 6,782
Threads: 131
Joined: Mar 2004
haphazard1 Wrote:This may be a valid game design concept, and I get that I am apparently not the target audience of Civ V. But as a fan of Civ IV, I find the new game disappointing. I thought Civ IV was a pretty big success? Why not build on that base?
Civ V had little need to appeal to players of Civ IV. We bought it anyway, save a handful of holdouts like myself and Ruff. If Civ 5 does not build on Civ 4, the only sales lost are those of Civ 6, which on a corporate beancounter's balance sheet of today is roughly as imminent and relevant as the market demographics of the first Mars colonists.
Civ 5 looks to have focused squarely on accumulating good press from harried reviewers (think small!) and casual players -- in short, to sell copies. Let's remember that the biggest selling PC gaming franchises of recent years are things like Bejeweled and The Sims.
Posts: 4,443
Threads: 45
Joined: Nov 2009
luddite Wrote:If you want lots of marginal cities, the order policies are the only way to go. If you have both the order social policy and the forbidden palace, every city produced 0 unhapiness. And with communism (last policy in order) every city is +5 hammers, so the city center tile produces 7 hammers. You can build fishing villages to your hearts content, with no downsides. Well, it does increase the social policy cost, but if the cities build monuments then they will cover that pretty quickly, and at that point you don't really need any more.
This is actually my preferred strategy at the moment. Take very few social policies early on, save up culture points and great scientists, beeline to the industrial era with your great scientists, and immediately take 4 policies in Order to get communism. It's wonderful how much production this adds to your empire.
Although i'm not sure if this is actually the kind of "fishing village" that you guys are talking about, or if this is actually just pure ICS. It's also only possible in the late game. For the early game, though, I like how you're not penalized for distance, so you can found cities all over the world to claim important resources. Any city that claims a new luxury resource pays for itself.
If you want to check out some CIV4 fishing villages, try this:
http://www.garath.net/Sullla/civ4_adventure2_1.html
I must try this ICS strategy once I have some time to get into CiV. 
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: 6
Threads: 0
Joined: Oct 2010
That ICS style seems like an interesting idea. Had the same thought as darreljs, somebody's got to try that with China if trying it at all. Specialist farm plus your 4 gold bonus ain't bad. I only played 1 game with China so far - anyone know if the 4g from each Paper Maker is flat bonus to total GPT, or does it get added to city GPT and then benefit from % bonus given by market/bank/stock exchange?
It seems like a kinda silly cheese tactic in a way, thinking back to Civ 3 and how tons of players would just spam crap cities with no pop and no shields all over the place. But if it works, it works, and right now I'm just interested to see how the smart players can counteract this frustrating game mechanic of medium-large empire management.
Things I'm wondering:
It seems like FP and the Order policy would probably be necessary to really overcome the happy cap. Possible to get to that policy in the first place, with city spam left and right? Someone mentioned saving up your culture and dumping in Order when you get industrialized. Might be hard to get the culture in the first place, you have to get those cities out fast if you want them, unless playing on a lower difficulty. At King I've found AI expands quite fast, except for one or two leaders in each game who seem to just space out on turn 1.
Otherwise, maybe I'm wrong and you can get away with FP only and some luxuries/colosseum to fight those angry faces. Gonna try this idea in my next game.
PS: I really like the looks of this forum, folks here seem to discuss a lot more than empty whining
Posts: 3
Threads: 0
Joined: Aug 2006
I actually had a similar idea earlier today. Playing as China on a Tiny Pangaea at Immortal, I capped city size as 5 (which is inefficiently large, yes) and put down as many as happiness could support, building only lib/col/market in each city then setting them to max gold and forgetting them forever. My artillery shelled Delhi in 920 AD for Domination Victory. Counting Delhi, Washington, and Paris, I had 15 cities at the end of the game.
Tiny map size was a tremendous advantage since I could secure more happiness resources, faster. Almost my entire army was provided by mil CS, which are certainly useful when your research far outpaces your production. I feel like on larger maps and longer games the poor culture growth and inability to build banks/universities might cause you to lag behind, but that's just a gut feeling.
Posts: 141
Threads: 4
Joined: Apr 2006
Guys, I got a silly question.
If you do not use the culture to acquire a policy immediately,let's say you save 4 of them. What happens if you expand in the meantime. Are you still able to 'claim' those policies based on the culture limit at the point of acquisition or does the limit go up as you expand? Might be important for that said communism strategy.
As for people comparing Civ5 with Civ3. I have to say Civ 3 was the ultimate bigger = better game. Additional cities never hurt you in Civ3, they at least gave 1 beaker and higher unit support. It was a great strategy to found cities that would be farmed for scientists. Once you have railroads, any irrigated grass would produce 4 food and in turn your city would be able to support many scientists though it would be totally corrupt and unable to produce anything.
By the way, I hated that ICS strategy that people used to win games. Very cheesy. But a nice expansion with many cities always felt great.
You know there is this mod called CCM, that was released not long ago. That mod (which brings Civ3 to the best level ever imho) autoproduces workers and settlers to overcome that settling frenzy period at the beginning of each game. It is a very nicely balanced idea in my mind. It makes you consider each spot you want to settle on properly. Worker actions have been slowed so you got to make proper choices for your workers too.
I felt the balance of expansion has been solved very elegant in that mod.
As for Civ5, currently I agree with many here that there is just everything stacked against you if you want to expand in a nice proper way.
Posts: 7,766
Threads: 94
Joined: Oct 2009
ThERat Wrote:Guys, I got a silly question.
If you do not use the culture to acquire a policy immediately,let's say you save 4 of them. What happens if you expand in the meantime. Are you still able to 'claim' those policies based on the culture limit at the point of acquisition or does the limit go up as you expand? Might be important for that said communism strategy.
As for people comparing Civ5 with Civ3. I have to say Civ 3 was the ultimate bigger = better game. Additional cities never hurt you in Civ3, they at least gave 1 beaker and higher unit support. It was a great strategy to found cities that would be farmed for scientists. Once you have railroads, any irrigated grass would produce 4 food and in turn your city would be able to support many scientists though it would be totally corrupt and unable to produce anything.
By the way, I hated that ICS strategy that people used to win games. Very cheesy. But a nice expansion with many cities always felt great.
You know there is this mod called CCM, that was released not long ago. That mod (which brings Civ3 to the best level ever imho) autoproduces workers and settlers to overcome that settling frenzy period at the beginning of each game. It is a very nicely balanced idea in my mind. It makes you consider each spot you want to settle on properly. Worker actions have been slowed so you got to make proper choices for your workers too.
I felt the balance of expansion has been solved very elegant in that mod.
As for Civ5, currently I agree with many here that there is just everything stacked against you if you want to expand in a nice proper way.
The cost of getting a policy is based on how many (non-puppet) cities you own at the time you choose the policy. So if you save the culture and build a bunch of cities in the meantime it's inefficient.
On the other hand, some people have pointed out that if you're going for a culture victory, save up a bunch of culture near the end, then give away almost all your cities, then buy the remaining policies you need at the discounted price!
Posts: 2,880
Threads: 16
Joined: Sep 2010
ThERat Wrote:Guys, I got a silly question.
If you do not use the culture to acquire a policy immediately,let's say you save 4 of them. What happens if you expand in the meantime. Are you still able to 'claim' those policies based on the culture limit at the point of acquisition or does the limit go up as you expand? Might be important for that said communism strategy. Yeah, like SevenSpirits said, the cost goes up with how many cities you have when you take the policy, so if you're shooting for early communism you should probably stop expanding for a while before you get there. You don't have to be TOO stingy though- any city with a monument will basically pay for itself in culture. Or you can go on a conquest rampage instead, since puppet states don't raise the culture cost. China works well for this, because of their awesome Chu-Ko-Nu unique unit and gold producing library.
Actually China works well for any strategy I try to use .
Posts: 141
Threads: 4
Joined: Apr 2006
Quote:On the other hand, some people have pointed out that if you're going for a culture victory, save up a bunch of culture near the end, then give away almost all your cities, then buy the remaining policies you need at the discounted price!
That's why I never win any tournaments, cos those exploits are not for me
Posts: 8,798
Threads: 75
Joined: Apr 2006
I'm playing a China game this way now on Emperor. It seems to me you want to keep constructing the happiness buildings. Theaters and Stadiums pay for themselves. Of course, Banks and Stock exchanges do as well. Basically this is what I am sinking my hammers into. It gets messy though. When I go a' conquering I end up razing all the bad guy cities but the capital (ouch on the 5 maintenance for Courthouses).
Does anyone know the growth formula for social policies?
Darrell
|
