Civilization 5 Announced

[luddite]

That strategy is definitely effective, although I don't think I would find any sustainable interest in that being the most effective way to play the game. It also relies on having a start position where all the land isn't going to be settled long before you can get the correct social policies in place.

If I were you, I would try to build Henge, that way you can get through your policy trees faster.

Also, this is IGN's follow-up article with a bunch of non-Civ and non-PC gamers commenting on their impressions of Civ V:

http://pc.ign.com/articles/112/1125256p1.html

Assuming those reactions are true, it seems Firaxis may have accomplished their target goal: appeal to nubcakes.

It's true that you need a certain amount of OCD and a lot of patience to make this work. I really think Firaxis must have intended for something like this to be used though- otherwise science comes so much faster than production, I can't build anything before it's obsolete.

I don't think it's absolutely critical to have a good starting location. i'm still tinkering with it, but there's no reason you couldn't combine it with an early war to kill off your nearby rivals. And the map scripts usually produce a lot of 1 tile islands which never get settled.

I'd like to build henge, but some AI always beats me too it! I think they really prioritize that wonder.

[luddite]

Krikkitone at CFC figured out the formula. Since its so much cheaper to grow small cities, I am starting to question the ICS strategy (it really does need a new name). Sure the small cities are effective, but it might be cheaper to grow them and eat the maintenance cost of the multiplier buildings.

Darrell

But the city tiles themselves are so productive (11 hammers!) you want as many as possible. Also the more basic buildings are better than the advanced ones. For example a colloseum and theater both do the same thing, but the colloseum costs lest hammers and less maintenence.

[haphazard1]

I say that to say I've gotta think I'm not the only one with a story like that right? Word of mouth is a big deal with game sales, and Firaxis could feel the weight of some bad word of mouth. Also, I've gotta think expansions tend to be high on profits, since the cost of developing an expansion is significantly lower than the cost of developing a core game from scratch. So if plenty of Civ4 vets buy Civ5, but get sick of the game before an expansion is even released, that would hurt sales quite a bit. Maybe I'm overestimating the financial value of expansions though...

Yes, Firaxis got the short term sales. But I expect I am far from alone in putting Firaxis on the "extreme suspicion before buying" list as a result of the pathetic product that is Civ V. If they are planning to sell DLC and expansions (and I would assume they are), they are going to have to first prove they will actually finish the core product and balance it properly.

Using the franchise's reputation to screw the existing fanbase only works once.

[haphazard1]

I played through a game using the ICS tactic that I mentioned before, and wrote a brief report on CFC. Here's the link:http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread...ost9729624

Interesting game, luddite.

I have to say this looks like an effective approach. It is also an approach I have zero interest in attempting. Reading the comments at Civ Fanatics...wow. "This is how the game is meant to be played" -- really? "Cool and exciting new strategy" -- And the person who liked it because it "wasn't too gimmicky" --

No offense to luddite -- he played a great game and has found something that beats (breaks, really) the system. But "the way the game was meant to be played"? I sure hope this isn't what the dev team intended.

[Sareln]

And me!

And me .

[Sullla]

Since the development team specifically has stated that they wanted to make a game that allowed small empires to be competitive, I'm pretty sure that this isn't what they intended. It's hilarious/tragic how the game they actually created doesn't reflect their vision at all. I've been thinking along the same lines as you, luddite: all of the benefits accruing to the center tile, and the fact that more advanced buildings are identical/weaker than the basic ones, means that city-spamming with low population is the right strategy. I really think we're going to see this become the dominant gameplay style moving forward... which probably means I won't be playing too much Civ5.

I need to finish up my own Immortal game and write it up, which was essentially a less effective version of luddite's game. Differences were:

* I played as China, not France, and had a lot less culture available.
* There was only a single city-state available for me to use - Maritime, thank god - which really limited what I could do. I easily could have allied with two or three more; would have been really nice to have some extra culture.
* I put my policies into Patronage (2) and Rationalism (3), and had extremely few policies available from saving them in the early game. I think luddite's use of Liberty + Order was much more effective.
* More seriously, there were three AIs on my continent: France, Germany, and England. Napoleon already killed England 85 turns into the game, and Germany was dead by turn 120. I had no choice but to fight a very lengthy series of wars with France to reign in the runaway AI, and that pulled me into the military part of the tree bigtime. I could not do the peaceful development strategy as I planned.

But overall, I still found myself with tons of production, research, and gold by cramming in lots of small cities. Once I had razed my way across the continent - and built courthouses in three capital cities, ugh! - happiness was no issue. I just need to invade the other continent with my rifles and artillery and frigates, and the thing will be over.

There's another really interesting thread at CivFanatics worth checking out: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=388046 This guy never built a second city, did some conquering and puppeted *EVERY* city, then used their free culture for a super-early Cultural victory. The key there was that he never researched the entire bottom of the tech tree - not a single tech past Bronze Working. The puppet AI could only build cultural buildings. Since Civ5 does not include puppet cities in the social policy cost, he was getting the cultural output of 12 cities while paying the social policy costs of one city. Broken, much?

I continue to be stunned at how awful the balancing is in this game. I'm not talking about obscure bugs, I mean the basic elements of this game do not work the way they're supposed to. The playtest group really dropped the ball on this one...

[Gold Ergo Sum]

Nice find Sulla. Holy crap is this game broken.

I am playing a SG in Civ IV and Civ V right now. I am far more interested in the Civ IV game, even though Civ V just came out. That says a lot.

[darrelljs]

But the city tiles themselves are so productive (11 hammers!) you want as many as possible. Also the more basic buildings are better than the advanced ones. For example a colloseum and theater both do the same thing, but the colloseum costs lest hammers and less maintenence.

I'm not saying don't found them, I'm saying maybe we shouldn't stunt them . It takes 4050 food to get 15 size 10 cities and 4800 food to get 5 size 20 and 10 size 5 cities. Same population, but 750 more food. If you specialize those size 20 cities to be science cities, the growth likely comes from river farms instead of trading posts. You are anywhere from 750g (all tile turns come pre Civil Service) to 1500g (all tile turns come post Civil Service) in the hole, which you have to make up through better use of multipliers and reduced maintenance costs.

EDIT: Okay, I just read your CFC strategy and I'm back to being convinced .

Darrell

[luddite]

I'm not saying don't found them, I'm saying maybe we shouldn't stunt them . It takes 4050 food to get 15 size 10 cities and 4800 food to get 5 size 20 and 10 size 5 cities. Same population, but 750 more food. If you specialize those size 20 cities to be science cities, the growth likely comes from river farms instead of trading posts. You are anywhere from 750g (all tile turns come pre Civil Service) to 1500g (all tile turns come post Civil Service) in the hole, which you have to make up through better use of multipliers and reduced maintenance costs.

EDIT: Okay, I just read your CFC strategy and I'm back to being convinced .

Darrell

You're putting way more calculation into this than I ever did I never bothered to calculate food yield or gold yield or anything like that. The plan was just:
1)Communism + lots of cities means lots of hammers! Settle everywhere!
2)I want an army! Everyone build infantry!
2)Oh crap, I'm running out of money! Everyone build trading posts and markets!

Sulla- I'm surprised you were able to do that without any policies in order. Did you at least build the forbidden palace? That seems like by far the best wonder in this game. Also, I really think rationalism is a sucker's play- I get all the science I want without it (without even trying, really), and technology can actually hurt you by obsoleting units which are cheaper but still effective.

[darrelljs]

Did you at least build the forbidden palace? That seems like by far the best wonder in this game.

It certainly is for this approach.

Also, I really think rationalism is a sucker's play.

I dunno...there is something to be said for BC Rifleman .

Darrell