Just... One... More... Turn... (Civilization V)

[Sophistemon]

So, call me late to the party, but a friend from work suggested that I purchase Civilization V while Steam had it on sale, and I did. My decision to do so was based largely on the fond memories that I have of Sid Meier's Alpha Centauri, which I started playing in the '90s and didn't stop playing until it until my third-newest computer was unable to run it any longer. Anyway, Civilization V is awesome and I've loved every second of every game, of which there have already been quite a few.

I'm currently playing a game as King Pachacuti of the Incas and very much enjoying my seemingly endless supply of gold.

[warty goblin]

I've played exactly one game of Civ V, and I definitely like it more than Civ IV. Combat is no longer painful, the move to hexes is a godsend, and I heartily approve of pretty much the entire package.

Also city states are totally awesome. Like one of the most interesting features I've seen in a 4X game for a long time awesome. Although what exactly early Victorian Stockholm wanted with uranium I'm not sure...

[Gaius Marius]

I liked Civ V a lot, but I believe it could be so much more. Things like dynamic use of luxury resources (need more for larger empire, decreasing marginal happiness effect) or food resources (same) would have been great. Also, awesome idea to have the natural development path of cultural tiles, but why put a hard limit of 3 distances?

If my city is on the edge of the desert, it will expand far away from it. Cultural cost for grabbing territory should be based on a function of easy accessibility (hills, mountains, forest, jungle make it harder) and distance from the expanding city. So if I build a road, my city's development will follow the path of least resistance and expand along the road. Or along a vale. Or a river. Until I build a bridge, cross-river development would be much impeded.

Also, it be nice to see Cities gobble up more hexes themselves. Like 1 hex/5-7 pop size

[Closet_Skeleton]

You know what really bugged me about this game? Why do chariot archers on flat ground feel like they go faster than all the later units. I've never compared them directly but they seem faster than mechanised infantry.


Although what exactly early Victorian Stockholm wanted with uranium I'm not sure...

Probably curing achne. That's the sort of thing the (late) Victorians thought uranium did.


I liked Civ V a lot, but I believe it could be so much more. Things like dynamic use of luxury resources (need more for larger empire, decreasing marginal happiness effect)

What do you mean?

If you mean that its not fair that limited resources are a limit for big cultures then that's just silly. They're limited resources after all. Expanding into resource rich areas should balance out expansionist civilisations needing more stuff anyway. Russia (the culture that got the most territory in real life) has a bonus for that so just play them if you want to be rediculously big.



Also, it be nice to see Cities gobble up more hexes themselves. Like 1 hex/5-7 pop size

If you take the right cultural tree thingy then you can get loads of hexes from a small number of cities.

[Gaius Marius]

1- What do you mean?

If you mean that its not fair that limited resources are a limit for big cultures then that's just silly. They're limited resources after all. Expanding into resource rich areas should balance out expansionist civilisations needing more stuff anyway. Russia (the culture that got the most territory in real life) has a bonus for that so just play them if you want to be rediculously big.



2- If you take the right cultural tree thingy then you can get loads of hexes from a small number of cities.

1- its silly that a single source of diamonds provide the same happiness to a 1-city empire than a 20-cities one. If non-military resources were numbered like the military ones, we could have a game of resource stockpile added to the strategy and diplomacy.

And as for diminishing returns, I simply meant this: let's say it takes 1 unit of luxury resource to increase the happiness of 10 population by 1 (you'd need TotPop/10 for +1 happiness). Then, if you accumulate ennough of that luxury, you could potentially give yourself a +2 bonus. But it would be costlier to do so. Instead of TotPop/10, now you'd need TotPop/8. So if you have 4 diamonds and 20 population, it would make sense to trade part of these diamonds to get a different resource to profit from a better happiness boon.

It would allow players to get themselves better bonus with large resource advantages, but also would still incite trade. I just find it silly that I can sit on twice as much incense as there are players in the world and have no benefit from this abundance.

2- no, I meant the city hex themselves. They should expand. Have partial pillaging possible.

[Leecros]

Interesting...i've been listening in on Civ V and a lot of what i hear is that it seems to be lacking a bit.

Based on what i've read thus far, i may have to reassess my decision on buying it or not.

[warty goblin]

Interesting...i've been listening in on Civ V and a lot of what i hear is that it seems to be lacking a bit.

Based on what i've read thus far, i may have to reassess my decision on buying it or not.

Most of the complaints I've read boil down the AI not being very good. Suits me OK, I've never been very good at Civ either, and I simply lack the time required to really appreciate a good AI anyways.

Well, there's also the endless whinging that it isn't Civ IV, but that's just silly. It's a different game, of course it should actually be, you know, different.

[Starwulf]

Most of the complaints I've read boil down the AI not being very good. Suits me OK, I've never been very good at Civ either, and I simply lack the time required to really appreciate a good AI anyways.

Well, there's also the endless whinging that it isn't Civ IV, but that's just silly. It's a different game, of course it should actually be, you know, different.

Hmm, the main complaint I've heard is the move to the Hex-Grid. No-one I know that plays liked that particular move. That coupled with general complaints I've heard, I haven't bothered with it, though I've been tempted recently when I saw it at a store for like 25 bucks.

[warty goblin]

Hmm, the main complaint I've heard is the move to the Hex-Grid. No-one I know that plays liked that particular move. That coupled with general complaints I've heard, I haven't bothered with it, though I've been tempted recently when I saw it at a store for like 25 bucks.

Weird, the hex grid is, to my thinking, a vast improvement. Maps are more naturalistic, movement is more sensible, and it plays much nicer with the new battle system than squares would. It's not how the previous Civs did things, but that hardly means squares are always better for a Civ game.

[Folytopo]

Several of the other problems were that there were not interesting choices to make in terms of improving your cities or the strategy of developing your civ. In certain patches before the building re balances wide empires outperformed tall empires by a large margin and after a certain point most infrastructure was worthless.

[Starwulf]

Several of the other problems were that there were not interesting choices to make in terms of improving your cities or the strategy of developing your civ. In certain patches before the building re balances wide empires outperformed tall empires by a large margin and after a certain point most infrastructure was worthless.

Oooh, I remembered another complaint. You can't stack multiple military units per square(well, hex). That right there is something that turns me off, having to manage each military unit instead of click a square and commanding every single unit contained within to move would get tiresome.Also would make attacking cities rather annoying as well

[warty goblin]

Oooh, I remembered another complaint. You can't stack multiple military units per square(well, hex). That right there is something that turns me off, having to manage each military unit instead of click a square and commanding every single unit contained within to move would get tiresome.Also would make attacking cities rather annoying as well

Actually it makes attacking cities far less of a drag than in previous games, because while you can only put one unit per hex, the same applies to your opponent. Now instead of having to fight through the six combined army groups they undoubtedly have piled up in any city worth attacking, you need to wear down just the one. Cities themselves count as units too now, so they get to shoot back, which I personally really like.

Managing armies in the field really isn't a huge issue either, mostly because of the hex grid. I at least find it far easier to move guys around on than a rectangular grid, and since the game incorporates ranged attack as a mechanic, you can bring force to bear quite efficiently. This is particularly true for attacking cities since you can form up your artillery two or three hexes away (depending on your tech) and bombard away. It captures the flavor of a siege much better than ramming one stack of death into another a single unit at a time.

Short version, I actually find war fun in Civ V. In previous Civs I avoided it like the plague because it was just too damn boring.

[warty goblin]

Oooh, I remembered another complaint. You can't stack multiple military units per square(well, hex). That right there is something that turns me off, having to manage each military unit instead of click a square and commanding every single unit contained within to move would get tiresome.Also would make attacking cities rather annoying as well

Actually it makes attacking cities far less of a drag than in previous games, because while you can only put one unit per hex, the same applies to your opponent. Now instead of having to fight through the six combined army groups they undoubtedly have piled up in any city worth attacking, you need to wear down just the one. Cities themselves count as units too now, so they get to shoot back, which I personally really like.

Managing armies in the field really isn't a huge issue either, mostly because of the hex grid. I at least find it far easier to move guys around on than a rectangular grid, and since the game incorporates ranged attack as a mechanic, you can bring force to bear quite efficiently. This is particularly true for attacking cities since you can form up your artillery two or three hexes away (depending on your tech) and bombard away. It captures the flavor of a siege much better than ramming one stack of death into another a single unit at a time.

Short version, I actually find war fun in Civ V. In previous Civs I avoided it like the plague because it was just too damn boring.

[Gaius Marius]

Agreed. The hex-based, but one unit per tile is really funnier to play. Combats is much more strategic than before. But there is one massive flaw:

I feel the game would be much richer with a map design to the scale of Erebus. We need more define mountains, valley and deserts.

Also, I think there should be smaller tactical hexes for units. But that's just me nitpicking.

[factotum]

I've only played Civ V for about an hour, so can't really judge its differences to 4 that well--I will say that I found the UI to be really, really bad, though. I liked the separate city screen in Civ 4 which made it a lot easier (IMHO) to sort out orders and see at a glance which tiles were being worked. Hex grid makes sense, but why can you only have one troop on each hex now? I did like the new system of social engineering, though--it reminded me of the system from Alpha Centauri.

I really need to try playing again and see if I can really get into it...

[Cespenar]

Hex grid and the one-unit-per-hex rule were my favorite changes in Civ 5, probably. Compared to the loldeathstacks of the earlier games, the combat became more tactical now. Especially the modern era wars, with tens of types of different units, suddenly are fun to play.

What I'd love is if the combat would be made even more tactical, with heavier and more common use of circumstance bonuses, maybe giving some special abilities to Great People, etc., but I very much doubt the next game would go that way.

[polity4life]

My only complaint with this game is that if you decide to move a unit to a location that will take multiple turns and you eschew micromanaging each hex unit, your unit will take the derpiest route that likely puts it on the sea right next to a city or enemy ship so that it is destroyed.

Other than that I enjoy this game thoroughly. The last Civ game I played was Revolutions...so the last real Civ game I played was III and I'd rather have rusty metal shoved into all of my orifices than play that again. Suffice it to say, this is a marked improvement in terms of enjoyment and replayability for me.

[ObadiahtheSlim]

The AI seems a bit dumber. They can't properly manage 1upt and it's less of when they will go to war with you, but when. Also that negative hit for "we think you are trying to win the same way we are" is complete BS. It's turn 15, how could you possibly know what win I am going for!?

The hexes were a godsend and I love them. Still the 1upt is both good and bad. The worst is how it lets the AI completely block your movement. The best is no more Stack-O-Doom. The 1 damage minimum brings back the problem of spearman beats tank. 10 spears will always kill a tank. No more drill tanks taking 0 damage... :smallfurious:

[Cespenar]

The 1 damage minimum brings back the problem of spearman beats tank. 10 spears will always kill a tank. No more drill tanks taking 0 damage... :smallfurious:

Though with the new system, getting 10 spearmen to attack a tank in the same round is a challenge on its own.

[Closet_Skeleton]

The main problem with the damage system is that bombers always suffer damage on their raids. Watching a french muskateer throw a heat seeking molotov cocktail at a B-15 is odd to say the least.


Most of the complaints I've read boil down the AI not being very good. Suits me OK, I've never been very good at Civ either, and I simply lack the time required to really appreciate a good AI anyways.

If you play with max number of AI nations then the game becomes really hard as one of them (often Persia) usually turns into a super empire by absorbing idiotic civs and can also outtech everyone and get to space in 1950.


Though with the new system, getting 10 spearmen to attack a tank in the same round is a challenge on its own.

Not really. Just line them up on a railroad. Until the tank suffers enough damage that it can't one shot spearmen there really isn't any maneuvering problem at all.

[warty goblin]

The main problem with the damage system is that bombers always suffer damage on their raids. Watching a french muskateer throw a heat seeking molotov cocktail at a B-15 is odd to say the least.

For something as high level and abstract as a Civ game, I tend to think of damage as a combination of casualties, expended munitions, worn out equipment, combat fatigue, and so forth. Thus always taking one damage is acknowledging that no matter how one sided the fighting, you're going to have to pull back and refit your armies at some point, otherwise they'll simply wear out. Also since even late in the game each turn represents a year, it isn't hard to imagine that little battle actually being a fairly lengthy campaign.

The graphical representation is somewhat...odd though, there's no denying that.

[Cespenar]

Not really. Just line them up on a railroad. Until the tank suffers enough damage that it can't one shot spearmen there really isn't any maneuvering problem at all.

One would think that if you're using spearmen, you'd probably have roads instead railroads, but I'm to blame for calling anything "a challenge" or "hard" on the internet.

[ObadiahtheSlim]

Antiquated units that you never upgraded but kept around for the +1 happy from garrisons? With bombers the problem is still there. Every attack incurs at least 1 damage. Air repair is a must have if you want to have any kind of sustained attacks with them.

[Winthur]

Interesting...i've been listening in on Civ V and a lot of what i hear is that it seems to be lacking a bit.

Based on what i've read thus far, i may have to reassess my decision on buying it or not.

The main problem with Civ5 for me was the fact that it's a game which took a design flaw in the knee and therefore - at least upon release - it was easy to master even on hard difficulties, once you've found the best strategy. Said strategy involved kissing up to the city states and reaping benefits from them while spamming cities. It was the most optimal way to play because those "maritime city states" were really easy to befriend and they would just give you food for free, more than you'd ever be able to get on your own by growing your own fields. Since I tend to play Civ games pretty seriously, it kind of left a bad taste in my mouth.

To me Civ5 just felt like a big step backwards into Civ2 and 3, which are good games as well (and I love Civ2), but it also shares some of their flaws.

I haven't been following the patch history but if the game is still as solvable as it was and things like diplomacy are simplified to the point of being either completely irrelevant of your decisions (because you couldn't really even know the current diplomatic status you had with other civs, which led to erratic gameplay).

In the end I'm a Civ4 nerd and not really fond of Civ5, it has some cool stuff but not really my kind of game. Take what I think with a grain of salt. Then again I have a weird feeling that the more recent addons to the Civilization franchise have been kind off off-guard - I hated a bunch of the changes in Beyond the Sword and Civilization 4: Colonization was a disaster. Maybe I just hate new stuff. :smalltongue:

[Volthawk]

Civ 5 is pretty fun, but I think I prefer Civ IV, but that's mostly because of Fall From Heaven II.

[Binks]

As an owner of Civ 3, 4 and 5 I have to say I find 5 the most fun. It's a bit easier than IV (not a bad thing in my book, as I think IV was the hardest civ I've played) but it's fun, the new combat system is far better than the old stacks of death system (I find myself enjoying wars now, as strategic placement of units and consideration of terrain types matter a lot with 1 unit per hex), the social policies system isn't any worse than the other civ's attempts at a social/cultural/religious bonus system, and the game is classic civ fun.

Pro:
New combat system is far better than any of the older civ's combat systems.
Social Policies are a decent implementation of the social/cultural/religious system.

Con:
There is a bit less depth in terms of city locations with the loss of distance penalties.
City States aren't the best implemented system (they work fairly well for livening up the map, adding lots of little guys too it, but they're too easy to manipulate and the bonuses are too big).

[GungHo]

Well, there's also the endless whinging that it isn't Civ IV, but that's just silly. It's a different game, of course it should actually be, you know, different.
I'm upset that it's not SMAC 2.

I also missed Leonard Nemoy's Famous Technology Quotes. (Which I also liked in SMAC.)

[Closet_Skeleton]

One would think that if you're using spearmen, you'd probably have roads instead railroads,

Your enemy has tanks. Use his railways.

[Cespenar]

Your enemy has tanks. Use his railways.

So... you're on the offensive. With spearmen, against tanks.

Okay, cool. No problem.

[Dhavaer]

Your enemy has tanks. Use his railways.

You can't use railroads or roads in enemy territory.

[Closet_Skeleton]

So... you're on the offensive. With spearmen, against tanks.

Okay, cool. No problem.

Might as well go down fighting :smallbiggrin:


You can't use railroads or roads in enemy territory.

Can't you? They always seem to help me. Not that I've literally checked.

[Winthur]

Can't you? They always seem to help me. Not that I've literally checked.

You can't. Civ4 started that because of massive stacks of doom declaring war on the enemy and using their (rail)roads for conquests that AI had no chance to win (since the AI would never recognize that you were amassing forces on the border against them while still at peace). Suddenly tanks on railroad commit genocide on you. Or in case of Civ2, mass Diplomats/Spies.

[Murska]

Well, all you need to do is make it no longer be his territory. :smallamused:

[Grif]

Well, all you need to do is make it no longer be his territory. :smallamused:

I'm sure trying to take cities with spearmen poses a whole load of challenges of its own. :smalltongue:

[Dienekes]

Fun game, only real complaint I have is conquering cities seems to make your countrymen dislike you for some reason.

I know it's supposed to be the unhappiness of the people you just conquered. But if there was a completely enslave and supplant the native population for less happiness fall option, I would take it every time.

[Mobius Twist]

Technically, if you have high cultural influence over the conquered peoples, the period and intensity of unhappiness is far lower. This does involve the tourism-as-cultural-offense mechanic from the expansion packs.

[Dienekes]

Technically, if you have high cultural influence over the conquered peoples, the period and intensity of unhappiness is far lower. This does involve the tourism-as-cultural-offense mechanic from the expansion packs.

Puh, high culture? Culture is for people who don't have a barbarian fueled German army of gargantuan proportions.

[Mobius Twist]

I was playing a game recently on a full-sized Earth map as Babylon.

Middle difficulty (4) and I chose to self-restrict to a single city and go as tall as possible toward a science victory.

Unfortunately for me, while Babylon excels at an early victory rush, by the end I was finding myself neck-and-neck with a Sweden who, while friendly toward me, had taken over half the map and so could easily outdo me in research through width.

I had no use for spies stealing anything, so I put diplomats into every single capital city I could: keeping track of their progress and being able to influence them was nice.

The whole thing came to a head in the mid-2000s when Sweden and I were both producing the last component for the spaceship. I was 5 turns away. They were 8 turns away.

Then one turn later their capital city (which I was watching and which DID NOT INCREASE ITS PRODUCTION) was 2 turns away from completing the rocket. WTFWTHBBQ. I lost by 1 turn in the end after sacrificing all other efforts in a pinch production race. It hurt.

And that's the story of how I found out that the AI literally cheats. I don't think I'll play single-city tall ever again. Even my Venice game was easier because I could bribe other civs into destroying each other and then out-vote them for planetary leader.

[Illven]

I was playing a game recently on a full-sized Earth map as Babylon.

Middle difficulty (4) and I chose to self-restrict to a single city and go as tall as possible toward a science victory.

Unfortunately for me, while Babylon excels at an early victory rush, by the end I was finding myself neck-and-neck with a Sweden who, while friendly toward me, had taken over half the map and so could easily outdo me in research through width.

I had no use for spies stealing anything, so I put diplomats into every single capital city I could: keeping track of their progress and being able to influence them was nice.

The whole thing came to a head in the mid-2000s when Sweden and I were both producing the last component for the spaceship. I was 5 turns away. They were 8 turns away.

Then one turn later their capital city (which I was watching and which DID NOT INCREASE ITS PRODUCTION) was 2 turns away from completing the rocket. WTFWTHBBQ. I lost by 1 turn in the end after sacrificing all other efforts in a pinch production race. It hurt.

And that's the story of how I found out that the AI literally cheats. I don't think I'll play single-city tall ever again. Even my Venice game was easier because I could bribe other civs into destroying each other and then out-vote them for planetary leader.

Were they order. They might have rushed the part with a GE.

[Mobius Twist]

Sweden was Order, so I suppose it's possible. Still cheating.:smallbiggrin:

[Sharoth]

I eventually need to pick up Civ V.

[VoxRationis]

What's the point of Austria in Civ V? They're supposed to be geared towards a diplomatic victory, supposedly, but their ability actively deprives them of diplomatic votes, and the fact that you can't do it to city-states that will be your allies for one or two turns only just makes it worse—you only annex long-term allies. Their unique unit is cavalry, but if I am not mistaken the civilization's start bias is geared towards mountains, which naturally reduce the efficacy of cav units. Does anyone play as Austria?

[darksolitaire]

What's the point of Austria in Civ V? They're supposed to be geared towards a diplomatic victory, supposedly, but their ability actively deprives them of diplomatic votes, and the fact that you can't do it to city-states that will be your allies for one or two turns only just makes it worse—you only annex long-term allies. Their unique unit is cavalry, but if I am not mistaken the civilization's start bias is geared towards mountains, which naturally reduce the efficacy of cav units. Does anyone play as Austria?

Well, Coffee Houses can be build on cities with hills, unlike windmills which they replace, which is great for added production. As for Hussars, I think it's just because they're most famous Austrian military unit.

[Winter_Wolf]

Civ V is really a mixed bag for me. It took a long time to like it but at the point where I've spent money on a game, I'm gonna make an effort to get some enjoyment out of it. I bought it as the Complete version on a Steam sale so I've got all the DLC and expansions, and I must say there are some real balance issues. Some civs are so obviously better that it's almost like cheating, eg Polynesia. Talk about just steamrolling, damn. And I'm no great tactician, but I have to play on King just to get a decent game, because the easier levels the other civs just will not trade resources or luxuries even when it's massively to their advantage. Like Russia going, "sure we'll give you one unit of horse in exchange for all twenty of your oil resources, half your iron, and you better not forget the coal!" I wish that were exaggeration, but it happened. And I didn't even want horses. :smallsigh::smallannoyed: Like the low level AI is just trolling players or something.

Its just that it's hard to form much of an opinion on things because it's all just so ambivalent. But I've played to the finish a few times, late game a few times, and mostly just a hundred turns most times because some civs just don't do it for me.

[Illven]

Civ V is really a mixed bag for me. It took a long time to like it but at the point where I've spent money on a game, I'm gonna make an effort to get some enjoyment out of it. I bought it as the Complete version on a Steam sale so I've got all the DLC and expansions, and I must say there are some real balance issues. Some civs are so obviously better that it's almost like cheating, eg Polynesia. Talk about just steamrolling, damn. And I'm no great tactician, but I have to play on King just to get a decent game, because the easier levels the other civs just will not trade resources or luxuries even when it's massively to their advantage. Like Russia going, "sure we'll give you one unit of horse in exchange for all twenty of your oil resources, half your iron, and you better not forget the coal!" I wish that were exaggeration, but it happened. And I didn't even want horses. :smallsigh::smallannoyed: Like the low level AI is just trolling players or something.

Its just that it's hard to form much of an opinion on things because it's all just so ambivalent. But I've played to the finish a few times, late game a few times, and mostly just a hundred turns most times because some civs just don't do it for me.

You sure you don't mean Poland. Polynesia sucks.

[darksolitaire]

You sure you don't mean Poland. Polynesia sucks.

Polynesia is also ridiculously overpowered in Archipelagos or islands.

[factotum]

and I must say there are some real balance issues. Some civs are so obviously better that it's almost like cheating, eg Polynesia.

I don't think it's intended to be balanced--that would be effectively impossible when you have so many civs anyway. You can get a bigger challenge by trying to win with a lower power civ--for instance, try playing your King game as Venice and then come here and say it was too easy! :smallsmile:

As for the trading thing, that might just have been because Russia didn't like you very much and thus didn't really want to trade with you except on the most favourable terms.

[The_Snark]

As for the trading thing, that might just have been because Russia didn't like you very much and thus didn't really want to trade with you except on the most favourable terms.

Ayup. I don't think the difficulty directly affects what the AIs are willing to give you in trade - that's dependent on diplomatic relations. Generally speaking, they won't accept an even trade unless a) they like you a lot, or b) it was their idea in the first place. (Sometimes both.) A neutral AI will want any trades to obviously favor them; if they actually dislike you, it's usually not worth bothering.

The AI can't actually evaluate a situation and come up with a strategy, so the game writers tried to write a set of guidelines that correlate with good strategy, with mixed success. This produces quirks in situations that those guidelines don't cover, or that are too complex for the AI to recognize. For instance: an ally AI asks if you'll join them in their war on a far-off enemy, you accept for diplomatic reasons and send no military units whatsoever, and twenty turns later the enemy shows up offering you a city. You're at war, you have a high military score, therefore you must be a threat...

Or: you offer an even trade of luxury resources, and they refuse because they don't have spares and guidelines say that trading away the last copy of a luxury is Bad. A player might consider it, because if you're getting a different luxury you're breaking even at worst, with possible gains depending on your city-state quests, city-state allies, and/or what resources your cities want.

[Winter_Wolf]

You sure you don't mean Poland. Polynesia sucks.
Polynesia and Kamehameha, Poland never did much for me really.

I don't think it's intended to be balanced--that would be effectively impossible when you have so many civs anyway. You can get a bigger challenge by trying to win with a lower power civ--for instance, try playing your King game as Venice and then come here and say it was too easy! :smallsmile:

As for the trading thing, that might just have been because Russia didn't like you very much and thus didn't really want to trade with you except on the most favourable terms.

Russia might be predisposed to hating my player guts then. Most other civs would at least play ball, but I maintain that there's not much opportunity for decent trade at lower difficulty. Then again civs would get weird if I tried to just give them things sometimes too. But thinking on it that might just be all Civ games, I got a lot of that in IV too.

Also I said "decent" game not "easy". ;)

[Gray Mage]

I remember reading somewhere that the more diference you have in score with other civs, the more they try and make the deal more in their favour. So higher dificulties would mean a more even score (or even in the AI's favour in the early game) and thus even trades. Couldn't say where I read it or even if it's true, but it matches my experience with later in the game almost every civ demanding more and more.

Not very sure about the meta of Civ V, but I quite like the Celts. I think the early faith to be helpfull early on and very flexible too. :smallsmile:

[VoxRationis]

The lack of reasonably diplomatic AIs is one of the things that bothers me about this game (as well as the fact that you can't set a city free). Not only do your "friends" leech resources from you at all times, you can't ask for any from them, or they'll get huffy about it. And the peace deals are ridiculous! You have to be winning by an incredibly one-sided margin before they start offering simple ceasefires. All too often has someone attacked me, only for my armies to effortlessly destroy their entire attack force, and when I go to the negotiating table, I find that they, in spite of having no chance to win, will only stop attacking me if I surrender a significant portion of my empire.

That said, I think BNW improved things a bit, in my experience. The AIs are slightly more reasonable now.

[factotum]

The lack of reasonably diplomatic AIs is one of the things that bothers me about this game (as well as the fact that you can't set a city free).

What do you mean by setting a city free? If you conquer a city that used to belong to someone other than the civ you took it from, you can *totally* return it to its original owners if you choose to do so. If you mean "set it free" as in "turn it into a city-state", I'm really not sure why you'd want to...

[darksolitaire]

You can also sell any city you have, including those you just conquered. Selling them to your allies or far away civs so you can set up a trade route can be very beneficial. Plus, sometimes a civ will raze the city without you having to and paying you for it.

[VoxRationis]

If you mean "set it free" as in "turn it into a city-state", I'm really not sure why you'd want to...

Mostly it bothers me because it makes it impossible to imitate the loss of centralized control and/or the process of decolonization, not because I particularly want to. However, there are plenty of times when having a city-state ally would be more advantageous than having another city: when your happiness is too low, when the city isn't profitable, when you want to boost Great Person production, when you want to cause vote inflation in the World Congress to sabotage the current diplomatic leader...