CIV 5. Worth the money?

[Avilan the Grey]

...and also, should I get Gods And Kings if I can get a bundle cheap(ish)? I have $65 burning a hole in my pocket.

[mistformsquirrl]

Let me preface this with a statement:

I have never played any of the previous Civ games. That means Civ V was my introduction to the series - so I don't have any opinions about previous entries good or bad.

---

That said I've rather enjoyed Civ V and I feel Gods and Kings makes it a better game. It's very easy to get sucked in and just keep playing for hours and hours; whether there's a war going on or not. It's a great change of pace from Total War for me.*

I will say there's one thing that does bug me about the game:

The tech tree is... odd. One thing does not logically follow another necessarily; and the wonders can be built by anyone so you end up with stuff like say... Germany building the Great Wall. It's not a bad thing necessarily, but it is odd and bugs me slightly at times.

Overall - if you can get it cheap I highly recommend it; that said keep my initial caveat in mind.

*I love the Total War games; but there are times when I don't want to go around conquering everyone, and for those times Civ hits the spot.

[Aotrs Commander]

Eeh, it's not a bad game. It's got some really, really good ideas: the UI giving you a button to click on to do the city production is faaar better than having to be forced into the city screen every turn, especially in the late game, so you don't have to lose your train of thought when doing something important, not needing to build transports and such. The civics, the religions in the expansion, that sort of thing.

Some not so good ideas (one-unit-per hex was a pain; while stack-o'-doom was not good, stacking 1-2 units poer hex would have been better, and no limit on stacking civilian units would have been even better (since you can no longer convieniantly slap all your not-currently-used workers in one city where you can find them easily). A shorter tech tree (about 10-20 techs or so shorter in Gods and Kings compared to Beyond the Sword).

But I don't think it's better than Civ IV, just different.

I would say, though, that if you're going to, get the expansion, because it appears to make a major difference in gameplay for the better.

[Avilan the Grey]

Stuff

Sounds just like the old games too.
Also, Gods and Kings do include religion, no? This was my main reason not to buy Civ 5 from the start; l loved the Religion aspect of Civ 4.

[mistformsquirrl]

Yes, Gods and Kings is where Religion comes into play.

[Morrolan]

Very enjoyable, especially coop with friends. Civ V does many things automatically for you, but once you get the hang of the surface stuff you can dig around in the more complicated layer of the game.

Religion is very much worth it.

Also, keep in mind that Civ V is moddable, albeit not for multiplayer.

[Winthur]

I've written this a few times before, but I didn't like Civ5. I played all the previous games, my mainstays being Civ2 and Civ4. I thought Civ5 was mostly like a comeback to older games (Civ to Civ3). The issues it was plagued with upon release (multiplayer support almost non-existant, bugs, one-strategy-to-win every time, diplomacy sucked) needed a ton of patches to fix. Plus, I myself had hardware problems with running it smoothly as opposed to Civ4. :smalltongue:

I'd rather stick to Civilization 4: Beyond the Sword myself, but I guess the game is more enjoyable now that it's patched and it still has players and a fanbase. Admittedly, I don't know if the patches did the trick since I abandoned the game.

Also note I'm a tryhard, I can do Deity in Civ2 (though that's really not a feat) and Emperor in Civ4; I figure if you're a 4X game tryhard then Civ5 is a step back because it kinda limits your invention.

[Avilan the Grey]

I'd rather stick to Civilization 4: Beyond the Sword myself, but I guess the game is more enjoyable now that it's patched and it still has players and a fanbase. Admittedly, I don't know if the patches did the trick since I abandoned the game.

Also note I'm a tryhard, I can do Deity in Civ2 (though that's really not a feat) and Emperor in Civ4; I figure if you're a 4X game tryhard then Civ5 is a step back because it kinda limits your invention.

I never liked Beyond the Sword that much, although the main reason was a silly one: It removed the greatest game intro song of all time and put in that... thing instead.

I assume it has been patchead a number of times by now. Also... Tryhard? Never. I never played any Civ game outside "normal" (whatever it is called) difficulty. In fact, I never play ANY game above Normal difficulty (incidentally this might explain why I get bored with the Diablo games so quickly. Replaying the entire game at a higher difficulty is just boring, grinding for gear with the same character is only fun for so long).

[Winthur]

I never liked Beyond the Sword that much, although the main reason was a silly one: It removed the greatest game intro song of all time and put in that... thing instead.

There's a thing in the Options of the game, at least in my bundle edition (which has all the games with all the expansion packs) that lets you switch menus from BtS to Civ4 which brings Baba Yetu back.

Also, I didn't like Beyond the Sword that much myself; I tend to play without Random Events and although I don't turn off Espionage, I don't really use it either. I despise the Apostolic Palace as well. Having more civilizations and leaders to play with is always nice though.

[Storm Bringer]

to answer the question: yes, i personally think it is.

the cty states idea is a good one reasonably well implemented, that add a number of minor players into the game without them instantly becoming conquest-fodder (though that is still a valid option)

tech tree is acceptable. it's not great, but it;s not bad either.

the increased strenght of cities is, i think a change for the better, allowing a city to hold unsupported agianst a 1 unit raid and be able to stop a 3 or 4 unit attack for several turns, long enough to rush reinforcements to help. it cuts both ways, of coruse, but i find it helps me more than it hurts me,

the inability to stack units does dramaticaly change combat dynamics, and leads to genuine strategy, in that you end up planning contient spanning flank attacks rather then just battering a stack 'o doom down thier throats.

religon is, in my opinion, actually done better in this game than civ 4, with you able to customise the religion with in game effects (for example, being able to buy units using faith, or gaining extra faith for being near deserts or jungles). it makes spreading the faith much more than just a diplo bonus.

i would totally recommend getting Gods and Kings, as it adds a lot to the game. also, check out the mod scene. steam keeps showing me boatloads of intresting mods that people have thrown out (for example, letting you play on the map of A game of Thrones, or slowing tech while speeding up unit production, so you can have large battle at every age)

[CarpeGuitarrem]

I will say there's one thing that does bug me about the game:

The tech tree is... odd. One thing does not logically follow another necessarily; and the wonders can be built by anyone so you end up with stuff like say... Germany building the Great Wall. It's not a bad thing necessarily, but it is odd and bugs me slightly at times.

Hehehehe.

This is one of Civ's funny little quirks, and it pretty much extends to the whole series.

[Erloas]

I bought Civ 5 on a Steam sale some time last year, quite a while ago, but it has ended up like so many other games I have also done that with and I don't know if I played it at all. I have probably 6-10 games I've purchased that I haven't played more then 1-2 hours each, but I kind of wanted to and they were on sale so I bought them.

The short answer is that you should have asked this question a few days ago. They were on the Steam holiday sale for pretty much the entire time and up until a few days ago. Amazon had a few bundles for dirt cheap too, and I know Civ5 and the expansion where in it (along with Stronghold and Civ 4) for something like $15-20. I'm sure it would have been worth it then. We are unfortunately quite a while away from the next big Steam sale.

[Drascin]

...and also, should I get Gods And Kings if I can get a bundle cheap(ish)? I have $65 burning a hole in my pocket.

Ifyou can get both yes, if not, well, somewhat. Civ V without the expansion feels kind of incomplete. The expansion makes it into a nice little game, though.

That said, you really should've bought this a week ago. You had them both at like a 75% discount.

[RPGuru1331]

I think, on most counts, Civ V is the better game from IV, just not as expanded on yet (Civ IV vanilla vs. Civ V vanilla, that is). Although I'd love to stack my workers in a city, what I like far more is that Espionage can actually be used (Don't get me wrong, it's far less interesting than IV's, because IV had a ton of options, but V's is also actually useful and you will actually use the current iteration of spies now)


Also, Gods and Kings do include religion, no? This was my main reason not to buy Civ 5 from the start; l loved the Religion aspect of Civ 4.
Religion is so much more interesting now, IMO. You build a religion out of the resource 'faith', and get minor bonuses for following it - bonuses you choose. If you'd rather not care, you can - there's fewer religions allowed than there are players on the map, and someone else can spread it to you.

That said, whether it's worth the money, I couldn't say. I've gotten it all on massive sales.

[Winthur]

the cty states idea is a good one reasonably well implemented, that add a number of minor players into the game without them instantly becoming conquest-fodder (though that is still a valid option

I remember the city states being utterly idiotic in the release version where you could swimmingly beat the hardest difficulties by kissing up to them, not ever producing your own food, and instead relying on the food they were giving to you (the maritime ones, I believe). Though I hear it has been nerfed.

As a side note: I sorta believe that the Civ games kinda took a nosedive since Civilization Beyond The Sword. Not many people including me liked the changes in that game. Civilization 4: Colonization was a piece of garbage and not at all a good remake of a classic game. Civilization Revolution, I didn't play - but by all accounts it looked basically like old Civs, just for consoles now. And then I didn't like Civ5. Not sure if it's related to any departures from Firaxis or whatever, but some of the design choices are just iffy.

[warty goblin]

I played a bit of Civ V pre-expansion, and thought it OK. The big thing is that the one-unit per hex rule means combat no longer sucks, and city states are kinda neat. The downside, at least when I last played, is that the AI is somewhere way beyond clueless.

Personally, when it comes to one-unit-per-hex X4 games, I prefer Warlock: Master of the Arcane. The mechanics are a lot less fiddly, it doesn't lose that much depth for it, the AI has some notion of how to play, and the emphasis on advancement via on-map resources (and the choices made about those resources) is a lot more fun than a tech tree*. Sure it's fantasy instead of history, but the Civ games are more history flavored than historical anyway. Warlock genuinely does fantasy though, and allows for potent minotaur customization options.

*The two really do this from opposite directions. In Civ you research something to uncover a resource on the map, which may let you build a unit. In Warlock you find a resource on the map, then decide what to build there. Depending on the resource and the building you choose, this could let you train specific units in that specific city. Or it could unlock new purchasable perks for some unit classes.

[ObadiahtheSlim]

Pros: Hex combat and 1 UPT. Unit blocking with allies is a little annoying but can be dealt with. Finally no more Stack-O-Doom™ that just destroy everything in their path. The AI actually plays to win.

Cons: The AI actually plays to win. So it's not a question of if they will betray you, but a question of when.

[Winter_Wolf]

Tell me more about Civ V's espionage. I used spies all the time in Civ 4. Though it's entirely probable that I did so only because they rarely succeeded on the first try...or the second...or the third. Does Civ V still keep espionage spending separate from the actual treasury? Frankly that's one of my least favorite things about Civ 4. I'd have plenty of gold, but limited production capacity, even with rush buying. On the other hand, my espionage points would bottom out in two or three turns, tops. That's with dumping all my espionage into my current worst enemy.

With the no unit stacking, does that mean you can't stop units on the same tile, or does it mean that you can't even pass units through the same tile on their way to a different tile? I could live the the former, but not with the latter.

[warty goblin]

Pros: Hex combat and 1 UPT. Unit blocking with allies is a little annoying but can be dealt with. Finally no more Stack-O-Doom™ that just destroy everything in their path. The AI actually plays to win.

Cons: The AI actually plays to win. So it's not a question of if they will betray you, but a question of when.

Well, sort of. Ghengis Khan will also declare war on you when he holds a single city and his armed forces consist of three horse archers and one guy with a spear, because you built a bit too close to one of his cities in 2500 BC.

Good thing you just put the last coat of paint on your new atomic death robot.

edit:


With the no unit stacking, does that mean you can't stop units on the same tile, or does it mean that you can't even pass units through the same tile on their way to a different tile? I could live the the former, but not with the latter.
One unit per tile, but units can pass through each other. I can only think of one game off the top of my head that doesn't allow that.

[Dhavaer]

Tell me more about Civ V's espionage. I used spies all the time in Civ 4. Though it's entirely probable that I did so only because they rarely succeeded on the first try...or the second...or the third. Does Civ V still keep espionage spending separate from the actual treasury? Frankly that's one of my least favorite things about Civ 4. I'd have plenty of gold, but limited production capacity, even with rush buying. On the other hand, my espionage points would bottom out in two or three turns, tops. That's with dumping all my espionage into my current worst enemy.

Espionage doesn't cost money in Civ V. You have a number of spies depending on which age your in with bonus spies from abilities or wonders and you assign them to enemy or friendly cities to steal research or prevent other spies from stealing research.

[Forbiddenwar]

I have probably 6-10 games I've purchased that I haven't played more then 1-2 hours each, but I kind of wanted to and they were on sale so I bought them.


Off topic:
6-10? How do you manage it? I have 53 unplayed games in my Steam inventory, and that was not counting the last sale.

[factotum]

Off topic:
6-10? How do you manage it? I have 53 unplayed games in my Steam inventory, and that was not counting the last sale.

I read his comment as saying "I have loads of games that I can't remember if I've played them at all, plus these 6-10 where I've definitely put an hour or two into them", not that he only had 6-10 games on Steam that he'd played little or none of.

[Avilan the Grey]

Okay, I will get it. Now, is the GOTY edition worth ten Euros more? As far as I can tell you only get one new civilization and the rest is just maps and scenarios? And I can buy that civilization on it's own for less.

[Cristo Meyers]

Okay, I will get it. Now, is the GOTY edition worth ten Euros more? As far as I can tell you only get one new civilization and the rest is just maps and scenarios? And I can buy that civilization on it's own for less.

If that's all it has, then no, just get Babylon on it's own if you want it.

I'd really just get the game + expansion. Unless there's someone you really want in the other DLC civs I'd just wait for another sale and pick them all up on the cheap.

[Kizor]

I've played a lot of Civ games over the years. I played one game of the unexpanded Civ V back when Steam gave it a free weekend, and feel that i won too easily.

I played on Prince, and did screw around - I made one major reload in the first 150 turns and actually built myself an army, and if I recall correctly and know myself, tried out several maps and did some savescumming to keep scouts and settlers alive. So maybe I'm being unfair. But aside from that major reload, never felt like I was in serious danger of losing, which isn't promising on a first try.

[Avilan the Grey]

Well I just bought the base game and Gods and Kings. I'll buy Babylon later.

[Luzahn]

On the topic of those ~$5.00 civilization + scenario packs: they're probably not worth the money. And I have purchased all of them. :smalltongue:

Babylon is nice though. As are the Vikings.

[Cristo Meyers]

On the topic of those ~$5.00 civilization + scenario packs: they're probably not worth the money. And I have purchased all of them. :smalltongue:

Babylon is nice though. As are the Vikings.

Yeah, they're definitely not unless it's someone you just have to have.

But Civ 5 has a habit of going on sale every so often, just pick them up then when they're closer to $1-2.

Though covering the map in Maoi statues as Polynesia was hilarious to watch...

[Winter_Wolf]

On the topic of those ~$5.00 civilization + scenario packs: they're probably not worth the money. And I have purchased all of them. :smalltongue:

Babylon is nice though. As are the Vikings.

Are you saying Vikings are DLC? Whelp, so much for getting Civ V. :smallannoyed: Yep, of all possible reasons, that would be my deal breaker.

[Luzahn]

Denmark has the viking feel, with buffs to coastal raids and berserkers, and is a $5.00 DLC.

Sweden, however, is included in Gods and Kings, though they're focused on great person generation and peaceful victory, with combat focus on late renaissance.

[RPGuru1331]

I forgot to actually expand on espionage - it's less interesting in terms of its options now, no question. It made me sad that you can't do sabotage anymore. Spies can really only steal tech, grant sight, and affect City States. But the thing is? Now you don't have to spend hammers and beakers to use them. They operate independently - you get 1 spy at the Renaissance Age (2 if you're England), and 1 more each time you advance an age (Which is a nice bonus to age advancement). Spies can counterspy in your own cities, which reduces the chance of success of an enemy spy, they can hang out in enemy cities (And will steal tech over time, also finding intrigue on AI, which you can trade to the AI; say, if Caesar is planning to sneak attack Isabella). Alternately, you can send them to city states, where they'll passively affect Influence (raising yours, and dropping all other players if they succeed), or can be ordered to execute a Coup if someone else is beating you, switching your influence with their's if you succeed, and reducing all enemy civs - the spy dies on a failure. Dead spies mean you're out a spy for a few turns - they'll be hired back later, without any experience earned. Spies don't have promotion systems, just straight up levels.

I like it for being usable without making me feel stupid for using it (I really have a lot of fun with Civ IV espionage, but it's a very suboptimal use of resources), and dislike it for being less complex - notably, in that you can't engage in sabotage.

[Winthur]

I like it for being usable without making me feel stupid for using it (I really have a lot of fun with Civ IV espionage, but it's a very suboptimal use of resources),

Oh, I don't know - I remember reading a Willem van Oranje Immortal game with Great Spy economy. Now if I only could find it. :smalltongue:

[RPGuru1331]

I've done it too, but that didn't make it an optimal use of my resources. Just because I could (and did) use them and succeed doesn't really change that I could have done better if I'd put the hammers and beakers into orthodox play. But you know, it's more fun to have Lana Lane or whatever spy of your choice it is go and screw up the enemy's plan, at least for me - it's also more fun to not win in the ancient or classical eras for me too! Again, not a sign of otimal play though.

[Avilan the Grey]

Well I am officially as bad at this as always. I can never win above Warlord, on any Civ game ever. I am now playing on Chieftain, as it is my first game, and I am slightly ahead on some things and equal on others. I am just very bad at Civ games...
(to be fair I am amassing gold at an alarming rate; if this goes on I will be way ahead in later years).

Playing as Sweden, and Persia declared war on me very early, switching from Friendly to declaring war in 3 turns (I assume they are one of those who are programmed to always attack if they sense weakness). We spent most of the medieval era fighting (they sued for peace as soon as they noticed I planned to retake Helsinki, but I pressed on until I I got Helsinki back, then took the closest enemy city as well (as a puppet). Then I negotiated a peace where I got a second city as a puppet, that's how desperate they were).

I have now founded Cthulhuism, a religion that despite it's name is mostly focused on providing happiness and stability to my cities. I have also spred it to two city-states. I ended the game (for the night) at 155x (something) for the night.

[Aotrs Commander]

Well I am officially as bad at this as always. I can never win above Warlord, on any Civ game ever. I am now playing on Chieftain, as it is my first game, and I am slightly ahead on some things and equal on others. I am just very bad at Civ games...

Pssh, don't sweat it, mate. I've been playing Civ since Civ II, and I can count on the fingers of one hand how many times I've played above the bottom couple of difficulties...!

(I also save-scam like nobody's business. And I may be guilty of occasionally frequently using the editor on the world map and saving as a scenario for many of those games... So sue me. I don't usually want a challenge in my computer games...)

[Luzahn]

I generally don't play higher difficulties as well. I prefer 4 because there's no handicap for either side, but anything harder and I need to optimize too much to really enjoy building an empire.

That, and not leading in tech really bugs me.

And yeah, some Civs are programmed to be murderous bastards. That's why I always randomize AI personalities, just so I don't just always exterminate Japan or Germany.

Do note that a civ remaining friendly despite having a lot of negatives towards you is likely plotting an attack. Stock up on archers/walls. My favorite strategy there is to play fractal and fortify the entrance to a peninsula with a city. Damn near unbreakable for a rushing civ.

Also, Sweden is neat. Be friends with everyone, build tall cities, and then lay waste to the planet with Caroleans and Hakkapeliitta win a diplomatic victory.

If only I knew how to build tall cities...

[Avilan the Grey]

So... we are 6 civs on one continent. That makes me a little worried; chances are there will be a mega-civ that will win the game dominating it's own continent somewhere. At least that is what usually happened in earlier games.

Speaking of Civs... the Ethiopian(?) civ has a burning enemy castle behind the leader and he carries around a sword... And yet he is the only one that is truly friendly to me. Offers GREAT deals, has a desperate need to be my friend, and never cause any trouble at all... Is he supposed to be warlike and he just got stuck where trade was the only option? Or...? He seems quick at trying to pick fights with Cathrine the Great.

[Luzahn]

Songhai, yeah. He does tend to be a warmonger, but he never scares me as much as the other ones. Always seems to end up in a bad position, overwhelmed by better warmongers.

Check what your military adviser says about his army strength relative to yours. He could be sucking up to a bigger power for protection. Sweden should always sign as many friendships as possible without annoying people though, gives you that excellent great person boost.

[Avilan the Grey]

Songhai, yeah. He does tend to be a warmonger, but he never scares me as much as the other ones. Always seems to end up in a bad position, overwhelmed by better warmongers.

Check what your military adviser says about his army strength relative to yours. He could be sucking up to a bigger power for protection. Sweden should always sign as many friendships as possible without annoying people though, gives you that excellent great person boost.

Thank you for the advice. Btw, I don't fear Persia at the moment; mr High and Mighty has yet to spontaneously switch back to Friendly; he has been "Guarded" since his defeat. So so far I think he is sincerely watching his back and being polite out of fear.

[Avilan the Grey]

Well Chieftain is definitely too easy. I was feeling insecure and not looking at my numbers right (I didn't reach the renaissance until about the time it should have come around anyway). Darius II had after his surprise attack been very grumpy but polite, which should have told me that I was doing fine, but it wasn't until I hit the Industrial age at 1650(ish) I realized I probably was further ahead than I thought. I checked my advisors and my military advisor laughed his ass off comparing me to ALL other civs; it turned out my military score, just from the initial buildup after Darius' attack on me, was TWICE as high as the second highest civ.

So well... I decided to PWN Darius. It took 20 years and cost me 4 units. I don't have time to bother with all his cities so I only took over his capital proper, all others are puppet cities for now.

Then Cathrine declared war on me by proxy, since I had a defensive pact with whatshisname. It took a few turns to move all my forces down (It is SO annoying you can't stack units!!) but I took Novgorod in 1 turn. Then I sued for peace and demanded her to also sue for for peace with whatshisname. She was very friendly, observing that she knows defeat when she sees it and she would do what I said. Good girl.

...Now it is 1680ish, I am mainly focusing on boasting culture and religion, but Cathrine just declared war on Isabella, who I always hated in 4. She has been threatening to me too, so I figure next time I start a 3 against 1 war against spain since whatshisface hates her too. And I rather enjoy having Cathrine around... Hopefully she likes me better if I help her take over spain.

[ObadiahtheSlim]

I don't mind Izzy in Civ 4. She will love you to death if you share a religion with her and she will often build the AP for me.

[Luzahn]

Do note that your cultural policies take a good deal longer to adopt with each city you found. Culture victories are usually done with 3-4 cities. The same goes for great people.

And have you played with Caroleans yet? Those guys are unstoppable, and they replace riflemen.

[Avilan the Grey]

Do note that your cultural policies take a good deal longer to adopt with each city you found. Culture victories are usually done with 3-4 cities. The same goes for great people.

Hence puppets. Although I haven't really planned how I will win.

[Majiy]

I did play every single version of Civ since part 1, including part 5, but not its expansion (which sounds interesting).

My oppinion is that Civ 5 is a good game of its own, it just doesn´t "feel" like Civ anymore.

My all time favourite is definitely Civ 4, which also has some great mods: For exampe "Base Mod" replaced every leader-ability, every wonder and most buildings with completely new ones, which are much more balanced then in the original Civ 4. Or if you prefer a fantasy setting, you can use the "Fall from Heaven 2" Mod. Both are free.