I watched your gameplay video. The reason why other civs wouldn't trade with you was because you had the warmonger penalty for taking a city. The reason why washington said he couldn't offer you anything for the free resource you offered him meant that he could not afford to give enough to "match" or equal the value of the good you were offering him
Milk of human kindness en.mmoga.net/Steam-Games/Civilization-V-5-Complete-Edition.html?ref=392¤cy=USD its not the official steam store but it looks good for 13 bucks :)
I played as the ottomans and I had the omni furor teutonicus mod activated. I captured like,millions of galleys and ships,took over dozens of barbarian encampments and went to war with Napoleon. My navy tore the enemies apart and I got beaten on land combat....until I had to dig in for city defense (land). I ripped the oncoming hordes of archers and pikemen by bombarding them with my catapult,city and archers. I love that mod :D
I actually miss stacks of doom. you will never know the pant shitting fear of seeing an elephant pop up near one of your cities, and then the next turn seeing five more elephants pop out of it. Truly terrifying.
***** Well yes. But once you get into it, you will not regret it. Also, Crusader kings II is by far one of the best player driven story games. A story is born from the mechanics of the game.
***** You just have to find the right time, when to sink yourself in. I did not look at any tutorials, I just kind of figured stuff out. Even though it looks comlicated, it is damn fun!
I do find the other civs to be infuriating. None of them are ever truly your allies, the denouncing circles are annoying, and they drag you into war if you don't spend all your gold and turns on your goddamn military. The game forces me to build units I don't need when I go for peaceful culture victories.
Peacekeeper. Just destroy the pesky neighbors, and the remaining civilizations will keep their distance. Also, if you focus on one civilization to please, you can Infact make alliances. I partnered up with Napoleon my last session and took down England together.
I had experience with Civ III in the past and I bought Civ 5 on the steam sale a couple days ago. I played the game all night, then got up at 7 AM, went to the doctor's office for an appointment, picked up some breakfast on the drive back, and then got on Civ V again while I ate breakfast. 15 hours later, it was the year 1950 and I had unlocked Nukes, just in case the little shit Napoleon, the last other civ (Who luckily isn't on the same landmass as me) gets pissy while I wait out the 2050 victory. As I write this it is the evening of the next day. I haven't slept in 2 days and I'm still not totally sure why I'm writing this comment instead of finishing my civ game
The Japanese soundtrack you mention is actually traditional Siamese. Look it up if you don't believe me. Apparently the game plays soundtrack accordingly to your race. I played Siamese and I also kept hearing Chinese chimes in the background.
one easy awesome way to fix the diplomacy is to be able to tell them where to help you out. The AI often doesn't help there allies much, and just chills somewhere else.
I love Civ V!! Best strategy game, I'm soo addictive to it but I have been trying to find someone who can tell me if there are any other games like this. I mean, Civ V is very addictive but I just wish you can do more like more in-depth diplomacy. That game called Europa Universalis has very in-depth diplomacy and etc but I really don't like how the game looks. I guess, I'm just too addictive to Civ V and how the mechanics are played but would like to find something just as good or better than Civ V but I am afraid to waste my money, trying to find a decent one on Steam. Could really use the help from fellow Civ V players to help me decide I guess.
Ti Ng Yea, I hear that alot but the graphics ugh lol and people say the deathstack of units is not a good thing. Sounds like cheating to me for the AI.
You can give the Total War series a try. Shogun 2 Total War and Rome Total War 2 are pretty good. It's more about strategically directing units in war than it is creating an empire, but it's as close as you're likely to get.
Alex Mercer Yeah, I was checking them out. Only one that sparks interest is Rome Total War 2 but I'm thinking of going with the Europa Universalis games. I think those more fit me because it has more in-depth diplomacy and managing your nation and going to war is much better than just a full war game only. I would still check out Rome but EU sounds more for my liking.
why do I have to sign in to RU-vid 3 times before I can write a comment? Now that I finally can, I had the hardest time being a military nation in Civ5
While I have the greatest respect for Joe's channel and reviews, this is an embarrassing review by someone who doesn't have a clue about the game or the franchise and clearly didn't understand what he was doing or seeing when he played the game. As I'll say in the following paragraph, don't take my word for it - along with pretty much all of the hardcore (top-ranked) players of previous iterations of the franchise who almost universally gave Civ 5 dismal reviews, the main game designer (Jon Schaffer) utlimately said Civ 5 is a deeply flawed game and he's not happy with it! I wish that Joe would remove this review, as it doesn't do justice to the overall excellence of his channel. I'll put this up front as well, because this comment will get a lot of hate from people who love playing Civ 5 and think I'm insulting them by saying this game is stupid, even though I'm just repeating what the Chief Game Designer said about his own game. Look, I freely admit that I like reading schlocky pulp sci fi stories. I think they're a reasonably fun way to pass the time on an airplane. However, you won't find me claiming they are the next Great American Novel. (There is great, artistic sci fi. I'm not talking about that, I'm talking the old pulp stuff where the authors got paid by the word to churn out product.) If you have fun playing Civ 5, I'm not here to tell you how to spend your free time. If you have fun with it that's great! But if you claim Civ 5 is one of the "best strategy games" out there, you clearly do not have a clue as to what you are talking about. It's like claiming your 3-year-old's finger-painting is one of the greatest, most astounding art pieces of all time. I know you love it and that's cute, but no. You're wrong. It certainly seems like Joe didn't play any of the previous titles, any of which is better than Civ 5 in terms of gameplay enjoyment. Now, again, I am not saying that people who play this game are stupid or that you can't have a good time playing this game. There are lots of youtube videos of smart people playing the game and having fun. The trick is that they deliberately 'nerf' their play or do things that are "broken" in-game in order to get around the overwhelming flaws built into the game. I think that's great. I also think you shouldn't have to tweak your playstyle just to make a game fun to play. The people you paid money to for making the game should have made it fun in the first place. Sadly, many people manage to convince themselves that they are having fun playing Civ 5, simply because they spend so much time playing it. This is a very common cognitive bias called "exposure effect", compounded by confirmation bias. These are biases - logical faults in our thinking - that our brains are hardwired to make. It's very easy to fall into these biases, and even if you know you are making the bias it still feels like the right decision even if, intellectually, you know it to be false. Yes, the game is very addictive. That doesn't mean it is good. When people say that something that is not addictive is "addictive", they mean "It's so good I didn't want to stop." When people say something is "addictive" and it really is, they mean, "I wanted to stop but I was not able to do so." Millions of people have convinced themselves they like Civ 5 because it really is an abusively addictive game. It's designed that way - not deliberately I'm sure, but it is. Civ 5 is the abusive boyfriend of games: "Maybe if I go back he won't hit me this time and he'll realize that he really does love me." "Maybe if I play another turn something interesting will happen and I won't feel like I wasted the last six hours." This is how people wind up owing their kidneys to the casino. It's the same behavior seen in gambling addiction. The main flaw in the game is the map-combat system. Since this is the entire basis of the game, it is unpatchable and can't be fixed. You see, while Joe is waxing poetic about the 1-unit-per-tile combat system and saying it's like chess but better, the problem is that this is not chess. In chess there are a fixed number of pieces on the board, and it is a relatively small board. In this game the "board" is huge, and there are an UNLIMITED number of game pieces. Now, very obviously in a "strategy" game like this the computer opponent cannot play strategically. It can make strategic decisions, such as "if computer has more troops, attack". But it cannot play strategically, thinking and planning ahead or feinting and "psyching out" the opponent the way a real human player can. In fact, because in chess the tiles and the pieces are finite and few, a computer chess-program can devote a lot more processing power to calculating potential moves. In Civ 5, the number of tiles is much larger and the number of units is larger as well; effectively unlimited. This translates to less processing power calculating potential future moves. Thus in order to make what is in fact a very stupid computer opponent (see videos of players winning battles on high-difficulty when outnumbered 5-to-1) a reasonably difficult challenge, the computer is given bonuses. These bonuses ultimately translate into more combat units. The number of which is effectively unlimited. This means that except at the lowest levels of difficulty, if you play long enough (that is, you don't play to win an early victory but get to the modern era so you can have tanks and factories and fighter jets and cool stuff like that), the entire world WILL eventually be completely covered by enemy units. This breaks the game because, with only 1 unit allowed per tile, NONE OF THEM CAN MOVE. (They can't pass through each other.) In order to hold off this "carpet of doom" effect as long as possible, the game was repeatedly nerfed so that it takes a very, very, very, very, very long time to build up the resources and facilities necessary to produce and maintain units. But this is a strategic building and combat game. What does the player do in that time period while slowly building up resources? Well, wait. This is where Joe shows that he clearly doesn't understand what he is talking about in reviewing strategy games like this one. You see, that stack-of-units ("stack of doom") combat that he pooh-pooh's in the previous games allows for play in which every turn matters. because the player is nervously trying to build up their stack while hoping they can do so faster than an opponent. Furthermore, there was a lot of strategy involved in the composition of units in the stack, because each had various bonuses and weaknesses, and since you could have 20 or more units in a stack and any of them could attack any one of the 20 or more units in a rival stack, there were many possible permutations. With the 1 unit per tile system used in Civ 5, only a few units can attack any single unit on a hex, drastically reducing the possibilities. In previous title iterations, such as Civ 4, players would talk about "one-more-turn-itis" because each turn was important and there was always stuff to do and important decisions to make. In Civ 5 players talk about wanting to play one more turn in hopes that the NEXT turn will be the one were something interesting happens. The hexagon-based gameboard used in civ 5 is borrowed from some of the great tabletop strategy boardgames from the 20th century. But these games were epic because you played against a human opponent who could think strategically and be unpredictable. Games like "The Operational Art of War" are the computer-based grandchildren of these tabletop games. They are not mainstream because they are the Dwarf Fortresses of strategy gaming, with incredibly steep learning curves that are made fun only by online communities of geeky strategy gamers who enjoy recreating Guderian's victories (and who know who Guderian was.) Had Civ 5 been a more mainstream-accessible version of that kind of strategy game it would absolutely deserve its accolades. However THREE YEARS LATER MULTIPLAYER STILL DOESN'T FREAKING WORK PROPERLY. Sadly, the reason Multiplayer doesn't work well is that same 1-unit-per-tile vs. Processing Power problem that breaks the single-player version of the game. Ergo, it will never be fixed because that is a key component of the game design and cannot be removed or patched. While Civ 4 wasn't outstandingly multiplayer friendly, it works all right and there still is a thriving multiplayer ranking that is far, FAR more active and popular than the multiplayer for Civ 5. So there you go. Get Civ 4, it's cheap for the price and one of the best mainstream strategy games every made. Don't waste your money on Civ 5. And if you own the game and "love" playing it, please do yourself a favor and broaden your horizons. There are so many much better strategy games out there.
Ok... I respect everyone's opinion. I would just like to say that Civ 5 is a bit more interesting than you give it credit for. Now I have played Empire Total War, so I will NEVER give Civ 5 the title of best strategy game ever. No way. But I WILL say that the addiction is NOT just waiting for something interesting to happen. I am entirely engrossed in the gameplay when I play Civ 5, and I will readily say that I am reading the signals right: This game is fun to play. Now I won't claim this game is better than the previous Civ games, because I haven't played them. And I don't call this a great piece of art. Rather I consider this a sort of board game, like Angry Joe says. And I have tons of fun playing it. I have racked up over 100 hours playing this game, and as I type this, I have Civ 5 windowed next to me, ready to start another session. See, your analysis of the addiction has a fatal flaw (feel free to correct me if you don't agree): If people were only drawn to the game to see if something interesting happens, but just find their time wasted, why on earth would they play it again and again?! If it was as boring as you say, this game would have FAR lower ratings than it has. The fact is, it challenges your mind, makes you watch many different things at once, from happiness of your civilization, to minerals, to religion, to trade routs, to attacking enemies (I will concede that Diplomacy sucks). And for the record, never ONCE have I ever hit that point where the board got too full to play. Not by a long shot. I have had MASSIVE armies clashing with even larger AI armies, over a very large area, and never had issues with movement. Rather it was an amazing experience to observe a war of that scale, and to see the battle animations at every turn. My point is... everyone will have different opinions. If you don't like it, don't play it. But Angry Joe got his review absolutely right... from the standpoint of a new player, who isn't familiar with the other Civilization games. He is just like me. His reactions were the same as mine, minus the trouble with Multiplayer, as I have never played with anyone else before. So in the end, Civ 5 is a great game, not the greatest ever, but still a fun time. It IS the best game to play if your feeling bored, and have a lot of time to yourself. I've said my piece. Now if you'll excuse me, I've an Empire to run.
I have to agree with you there, he has no experience with the past games that most of us have grown up playing (eg. Ages of Empires, Total wars and my favourite Age of Mythology)
Got the complete edition for $12 during the steam sale to play with friends. After 2 days I have 20 hours played. Jesus what have I gotten myself into?
It's really worth it in my opinion, Brave New World added a whole new features to game like a more funny cultures, tourism, new victory type, nine more civilizations, etc. still, might have been great if it was 20 bucks. also, they added animations in the multi-player, there was no animation back then. :)
Id have preferred army stacks limited in size, even to say 4 or 5 over just one unit. Unlimited unit stacks is open to abuse but i feel 1 unit stacks just get messy, 4/5 unit stacks would still give you flanking opportunities while retaining a sense of having an army. You could even link the limit to culture or tech bonuses, such as improved command structures or battle formations giving limit bonuses. Be interested to hear which of the 3 options is most liked, i primarily play single player so might be missing out on important stuff.
The one single bad thing I've observed in this game is how long it takes after you press End Turn. It isn't bad in the earlier stages of the game, but after you get to the Industrial Era, the pace really slows down. Maybe it's about my computer's power though.
first i conquered england and got to war with germany and when we got to peace we had our first world conference where i met russia italy and the aztecs and i made an alliance with russia after that i had my first world war with russia on my side against germany italy and the aztecs so i conquered italy and the aztecs and a few of the german cities best 1000000000000 hours of my life
My favorite thing to do in this game is to demolish every civilization in the game except one, that one, I will leave one city, surround it's city with mines in an order that makes it impossible to move without encountering me, forbid from moving inside my territory, and after I've had my fun messing with them, nuke them. But, surprisingly, this has gotten boring, any suggestions?
yeah he is right, about both it's flaws and the good things the creators did with this game. When someone I know who is friendly with me, and also hates another country, I offer them to go to war against them with me but they say no.
"Moving around in stack-fests" Yeah... never play Titan. Great board game, but that's ALL it is. Hell, I'm still playing a full game... it's coming to a close at last.... four months later. -_-'
Yes I used to played this game quite alot before it was patched, and back then turns took ages and the game wasn't very well optimized, but since its a while since i played this is probably fixed, so definetly yes.
At 13:30 - * Soldiers still fight with swords * * scientists have fully equiped modern laboratories * - I'm calling bullshit on the zero science production that the science advisor says xD
General- War!!! Scientist- Science!!! General- War!!!! Scientist- Science!!! Me- Science!! General- What?! Me- So we can learn how to build bigger guns! General- Yeah let's go with that >8D
My civ was only 6000 years old. I loved Gandhi so much, I had traded all my resources to him. I prayed to Gandhi every night before bed, thanking him for the civ I had been given. Gandhi is love I said, Gandhi is life. Russia hears me and publicly denounces me. I knew he was just jealous, of my devotion to Gandhi. I declared war on him, he attacks me and forces me to sign a peace treaty. I'm crying now, and my city is hurt. I lay in defeat and its really cold. A warmth is moving towards me. I feel something touch my civ. Its Gandhi. I'm so happy. He whispers to me: "this is my land." He grabs me with his powerful Indian army, and puts me on my hands and knees. I'm ready. I spread my army for Gandhi. He penetrates my border. It hurts so much, but I do it for Gandhi. I can feel my army dying, as my eyes start to water. I push against his force. I want to please Gandhi. He roars a mighty roar, as he fills my civ with his nukes. Russia walks in. Gandhi looks him straight in the eye, and says "It's all fallout now." Gandhi waves through my borders. Gandhi is love, Gandhi is life.
***** I suppose you are right, it IS the best I've seen AI work but still not perfect. I recently won a game on Prince (normal) and from what I looked up the AI just gets unfair advantages from here on instead of getting smarter/unpredictable. The 2k forums and steam communities sound like a good place to start appreciate the help. You sound like a joy to play with, is this also your steam account name "Lord Pillock" ? I don't expect you stay for marathons but 50-100 turns a session sounds reasonable but don't expect much from me :)
Better keep your eye on Gandhi....he may start out all nice and peaceful, but it just takes one little spark to turn him into a nuke rushing psychotic warmonger.
*Starts up game *Plays as Iroquois; Hiawatha *Starts in a coastal capital city of Onandaga *To the west lies the Shoshone *Shoshone leader, Pocatello, trades me with horses as a friendly gesture *Develops native american relationship in respect *Bismark of Germany in the north comes in and trades me luxurious resources *Thinking it'd help make positive relationship, accepts *Is friendly with both civilization *Creates two more cities and allied with 5 city-states *All city-states, I assured to protect them so I can gain influence on them *Bismark comes in and says I'm stepping on their toes. wants me to rely protection of a city-state to them so they can have influence *Feeling fishy, I told them to deal with it. *Later, Germany requested my aid in their war with the Shoshone, in which I blindly accepted and completely eradicated them. *Now owning 4 cities in total, and Germany owning the cities of equal amount, I regretted attacking the native blood of another tribe as I expanded my borders. *Perhaps prior to my "deal with it" statement, Germany denounced me for my "savagery" *Because of my guilt for the Shoshone, I brought the demonstration of "savagery" to Germany, taking the cities one by one until I reached the capital. *Bismark attempted to negotiate peace to save himself. I "savagely" refused and eradicated the civilization. *I now owned the entire continent with the city states as my allies and years and eras has passed right into the renaissance period where culture and faith has flourished. *I am now planning to gain diplomatic relationship with China and the Celts via World Congress as a means to bring together as a unification, while working on wiping out the Aztecs for denouncing me as "another savage tribe waiting to be sacrificed by the "superior" likes of Montezuma". *Let us commemorate the moment when the Iroquois had blindly wiped out the Shoshone believing they'd rise up alongside with Germany, only to be blind and disillusioned, and in the aftermath attempted to make amends with the fallen tribe by eradicating the manipulating german civilization. You have to admit... when playing Civilization 5, it really brings a whole new atmosphere of creating a story of either your accomplishments against the test of time, or your unlikely fall based on making diplomatic decisions that "put your entire nation into turmoil"
+Aliv3mau5 I have before. I played as the Arabs and managed to get Napoleon back to my side as a friendly for a little bit by giving him luxury resources.
+Eli Anderson In the oldest version a huge stockpile of Legion could take down Bomber aircraft because their defence was higher than the bombers damage. (The technology tree was as broken it was in anno1503 when the resources to meld iron and gunpowder to create musketeers and mortars compare to stay in progress and create hides and ropes and overkill musketeers with crossbowmen and overrun mortars with cavalry). My elite samurai knights were better than modern infantry.
I never had problems with him before wel nothing big :/ we are friends now in mordern time 1900 I even liberated and restored their nation after they got whiped out by England, Sweden, Germany and Spain
