![]() ![]() Your assumption that those who like it do so because of substandard AI isn't backed up by any hard evidence.įor anybody being interested in a good builder's game, Civ5 is clearly the wrong game. Other posts on this message board clearly indicate that some folks enjoy the increased emphasis on combat mechanics. ![]() Most probably they like it just because the AI doesn't constitute any competition. It is fun to those who like to play a sub-par wargame with an uncapable AI. The originator of these comments appears to have an personal agenda to bash the game at every opportunity, based on the frequency with which he/she posts similar drivel to hijack other threads. OP - I'd like to offer a rebuttal to some of these comments, which I don't feel eattempt to present a balanced view point of the game. And that is taking into account that we have already had four major "patches" and are more than 4 months after release. The said truth is, Civ5 cannot be recommended at the current state. This game is NOT good on its own terms, and fun it is only to a very special minority of players. Not to mention that the game in total sucks up quite some computing power for almost nothing in return. Not to mention that 90% of all advertising before release now has been found to have been untrue. Not to mention that the game lacks in terms of design in almost each and every aspect. Not to mention that many players report problems in late game, especially on larger maps. Not to mention that the bugs forum is full of confirmed bug reports, of which quite some were introduced by "patches". It is general consensus that the AI is stupid in terms of managing war, insane in terms of conducting diplomacy and playing by different rules in terms of city placement. Most probably they like it just because the AI doesn't constitute any competition.įor anybody being interested in a good builder's game, Civ5 is clearly the wrong game. if you like warlords then you should love bts, pretty much everything released in the mods section is bts now. If anything, puppet cities are better than vassal states in civ4 b/c vassals could just do stupid/crazy/etc things that you didn't approve of but you couldn't later conquer them if you had earlier vassalized them.Įdit: the expansion for civ4 was bts, colonies are just a small part of that. If you puppet a city and later decide to annex it into your empire (so that you can control production choices and which tiles you want the city to work) then you can also do that. Also, any luxuries or strategic minerals within the city's radius are part of your empire as well. A puppet city is not under your direct control, but you get any gold/science that the city produces. Regarding your vassal states question, civ 5 doesn't let you "vassalize" an entire civ or the remnants of it, however you can do something similar (puppet) to each city as you conquer it (or have it gifted to you in a peace negotiation). Overall I probably have liked civ4 more over the years, but civ5 is still one of my favorite games of all time. Good job, way to continue your mission of killing off civ5 one potential player at a many of us enjoy civ5 a lot.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |