Sometimes, If you start near a long desert river, a good way to found a Pantheon is to pick a Desert Folklore trait. Feels almost like cheating.
|
|
|
Sometimes, If you start near a long desert river, a good way to found a Pantheon is to pick a Desert Folklore trait. Feels almost like cheating.
#52
So some nameless dick on the forums converted me to judaism.
A Lannister always pays his debtOriginally Posted by Pouk
#53
The people's Judean front of the nameless cities hereby denounce the Confucionist rebels of Tenochtitlan
Yeah I attempted to confuse my allies and enemies with nameless cities, didn't realise I could rename the religion though.
#54
have you been playing mp games? because i want in on these games >:[
*mildly disgusted with negative price discrimination*
As a side note, they improved MP a lot by adding Steamworks, having the option to play animations, and generally tweaking the performance of the game so that late game isn't a slideshow. I greatly enjoy MP more now than I did a few months ago.
Now only if they'd allow people who own the DLC nations to play with those who do not, multiplayer would be perfect.
#56
I haven't played Civ V yet. I played Civ III and IV extensively. I read once that one of biggest issues with Civ V was that you couldn't stack units of different types in Civ V's hexes. Is that true or still true with Gods and Kings? It is this issue that has mainly kept me away from Civ V.
#57
Um, that's purposeful design to prevent stacks o' doom and hoping for good random die rolls. These individual units are designed to be more war game like, so you have ranged and melee units working together in formation to do their jobs, either countering other units, or taking land and cities. The randomness of combat is hardly noticeable, usually resulting in about 5hp difference on the high end (out of 100hp). It's pretty nice to be able to flank units and take out their siege equipment, instead of "hurr durr imma in stack kill this counter to your unit first".
Yeah, I've dealt with other games of this sort (Crusader Kings II, Elemental, even Total War games to an extent) that have unit stacking and they all problems combating the 'my stack is bigger therefore I win' syndrome. Civilization V's combat is actually pretty neat. It isn't realistic, don't get me wrong, but it somewhat adds a tactical element to the strategic-based game. Military units cannot stack (specialist units can share tiles as long as it isn't the same type of unit), but this means there's other factors now involved in how combat works. There's now flanking and formation bonuses that encourage you to keep your army together and form a coherent battle line, and vulnerable units like archers, artillery, ect, can be singled out and targeted if left alone. All in all, it may look silly, but it really makes combat more than a numbers of game of who has more and the best of what.
For what it's worth, the AI does know how to handle this type of combat as well, so often you'll have clashes between armies in giant battle lines (especially in the later game) while trying to punch a hole through their line and roll up the flanks or cut off units (which gives them a penalty). It also greatly improves sieges into encouraging you to blockade and pillage cities prior to assaulting them directly, all the while protecting your ranged units as they soften up the target.
I really like the combat in this game, I don't see how giant stacks are in any way superior or more interesting than the combat currently is in Civilization V.
#59
Giant stacks of doom were powerful: the only way of effectively countering them was to spam suicidal artillery units and/or suicidal bombers, and massive stacks of longbowmen with defensive upgrades.
after my first civ5 game, i havn't gone back to civ4 once. better combat (especially gods & kings), better terrain logic due to hexes, etc.
#60
My main issue with no stacking is the scale of the battles. Stacking and battles between two or a few squares fit the scale of the game. Battle lines, especially in older times, covering hundreds of kilometers/miles just isn't realistic and just to accomplish flanking or more tactical manuevers against specific units or support units?! Havng battlelines hundreds of miles long just because stacking isn't allow has always turned me off going back to the General series of games (eg, Panzer General, Pacific General, etc). Now, if the hexes in CivV represented a few miles at most, I could accept it, but then the maps would be truly HUGE!! I know the stack and giant stacks of doom might have been a problem in CivIII and IV, but I never really had an issue with it considering the scale of the game. Also, with the right combination of quality rock/paper/scissor stacked units, a much smaller stack could defeat a giant stack of inferior units. For strategic level games, I feel the Total War series had the best solution, and I can't understand why Brenil felt it was flawed "to an extent". Moving an army stack on the strategic map and fighting them on the much smaller tactical maps was about as good as you could expect for a strategic game.
I was speaking more about the strategic stacks than the tactical portion, as that's the only part of Total War that resembles the Civilization series.
Also, the whole notion that Civilization should adhere to some sort of realism is kind of absurd, seeing as realism and Civilization do not mix very well. The way combat works in Civilization V is more about tactical combat on a strategic level, and if you want to equate this to some semblance of reality, each unit would roughly represent a legion/regiment/division, depending on the time period.
In short, don't knock it so much until you've tried it.
#62
So you're not interested in fun and balance, you're interested in "the scale" when your stack o' doom is like, 50 men taking out bastions of civilization with thousands of people in them? It's a very picky point of view you take when in the early game it takes hundreds of years just to move one tile or train up some god damn scouts with walking sticks, for example. Scale is always out of wack in Civ for the purposes of gameplay, so I fail to see why army formation is the one thing that makes you stay away from Civ 5.
#63
Trizzdog,
CivIII and IV were plenty fun for me. Weren't they for you, in their time? And bringing balance into it seems odd since I play the Civ games exclusively in SP and where civilizations often progress at very different tech rates and is usually the key to winning the game overall (for example, reaching tanks while a rival civ is still at riflemen and cavalry). So, yes, scale is important to me when it comes to the combat in Civ.
Brenil,
Perhaps, realism or realistic was a poor choice of words. Perhaps, an "air of authenticity" might fit better. I guess I'm looking at Civ combat from a communication and control perspective over time (eg, runners and riders in older times and radio in modern times) - battles in ancient times simply couldn't be coordinated over hundreds of miles for grand tactical maneuvers. So, battle between armies that only occuppied a couple squares made more sense.
Bottom line, what I like or don't like is obviously my choice. I might try CivV if Steam offers a Free-to-play weekend or a demo. I'm not going to put down my money unitl I know I like the new combat system, which I doubt with my tastes.
#64
What on earth are you going on about omne? Did you forget that alexander without radios and internet phones conquered much of the world? Or how the south americans had messenger systems of relays over thousands of miles or any number of other communication methods. Hell how did you get multiple roman legions to coordinate if hundreds of miles was a problem? You are seriously nitpicking what seems like a failed view on realism.
Stack of doom didnt make any more sense from a logical perspective when you had hundreds of units in 1 stack going from city to city, where were the supply lines? Where did they make camp? Why was it that you could only engage some of the unit, etc, etc. CiV introduces formations that matter, terrain advantages that convey LOS and range, with the new base 100 HP system combat now more accurately reflects a bronze age unit going up against a mechanized infantry. Hell where is the issue that a city is only 3x3 tiles and not spanning thousands of miles of map like they actually would if realism was taken to the extreme.
I understand you have reservations about V, but please to pretend that the 'air of authenticity' is lacking when there are clearly more issues of concern is a copout. Try the demo.
Besides stack of doom? CiV's major improvement besides hexes is that you dont need a road on every tile!
Last edited by Weavern; 27th Jun 12 at 6:34 PM. Reason: typo correction
Those who walk through the shadows, seek not the light.
If you disagree with a moderational decision, follow this.
#65
Ah, the ultimatum of these "which game is better" discussion. One's opinion. Acceptable, but I hope you consider the arguments presented rather than passing them off. It'd be a shame if you'd let one facet block out the many improved facets of the game because of your bias.
So I just tried the Gods & Kings demo and quite liked what I saw. Demo is turn-limited, and nobody got to the age required for Espionage to be triggered in my game.
The religion mechanic is pretty fun, but I didn't quite understand some of the mechanics (such as number of followers, pressure, and how it worked). Then again, I was battling tons of barbarians for the entire duration of that game to focus on the newer mechanics. The introduction of newer city states (mercantile and religious), with city states offering multiple missions even with time limits just adds so much more variety to the game.
I haven't been playing CiV much lately so I might be picking this up at the next sale, whenever that is.
Far as I've understood from gameplay alone, the follower number is the contributing factor to getting more faith points, it is also a guage to see how well your religion is doing aswell how far along its going in a certain city and how far to it converts, it also seems to be a buffer gap same with pressure. Pressure from what I seen is like a additional buffer which plays into the religion conversion part of the game.
In a enemy city or ally city for example, the higher the pressure value goes up over followers, the higher it seems to be the chance said city will convert to your religion. On the flip side, if another nation is sending prophets or missionaries to convert your cities, it seem the pressure value must be overcome before they can convert the city to their religion. That is what I've seen from my playthroughs so far, incidentally I think its also a gauge to see when you need to pull out the inquisitors to crush heresy.
In regards to the stacks of doom, I feel it was a old concept from years ago when all strategy/turn based games revolved around stack as many troops together in a big clump and just throw everything at the enemy. Now you have to seperate your units and attack from hexagonal directions. Also with how the cities were changed in regards to there power and defense aswell as a normalisation of every unit with 100hp when factoring battle the large stacks don't really play into the expansion.
Fundementally you can now have a combined arms army actually doing what its supposed to do, e.g. 3 tiles away artiliery units, 2 tiles away ranged units and 1 tile away for melee, instead of just piling in with everyone and the city being overwhelmed in one attack which in my opinion was unrealistic. Why unrealistic? Well in both ancient times aswell as modern day era a city wouldn't be taken over in a single attack. Ancient times cities would be seiged for weeks or even months and modern era, looking at real life examples like Iraq and more recently Tripoli it took even with modern technology months to control it all.
As Trizz noted, I don't think the expansion or the game should be simply dismissed as unplayable or not worth playing just because one can't mass stack aload of units into one hexagon tile, I would say Civ 5 and its expansion have more tactical and strategic, as you do require to plan where you move units and where you want to attack and defend, this of course makes its more complex and ultimately more rewarding when you take over a enemy city.
But well, opinions are allowed, for and againsts have been shown here at the end of the day its up to you weather you want to get it or not, personally I think your missing out on a really good game, especially with this new expansion, its filled in what felt missing from the Civ5 release and made its quite abit more enjoyable.
Omne..what? So your biggest complaint about the new combat system is as nebulous as "scale?" We don't actually know what the scale of the game is. If you're going off of what things look like in game, huge cities are made up of like twenty or so buildings. So, that being the case, it's perfectly reasonable for combat to take place on hexes like it does in Civ V since units are about ten men, three horsemen, or two artillery pieces. Both Civ III and Civ IV had boring and poorly thought-out combat mechanics. I stopped playing both of them because of it (and because they were both needlessly convoluted).
If you want to talk about "realism" or an "air of authenticity" getting to you, I suggest you pick up a book and actually read about combat from the year 1000BC to the present day. Your prattle about not being able to coordinate "grand tactical maneuvers" in classical and medieval times is one of the silliest things I've read in months since I graded a history test were the student decided that Treblinka was a "kind of German sausage."
Civ is first and foremost about silly fun. That's what it is and always has been. That's why III and IV were so stupid: they took themselves seriously in a way that made Civ un-fun. If you want a "authentic" presentation of period combat, go get yourself a wargame or a grand strategy game from Paradox. If you want some silly fun, Civ is there. Civ V still has its foibles but it's better in every way to all its predecessors.
And, fyi, there was a free-weekend like two weeks ago. But, the game is a Civ game. You already know the basics of what you're getting. Although, given how nit-picky you are, perhaps you don't. Perhaps you should wait, or simply pass up the best Civ to date for some perceived slight that you have no experience with. Your call.
I love religion, I always grab the +gold from every 4 followers. You will gain some pretty nice cash if you get a large empire/convert a lot of enemies to your religion.
"We are the most civilised race in the world. We have more exquisite ways to kill than any other."Lord Vraneth the Cruel, master of Har GanethFormerly DarkelfLord
#70
Wow! Did I hit a raw nerve among you guys? The vehemence with which you're defending the Civ5 combat system is astonishing. Caesar even has to resort to what I would call a personal attack by calling my views prattle and silliest thing he's heard. Yes, I have an issue with arrows that that fly dozens if not hundreds of miles away from a battle or catapults loosing from hundreds of miles away. The scale of hexes (squares in the older games) can be extrapolated from comparing them to the size of the world (assuming the planet is about the size of Earth) - that means they're at least dozens of miles across and are probably hundreds of miles across on even a Huge size world. I really can't understand why you guys don't have in issue with combat taking place over such large distances. Just so you can have greater tactical control over your units and armies?! If you want that kind of tactical control, play games like the Total War series or request that Civ allow you to drill down to tactical maps for combat execution like the Total War series. Combat in Civ3 and 4 was a simplified representation of combat because the scale of the map doesnt' allow more detail in a manner that makes sense to me. Civ is not so much a game about warfare as it is game about building civilizations. A detailed combat model offering tactical elements is not needed, unless it was handled optionally like the Total War games. If I could marry the tactical combat model of the Total War games to Civ, I would and would execute my battles on the tactical map but I can't. And I'm don't want to see arrows/bullets flying dozens of miles and artillery shooting hundreds of miles so that I have greater tactical depth and options or a more detail combat model.
BTW, is there a demo of Civ5 (basic game or one that doesnt' require the basic game)? I couldn't find one on Steam the other day and I didn't bother seaching the internet for one. I know the Civ series is great (contrary to what Caesar thinks) and each game has improved on its predecessor (at least up thru Civ4 until I try Civ5), but this radical change in the combat model has completely turned me off (so far until I try it). I just can't see arrows/bullets/artillery flying as far as the game represents, but maybe a demo can sell it to me. Personal attacks on my sensibilities certainly won't.
Just download the demo from Steam. Otherwise, abandon this extremely dumb (on both sides) argument.
I too have issues with CivV's combat. When swordsmen can attack even severely hurt musketmen and destroy the unit, the developers need to go back and read about the Spanish and the Aztecs. I can't remember which battle it was in particular, but I think under a hundred men defeated thousands.
But its a small bugbear really. The rest of the game is brilliant. I'm looking forward to picking up the expansion pack soon.
Omne, if you take issue with what I say, say it in no uncertain terms and please address it towards me rather than the thread at large.
Anyway, people tend to get upset when you argue with them about something you have no personal experience with. It happens every day. It's not "striking a nerve" so much as it requires one side to roll their eyes and sigh. Civ is such an abstract game that it's quite pointless to lament over archers firing their arrows for what you deem to be hundreds of miles. The military aspect has always been abstracted. It's been abstracted to such a degree, (until V) that the combat ceased to offer any choice or depth. It's simply poor design when the game gives you absolutely no reason to do anything but one action--in the case of Civ combat, this was the "stack of doom." The hex system introduces both strategic and tactical aspects to the most lacking aspect of the series. You are now presented with many choices for combat which is far superior to having one choice. That much should be obvious.
Also, as I mentioned before, it's impossible to determine the ranges involved in Civ. It's far too abstracted. If you're basing it on the fact that the world should be as large as ours, you're making a grand assumption that doesn't necessarily hold given the scale of the units and cities provided on screen. And, as I mentioned, pick up a book about warfare. It's comical that you're intent on telling Alexander that he couldn't possibly led his troops or that the Chinese weren't allowed to have armies half a million strong marching around over a thousand years ago.
PetarB: Very true. It's quite silly. And it's been a problem with the Civ series for as long as it has existed. It was perhaps the worst in Civ III when Samurais regularly destroyed tanks. That was some of the most frustrating examples of bad game design I've dealt with. However, the Gods and Kings expansion seemingly addresses this problem. It was pointed out to me last night that the HP system for units goes to 100HP now instead of 10HP so that the damage can scale much more effectively with the units as they progress through the ages. As of my game last night, Musketmen are no longer equal to Longswordsmen.
@BlackOmne
Just search for Gods & Kings in the Steam Store and it should come up with results for the expansion pack and the latest demo, featuring the new expansion. Each to their own if you can't deal with how combat is abstracted in Civilization V; but personally it makes ample more sense visually, despite the abstraction, then having World War 2 France's borders defended by a single massive consolidated Stack o' Doom in my opinion. Not to mention if you don't like how the combat is abstracted there are comprehensive mod tools available, and someone has probably already published a mod changing combat to something more akin to what previous Civilization games had if that is the way you like things. So you do not necessarily have to give up on Civilization V just because you find the way combat is abstracted off putting, the mod tools are quite good and Steam Workshop integration makes installing and updating mods quite easy.
If in the end you do not like it, that's fine, you can't please everyone.
Last edited by Imperial Honour; 28th Jun 12 at 8:20 PM.
One percent of the Blood Gods consume 99 percent of the blood and skulls. #OccupyTheSkullThrone
"Repent! For Tomorrow You Shall Die!"
STEAM & GFWL: Malkael (Brother Malkael)
#75
@BlackOmne load your steam client, navagate to the CiV or the G&K page and there is a big "download demo" button on the right hand side of the screen.
Distances are rather impossible to gauge and it was the same for all the previous games because you had a variety of maps and world sizes. You cannot expect a duel map to be the size of a standard, the only similarity in them and other Civ's was that the tile size itself did not change, however the ammount of tiles in the world varies. Going from tiny to huge might be more accurate to represent the 'earth' however a duel map might be no bigger then texas. But I dont think anyone has bothered to computer the distances. However that isnt a very compelling arguement that the world isnt realistic enough when it isnt a total war game where they completely represent the historical land. Hexes provide phenominally better representation of landmass then diamonds did. The ability of a hex is that you can properly layer and stagger coastlines then a hard line, same with other terrain features.
WRT swordsman v musketman, that was never really an issue. A musketman even at base10 hp, could rarely stop a musketman given the musketman had 8 more strength depending on UUs. The more apt comparison was a longswordsman and a musketman where it was about a tossup and should still be a similar tossup as it was ment to provide a strong comparitive unit if you got screwed out of the iron sweepstakes. However with gods and kings and the base100 hp, your mechanized infantry will run over a swordsman with maybe 10hp loss, similar situations occur when attacking units dirastically outside of their era. Previously your giant death robot would still take 1 damage from an axeman or a spearman or swaths of archers. Now it will just laugh at them.
#76
Those were muskets not minigun totting power suits, and somehow popular history forgets that the Spanish had thousands of native allies who didn't like the Aztecs much on their side which kind of evened up the score.
I put off buying the game because of the apparently dead-slow territory acquisition and yes, the lack of stacks. My opinion was that of course a huge stack should swarm about and take cities, a huge stack comes from a huge economy and a civilization that can support it (in grand strategy, money wins wars not merely 'skill') I didn't see a unit as 50 men taking on a city of thousands either, I saw a uni representing an army.
But as you said, bugbears.
I'll be looking to give this a go at some point.
Hmm.. I'm also waiting for the Steam sale, shouldn't be long now, right?
About combat in CivV, I definitely prefer it to the previous stacks of doom, but I would llike it even more if battles happened in separate, tactical maps. That would require a well thought out system for nearby units of other players to be able to choose to support one side or the other, etc. It would still slow down multiplayer games quite a bit, though.
Stupid student. Everybody knows Treblinka was the original name of the band Tiamat. ;D
"All power demands sacrifice" - Sindri Myr
I was going to wait and see if G&K made it into the predicted Steam summer sale but caved and settled for the pre-order 10% off. Single best feature so far - Civs approach you to renew trade deals.
#79
there is a flank and nearby friendly unit bonus, though malachi.
territory acquisition happens in two ways:I put off buying the game because of the apparently dead-slow territory acquisition and yes, the lack of stacks
- 1) Buying hexes with gold
- 2)Natural acquisition by cities with culture
The first method only costs gold and there are many wonders that decrease both the gold cost of buying hexes, and the cultural cost of acquiring hexes. Washington/USA have a 25% reduction in the cost of buying hexes.
territory control is much more..."tactical" than it was in civ4, where boundaries moved depending on who had the most influence. buying hexes is great for taking control of that iron deposit 3 hexes away from a city, connecting your borders between cities, or aggressively buying hexes around another civ's city that they stubbornly plopped next to your capital.
cultural hex expansion is a slower process, more akin to the growth of the city. small city has weak culture and hex acquisition. larger city with appropriate buildings is a cultural powerhouse and has much more hexes under its control.
The sudden cultural expansion from civ4 was kind of odd, and now that you have control over you civ's borders, i can't see myself going back to civ4 due to the lack of culture control, despite that control is predominantly gold-dependant.
#80
Meanwhile, the suicidal catapult brigade says fuck you and kills everybody in your stack FOR SOME REASON.My opinion was that of course a huge stack should swarm about and take cities
I just want to say Aztecs are goddamn awesome. You pick honour, set up near barbarians and just roll in the cultural showers that will rocket you while also rushing other AI's (mainly they'll build one Worker, break treaty and steal it so you can go Settler and use that Worker to improve your base, then go Liberty).
As for stacks, it seems like one way of doing it, unless you go for Alpha Centauri's method of 'combat report' where they *all* take damage for being in the same square unless popped in a city or bunker. I'm just glad we've moved on from Civ2/Civ4's method of 'you have a stack? EVERYONE DIES' or stacks having a billion Civ2 diplomats just running into cities and exploding like suicide bombers trying to down their impenetrable City Walls.
Meanwhile I'm really trying to play as Genghis Khan, I really like the Mongols the most but that City State gank bonus really can work against him rather than actually making it a beneficial trait. But I like his Civ music. Also Kheshig knights are crazy good.
Think of all the Civ/AC games as 'momentum', each faction is trying to gain momentum but in the early game you won't see a lot of it. When you get to the Medieval stage, things speed up and I assume will only keep speeding as you get further technologically with a good city core to fuel it. I wouldn't worry about the stacks, it allows for outmaneuvering, although the Worker units not being able to work on land in a way to help the other Workers can be annoying.I put off buying the game because of the apparently dead-slow territory acquisition and yes, the lack of stacks. My opinion was that of course a huge stack should swarm about and take cities, a huge stack comes from a huge economy and a civilization that can support it (in grand strategy, money wins wars not merely 'skill') I didn't see a unit as 50 men taking on a city of thousands either, I saw a uni representing an army.
#82
Yes, the only thing i really miss from civ4, are multiple workers. then again there are wonders and social policies that decrease the time to construct land improvements, but thats not really the same, as you *need* to build the pyramids, and you need to invest into the liberty tree.
suicidal catapult brigade for the win. or chinese chu-ku-no crosbownman.
still, i love by 4 hex range battleship with tripple land bombardment upgrade with two attacks per turn. <3 <3 <3
Ghandi is so annoying! Not only does he get in a huff and denounce you if you don't provide him with ivory for 25turns but he decides to mass spam his religious zealots into my cities in mass force. Then he decides to put a city right next to 4 strategy resources and proceeds to demand I don't put anymore cities near him AND calls me a warmonger! Pah.
Well suffice to say I solved the issue by launching a all out nuclear strike from 3 border cities with his influence borders, 2 turns after the all out nuclear strike he's demanding peace and demanding I become friendly with all the city states he befriend.
Well naturally I decline, especially after having my cities converted to a new religion, strategy resources taken and demands for resources, course I denounce Ghandi and all the other nations join in, seems they got sick of his "join our religion NAO" ways. >.>
@Ammon Ra: Aye, quite fun to have, I got 3 of them myself after a prolonged 70year war with the Aztecs, I lost a 4th one to a double team submarine combo
Odd should say about the workers, they are abit slower in the lower technology levels, but around the industrial era they seem to go into hyperactive build speed mode, though this could be the fact you getting alot of +building speed stuff by that point, railroads also help for moving around a hell of alot. For the most part I've a army of about 10-12 of them, quite funny to watch them all charge across to new areas when you setup a new city (yeah I have them on autobuild mode, probably not the best, but works for me).
#84
@Ammon Huh, I haven't had much of a need for Pyramids actually. Either I'm going Tradition for a focused, powerful capital that can produce a worker quickly or I'm going Liberty for a free worker. Out of all the early wonders I think the Great Library is the only one I ever gun for, with maybe Stonehenge (now Terra Cotta Army) afterwards if I'm going for a cultural victory.
I think I'll always be gunning for Alhambra however. That plus Brandenburg Gate and the full XP-boosting buildings (Barracks, Armory, Military Academy) means you can rush-buy military units that spawn with enough XP and upgrades to immediately take your choice of Blitz or March, and that is just amazing.
#85
Maktaka that combo works especially well eith etheopia's UU as it starts with drill so you effectively get both upgrades!
As noted previously it appears great prophets can ignore borders.
Does anyone know if you get benefits of foreign religions?
Back to the topic of border/cultural expansion, it should be noted that G&K technically reduced the rate of border expansion by changing up and rejiging the buildings that produce culture and lowering the value of the culture they produce nominally. This seems coupled with what appears to be a maximum cultural expansion of a city at about 6-8hex in raidus. /
Weavern, you get all the "follower" bonuses from other religions in cities you own which follow them (I've used that multiple times to get some of the faith only buildings like Cathedral or Pagoda when my religion doesn't have them).
#87
Crickets abound!
Seems activity has dropped off a cliff in this CiV thread, so lets try and pool our collective minds.
Has anyone uncovered how you get the "we are family" achievement? Cant seem to find a proper source for how one gets this. It appears it isnt just 'prophet spam every capital'.
That asked, what the good is 'pressure' for religion aside from bigger # faster it spreads. Is there a hidden overlay which shows the progression like culture or how much you need to convert the next follower.
#88
Since I got the "we are family" achievement unintentionally, I can't explicitly say how to do it, but I'm going to guess rushing faith early and picking the right beliefs is the way to go. Also going on the record to say that interfaith dialog + that thing that gives missionary discount + that wonder that gives missionaries 3 uses + nearby holy cities of another faith = brokedick. Each time you do it, it gives you like, a turn's worth of research. It's pretty amazing, and you can stack these shenanigans with founder bonuses for ultimate bullshit.
The game is really bad at explaining pressure. So bad, in fact, that the mechanics remain a mystery to most players. I understand what affects it and what it does on a base level, but don't know the details behind it (eg what number is needed to convert followers).
#89
Do you remember if the capital cities still remained? or if you were playing it on a map larger then standard? Lastly did you just do a quick start or did you change any of the map options?
I've been wracking my brain on how that is done, and would be loathed to know it requires specific beliefs to unlock.
#90
Was a rather peaceful game, don't remember anyone losing capitals. It was standard map on continents. Didn't change any other settings.
#91
Ok, seems you need to be playing a hotseat or a MP game for this achievement to trigger.
#92
I see. I should have mentioned I was playing multiplayer with one other person. Who hated my religion and named his religion the natural counter to it. I would specify, but the names involve extreme racism.
Does the AI get the Religious bonuses like "+ xyz per x followers" for my religion as well?
I will use Google before I ask dumb questions!
Yes and supposedly Civs with the same religion get a bonus to their relations which makes them more apt to band together; although that isn't a given.
Shall we use this thread as the main Civ V thread now? The other one fell off the pages.
Behold; the Roman Empire! I love the highland map with tectonic laid out mountain ranges. I've conquered this far so that the top of the image (3-4 tiles) and the tiny 1 tile water passage on the left is the only entrance into my empire. Too bad I'm playing warlord and the ai is easy
http://img16.imageshack.us/img16/289...screen0000.jpg
I'm currently playing a game as Austria on continents and got lucky. There are 2militaristic states whom I got allied with and they've gifted me 3units, combined with my troops I was able to conquer the Ethiopian empire like 1000bc and had the continent all for myself. Later on I married a city state on another continent to establish an operation base against the Ottoman empire, currently I have like 3times the points of the next best rival, waiting till I can afford a fleet so I can invade the Incans who dared to spread their filthy Budhism on my starting continent (strangely one single use of a missionary was enough to completely turn around a city with 15followers of mine...). In the meantime I am capturing the last 2cities of Denmark to get Truffles (my happiness rating is a bit low since I have a shitload of cities and one of my religious perks is +15% growth rate).
Diplomatic marriage is really awesome, especially with all those quests now, getting resources was never easier
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
