Comments on: Thoughts: Gods And Kings.

By: Hector

Hector — Thu, 19 Dec 2013 15:25:28 +0000

Super fan of CIVI here, so kind of biased, but i still though that the base game was good (not as good as III or IV but still). In fact i’m still getting my head around possible strategies and i can see most of possible outcomes of choosing properly in the few early steps make the rest of the development less crucial.
Not being able to stack troops and other new gameplays introduced in V are not my favourites but they do make us think it in a new perspective (more fresh and innovative) using more strategy in attack/def aswell. –> maybe they could have compromised and introduced a limit in the number and/or tipes of units in each slot.
Well, getting to the main point of discussion, after burning the base game ill check this exp you sold us so nicely and hopefully agree with you

By: Thoughts: Brave New World. » The Scientific Gamer The Scientific Gamer

Thoughts: Brave New World. » The Scientific Gamer The Scientific Gamer — Mon, 22 Jul 2013 11:01:19 +0000

[...] is the latest – and probably last – expansion for Civilization V, following up the excellent Gods and Kings which was released around about this time last year. Gods and Kings introduced new mechanics that [...]

By: Max

Max — Wed, 25 Jul 2012 15:38:10 +0000

I like Civ 5, but must agree about the UI, it is aggravating. Can’t wait to get this expansion.

By: Dan

Dan — Wed, 18 Jul 2012 00:01:45 +0000

I’ve thoroughly enjoyed Civ V from day one. While this review has some valid points- mostly about the speed of the bombing animations- the last line “…finally feels like Civilization…” just confirms this is another angry Civ 4 fanboy rant.

Civilization V is DIFFERENT. Deal with it.

By: hentzau

hentzau — Mon, 09 Jul 2012 18:28:53 +0000

Ah yes, that makes sense with the half movement in ocean squares thing. It’s a good change since it moves ironclads from irrelevancy to a thing you actually want to build because it’ll murder everything until destroyers.

By: Ross

Ross — Mon, 09 Jul 2012 12:48:19 +0000

Ironclads existed by were limited to shallow water. In G&K they are not limited (but I think their movement was reduced)

By: hentzau

hentzau — Thu, 05 Jul 2012 11:30:09 +0000

All I want are some basic automation options of the kind you might find in an RTS. Options to set a city to automatically send a newly-built unit to a certain spot on a map, or the ability to designate a common rally point and then send a unit there with the push of a button. I don’t really have a problem with moving units when they’re on the front line, it’s the logistics of getting them there that caused my teeth to turn yellow and all my hair to fall out.

By: hentzau

hentzau — Thu, 05 Jul 2012 11:27:22 +0000

Yeah I get why people would be annoyed over that, and what I would say is that if you really hated Civ V then *don’t* buy the expansion right now. I think it’s good, and it may change your opinion of your game, but it’s certainly not worth a large investment to find out.

By: Joseph

Joseph — Thu, 05 Jul 2012 00:11:43 +0000

I could not agree more about the excrutiating need to babysit every unit every turn. As far as I’m concerned it makes going for any sort of domination victory or any large scale war at all unthinkable. It’s far too tedious and strips all the fun from the experience.

I’ve often wondered, as perhaps an imperfect solution, why combat units should not have the option to fully automate. Alpha Centauri gave us that option. It’s not as if they would need to program anything new like combat subroutines. After all, the AI’s units are fully automated.

By: Porpentine (@aliendovecote)

Porpentine (@aliendovecote) — Wed, 04 Jul 2012 17:34:20 +0000

The biggest problem is having to pay 23 dollars to fix a game that one paid full price for in the first place. It feels like typical AAA extortion over a captive market. Like the stringing along cadence of blackmail where they hold onto your photos and tell you that this will be the last time you have to pay them.