Civilization V: Gods & Kings Review

[chimeracreator]

Anyway, thanks for the review, Greg Tito. I've already bought this (a rare, once in the blue moon event of my actually preordering something) but I am glad to hear it seems to meet my expectations. Really looking forward to the religion customization and new Civs especially. Also really glad to hear they beefed up naval capacity, while it sounds like it makes a strong navy almost too dangerous, I think it makes navies more of an appropriate force to be reckoned with rather than basically water-based armed scouts and exploration units.

I just finished my first game... all 12 hours of it, and navies seem fairly balanced so far. They are a LOT stronger than they were before the expansion which is a good thing, but because they can only go after coastal cities and melee naval units have an attack strength roughly equal to land units it stays balanced, that said they are a LOT faster than any land unit save helicopters so they are better for surprise attacks.

I ended up taking a few Aztec cities with a combination aircraft carrier (1 fighter, 2 bombers), a battleship, a destroyer and a mech infantry being escorted by the battleship. Air power did the bulk of the damage to the WWI era cities so it wasn't exactly a fair fight tech wise. Also great generals and admirals (those get to be great now too) can't be used to trigger golden ages so they're a lot less useful.

 

[Whytewulf]

The Civ games are great, but all they seem to do between games is make tweaks to the same basic formula. I think the city-production game play element is becoming a bit outdated.

What I would like to see is a new system based upon more complex macro-management. Perhaps an option to build libraries or other basic public works in all cities by taking out a certain amount of gold for a certain amount of turns. I think it would also be nice if you can have the ability to micromanage the resource distribution of the cities so that they can improve certain works, or give their garrisoned army better training/equipment, instead of just allocating certain citizens to certain plots of terrain. Just having a city produce one thing every certain amount of turns is a bit simplistic.

I'd also like to see the game move from combat centered on single units to armies comprised of several different types of units. This way one could specialize one's army for certain things. I'd also like to see customizable units where you can modify their equipment in order to specialize them for certain things; e.g. make them more maneuverable by cutting down their defense. You could modify the formation of each military unit too; e.g. put the archers in the back behind the phalanx and put the spear-men on either side to protect against cavalry, or make the phalanx form a V as opposed to a straight line.

Instead of each city producing one unit of a certain type after a certain amount of turns you could change it so that each city can produce and garrison only one military unit, though the size of this unit depends upon the size of the city; e.g. your capital city could garrison an entire division, whereas a small peripheral city could garrison a battalion or a company. In order to improve/refit the city's unit you have to devote a certain amount of city resources for a certain amount of turns. You could also improve the military capacity of the city by building certain improvements such as a fort, a training camp, or a military academy. This would allow you to improve the units garrisoned in the city. I'd also like to see supply routes to one's army when they are in enemy territory. That would add a lot more strategy to invasions.

Well... on second thought, maybe I just want to see another turn based strategy game with completely different game play mechanics than Civ. Lol.

I like a lot of these aspects. I have yet to find a true strategy game, with the armies the way you describe. I want to be able to think about how I build my army, not just zerg. I want troops to survive, because I planned right, not a lucky roll.

 

[Yosarian2]

Yeah; I'd like to hear a review on this from an actual civilization fan, someone who knows enough about the game to know why V was such a huge disappointment in the first place.

I mean, civ V isn't a terrible game; if it was called something else, I wouldn't have been totally disappointed by it, but it's just such a huge step back from Civ IV in basically every way. The economic management is so simplified it's dull, the AI is much weaker, there's much less strategy in general.

Is there anything in the expansion that actually makes the economic management part of the game more interesting?

 

[guitarsniper]

been playing this a bit. totally awesome. first thing anyone does, I recommend playing the steampunk scenario. It's GREAT

 

[Mullahgrrl]

But why does Gustav II Adolf look Like Gustav Vasa?

Because you don't know what Gustav II Adolf looks like.

Nice reference, but I do.

http://sv.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gustav_II_Adolf

compare to

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:GustavEriksson.jpg

 

[ZephrC]

Hmm... I'll have to play a bit more for certain, see how it holds up over time, but I think that maybe there's finally a Civilization game that I like better than Civ 2. That would be odd at this point, but totally cool.

 

[Octorok]

But why does Gustav II Adolf look Like Gustav Vasa?

I wouldn't say that. His beard is too long, which makes him resemble Gustav Vasa, but look at his face and clothing - very distinctly Gustavus Adolphus.

Speaking of which - FUCK AND YES.

I've been excited for this for months, and now it's finally here (well, it WOULD be here if I didn't live in the stupid UK), I can't decide who I want to play first.

The Lion From The North is very near the top of the list, to be sure.

 

[Blade_125]

But why does Gustav II Adolf look Like Gustav Vasa?

Because you don't know what Gustav II Adolf looks like.

Nice reference, but I do.

http://sv.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gustav_II_Adolf

compare to

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:GustavEriksson.jpg

Ha! Nice. I'm glad someone got my joke at least. I might have had to gone on a hunger strike until someone did.

 

[Blade_125]

Yeah; I'd like to hear a review on this from an actual civilization fan, someone who knows enough about the game to know why V was such a huge disappointment in the first place.

I mean, civ V isn't a terrible game; if it was called something else, I wouldn't have been totally disappointed by it, but it's just such a huge step back from Civ IV in basically every way. The economic management is so simplified it's dull, the AI is much weaker, there's much less strategy in general.

Is there anything in the expansion that actually makes the economic management part of the game more interesting?

So far the economic management isn't really any different. Still population for knowledge, gold for maintenance and the stupid global happiness.

I will say that the AI seems to be smarter and less schizophrenic. They don't seem to declair war after being best friends as often. I was playing regularly at emperor, but after my first two games I got steamrolled I needed to drop the difficulty (of course I haven't really played it much in the last 6 months).

Religion is cool. It's like the culture system which I like, but I don't think it's so dramatic an improvement to forget everything that was bad. This should have been there from the start. Or at least a version of it.

Combat is better. I'm not a fan of the one unit per tile, btu I also wasn't a fan of the stack of doom. I will say that the combat is at elast playable now.

I haven't played a game past the middle ages yet, but so far I think the improvements frmo the expansion make it a good game, but not as good as beyond the sword.

 

[chimeracreator]

So far the economic management isn't really any different. Still population for knowledge, gold for maintenance and the stupid global happiness.

I will say that the AI seems to be smarter and less schizophrenic. They don't seem to declair war after being best friends as often. I was playing regularly at emperor, but after my first two games I got steamrolled I needed to drop the difficulty (of course I haven't really played it much in the last 6 months).

I've been playing on King (odds are I should up the difficulty soon) but I don't see why people hate global happiness. The way I see it global happiness is a really good way to weaken the influence of military only victories because it causes problems if you keep up a continuous state of war for centuries on large maps and if your global happiness falls under -10 you get a 33% penalty in battle.

That said I tend to enjoy diplomatic, technological and cultural victories more than military ones and cultural victories reward smaller empires.

 

[Blade_125]

So far the economic management isn't really any different. Still population for knowledge, gold for maintenance and the stupid global happiness.

I will say that the AI seems to be smarter and less schizophrenic. They don't seem to declair war after being best friends as often. I was playing regularly at emperor, but after my first two games I got steamrolled I needed to drop the difficulty (of course I haven't really played it much in the last 6 months).

I've been playing on King (odds are I should up the difficulty soon) but I don't see why people hate global happiness. The way I see it global happiness is a really good way to weaken the influence of military only victories because it causes problems if you keep up a continuous state of war for centuries on large maps and if your global happiness falls under -10 you get a 33% penalty in battle.

That said I tend to enjoy diplomatic, technological and cultural victories more than military ones and cultural victories reward smaller empires.

The real issue I have is restricting city size while expanding. In Civ IV the game halted expansion through your economy crashing. You could keep expanding, but yoru research would tank and eventually you would fall behind in tech and then it would't matter how many cities you owned. Rifle beats sword.

Now I have the choice of allowing my cities to grow, which is an aspect I enjoy, or increasing my territory. I like there to be a check on expansion (most of the time that is the only reason I don't win in 1700), but this isn't the way to do it. But Maybe others like it. For me it is the real issue that prevents me from really enjoying this game.

 

[Griffolion]

Can you spread atheism? Or does your country have to have a religion?

 

[Havegun]

Booted up Civ 5 again, and... The existence of city states fucking kills me. They feel so inane, tacked on and sometimes downright annoying (thanks for taking up a third of my island), it makes me question what the hell Firaxis was thinking on that one. Honestly, I can't think of a really good reason for their existence, other than somebody thinking that 12 players on one map isn't enough.

You can always just disable them, I usually set up my games with a few less city-states and a few more civs. Works like a charm.

I myself am greatly looking forward to this expansion, although it looks like it'll be some days before I can get around to actually playing it. Oh well.

Edit:

Can you spread atheism? Or does your country have to have a religion?

You don't have to found a religion, but others will and it will probably reach your cities as well. If you found a religion, you can rename it anything you'd like and you choose the benefits yourself, so you could create an atheist 'belief'. But isn't it blasphemous, for lack of a better word, to treat atheism like a religion? Or at least self-contradictory?

 

[chimeracreator]

The real issue I have is restricting city size while expanding. In Civ IV the game halted expansion through your economy crashing. You could keep expanding, but yoru research would tank and eventually you would fall behind in tech and then it would't matter how many cities you owned. Rifle beats sword.

Now I have the choice of allowing my cities to grow, which is an aspect I enjoy, or increasing my territory. I like there to be a check on expansion (most of the time that is the only reason I don't win in 1700), but this isn't the way to do it. But Maybe others like it. For me it is the real issue that prevents me from really enjoying this game.

Huh, I guess that's where the fundamental disagreement comes from. While I love how it forces me to limit my expansion depending on the civilization or potentially raze cities after I take them others such as yourself hate it. Ditto for city states which when you ally with them provide very nice bonuses without having to suffer the costs associated with adding new cities to the empire. Plus trading resources and launching a war specifically to gain a single city with access to a valuable cache of luxury or strategic resources is fun imo.

 

[Augustine]

While I did not loathe Civ V I always felt something was missing.
This expansion brought the whole together for me. Absolutely-positively bloody fantastic!

City States are now given a new life, acting more like real small political entities, creating an atmosphere I have not seen in any other Civ game.

Simplified in certain aspects compared to others? Perhaps. But I found elegance and genius in such simplicity. It has an ageless charm in it.

 

[Denamic]

I just hope they fix the AI's bad habit of being pants on head retarded when it comes to war and peace. I dont care if gandhi's a bloodthirsty maniac, but can we stop the "Oh you are my best friend and here let's trade, swap techs and live in peace" and 2 turns later go to "YOU WILL DIE!!" with no warning, reason or logic.

Maybe some people not directly affiliated with you from your country blew up a building in their country.
And perhaps your land is rich in resources.

 

[Augustine]

Maybe some people not directly affiliated with you from your country blew up a building in their country.
And perhaps your land is rich in resources.

Subtle

 

[Irridium]

Anyone else notice how when a new Civilization game comes out, it's deemed as the worst ever and how it ruined the series? And when the next one comes out, the previous is the best ever?

Always found that kind of funny.

Anyway, this expansion looks awesome and continues in the Civilization tradition. That tradition being a great base game, and an expansion or two to turn it into something amazing. This'll be the first thing I buy when I get the funds.

Nothing will ever top Alpha Centauri for me, but this seems like it'll come close.

 

[Undead Dragon King]

Can you spread atheism? Or does your country have to have a religion?

You can name the religion you found whatever you want. Feel free to name your faith "atheism".

That being said, your country doesn't even need to get embroiled in the religious scene. Just don't build any Shrines from the get-go and that should nip becoming a religous society in the bud. Just don't be surprised when foreign missionaries start speading religion in your cities and you have almost no ways of countering them. Inquisitors, which purge other religions from your cities, can only be purchased with Faith.

OT:

Carthage. Most fun I've had playing a Civ 5 game in a LONG time. I'm having fun as Austria right now too.