Civilization V

Collapse
X
 
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts
  • PaloAltoCougar
    Semper infra dignitatem
    • Nov 2008
    • 16932

    #16
    Originally posted by filsdepac View Post
    ...I had a rather aggressive style, compared to PaloAltoCougar's capitalist ways.
    This is true. Fils would be attacking from the get go, whilst I focused on tech advances, nation building, etc., establishing a rep for diplomacy and goodwill among my neighbors. All the while, I was amassing a huge military and a budget surplus so that I could send in spies to destroy city walls or make bribes, then initiate a coordinated attack that would sweep the world in one huge war. My favorite move was launching a nuclear strike, and follow it up with a team of about a dozen engineers to clean up the debris to avoid nuclear winter. Civ III, I loved that game.

    Comment

    • OSUCougar
      Junior Member
      • Aug 2010
      • 233

      #17
      Originally posted by PaloAltoCougar View Post
      This is true. Fils would be attacking from the get go, whilst I focused on tech advances, nation building, etc., establishing a rep for diplomacy and goodwill among my neighbors. All the while, I was amassing a huge military and a budget surplus so that I could send in spies to destroy city walls or make bribes, then initiate a coordinated attack that would sweep the world in one huge war. My favorite move was launching a nuclear strike, and follow it up with a team of about a dozen engineers to clean up the debris to avoid nuclear winter. Civ III, I loved that game.
      A man after my own heart. That was my strategy in CivII, but couldn't accomplish that as easy in CivIII. For some reason, the Aztecs always gave me trouble (even with machine guns). That is why I stopped playing that game. It got to frustrating.

      Comment

      • woot
        Resident Science Cop
        • Nov 2008
        • 5531

        #18
        I hadn't heard anything about Civ5 coming out, but now I'll have to get it eventually. I loved 3 and 4+expansions, but was concerned with the growing complexity of it, as it had started to get a bit bogged down with less-fun details, I thought. The new one sounds like it's been streamlined a bit.

        Comment

        • filsdepac
          No pun intended
          • May 2009
          • 1823

          #19
          Originally posted by PaloAltoCougar View Post
          This is true. Fils would be attacking from the get go, whilst I focused on tech advances, nation building, etc., establishing a rep for diplomacy and goodwill among my neighbors. All the while, I was amassing a huge military and a budget surplus so that I could send in spies to destroy city walls or make bribes, then initiate a coordinated attack that would sweep the world in one huge war. My favorite move was launching a nuclear strike, and follow it up with a team of about a dozen engineers to clean up the debris to avoid nuclear winter. Civ III, I loved that game.
          I definitely agree about bringing in engineers, they always follow my army. Build railroads, keep the pipeline of soldiers coming.

          I just read that in Civ V, you cannot stack units in one square (now a hexagon). I think this makes it more realistic, as I would often have over 10 units on one piece of land. Not sure why they changed it to hexagons, that actually decreases the amount of angles you can attack compared to a square. Perhaps to enable sieges to occur more easily.

          Comment

          • falafel
            loves to talk on things
            • Mar 2009
            • 37950

            #20
            Originally posted by filsdepac View Post
            I definitely agree about bringing in engineers, they always follow my army. Build railroads, keep the pipeline of soldiers coming.

            I just read that in Civ V, you cannot stack units in one square (now a hexagon). I think this makes it more realistic, as I would often have over 10 units on one piece of land. Not sure why they changed it to hexagons, that actually decreases the amount of angles you can attack compared to a square. Perhaps to enable sieges to occur more easily.
            I would prefer if you could stack only a limited number of units per "square." Those squares are huge! Certainly you could fit more than 1 tank on the southern side of a major city.
            Ain't it like most people, I'm no different. We love to talk on things we don't know about.

            Dig your own grave, and save!

            "The only one of us who is so significant that Jeff owes us something simply because he decided to grace us with his presence is falafel." -- All-American

            "I know that you are one of the cool and 'edgy' BYU fans" -- Wally

            GIVE 'EM HELL, BRIGHAM!

            Comment

            • PaloAltoCougar
              Semper infra dignitatem
              • Nov 2008
              • 16932

              #21
              Originally posted by falafel View Post
              I would prefer if you could stack only a limited number of units per "square." Those squares are huge! Certainly you could fit more than 1 tank on the southern side of a major city.
              I got around this oddity by assuming that one tank meant "One battle-tested, well-equipped, fully outfitted armored division." Similarly, in those weird match-ups between my technologically advanced civiliation and a backward one, the crappy nation's archer was presumed to be a more poorly equipped infantry division, with Skoda and Trabant motor vehicles rather than my awesome M1A1-equipped army. Thus I was slightly more able to excuse the rare, and embarrassing, victory by the archer.

              You guys may be luring me back into the mammoth time suck that is Civilization.

              Comment

              Working...