I just upgraded my Civ 5 to include the two major DLCs, Brave New World and Gods and Kings.

Honestly, I barely know what they include. I had time to play for like an hour and saw Civ attributes changed, there are religions and there are trade routes. Plus tourism, or something.

So, what do I need to know here. What's important that I do differently? Is it like Civ 4 where you rush to get religions and spread it like herpes to everyone?

There are new victory conditions too.
Cultural Victory and Political Victory i think.
Religion is a nice to have thing, but not a must have.
In and off itself, even if yours is the only religion still alive, it won't do you any good.
But it will help with production of food, gold and science, which means with the important stuff.

Gods and Kings adds in religion and Spycraft and also expands on the Diplomacy and City-State-System. Also does something to the combat system.

Brave New World adds Politics, Autokracy/Fascism, Freedom/Democracy, Order/Communism. These are treated like late game religion with stuff to add to it.

Additionally, new scenarios, buildings, units, wonders to build and new civilizations to play as.

Interesting. What changed in diplomacy? I noticed 2 things so far: Embassies, and capturing cities (even in cases of "self defence" ) make you a "warmongerer". Is this just a clarification on what was already happening or are there new mechanics?

Regarding trade routes, these seem more important. Should I be maxing these out as soon as possible?

Trade Routes can be a major part of your economy, or a minor part, depending on the Civ. Deciding if you are going to spend the resources on Caravans or Cargo Ships can be a big decision.

If you're just breaking even or have a little wealth increase, I'd say it was worth it. Even if you only trade to City States to prevent precious Science going to other Civs. Then again, my typical strategy is to be a techmonger.

Or just be the Greeks.

Trade-Routes suffer greatly from Barbarians.
To me, usually, it's simply not worth it . .
Early-Game, yeah, for getting monies maybe.
Middle-Game? Hell no. Never.
Late-Game? For spreading your Religion? Yes.

Ah, managed to get more gaming in last night. Trade Routes indeed seem to be a "nice to have" than really useful. I got a good look at religion so I see how that is beneficial. Depends on the bonus you takes, and it clearly states what you're going to get, so that's cool. I'm in the weirdest game ever where nobody has ever declared was on anybody, so while this particular game is a tad boring, I'm using it as a kind of tutorial to get a good look at diplomacy, culture stuff, etc. Getting a good grip on all the new stuff.

Thanks guys!

Tourism is the major thing that has interested me. I've lead more successful Civs through sheer museums and Wonders than I have any other way.

The Problem is, that since Civ1, the best winning strategy is still the same:
Tech up, build as many wonders as you can, then get gold up, buy an army of 2010 standards in the 1500's and roflstomp one civ after the other.

Even using that strategy, I find it difficult to win a military campaign. Just can't work with the mindset somehow.

I've done it, but it is very hard for me.

remember, Artillery is your friend.
As soon as you have artillery, you are basically invincible untill the others figure it out.
Warships especially are nice. They can get up to 4 hex fields of weapons reach to boot.

i'd really like to play a round or two with you folks, but seeing how we are mostly on different continents and have conflicting schedules AND the fact that a civ5 round, even single player, can take up to a week to play out, i guess this won't work.

Bwaha, vistory is mine!

After a difficult battle with my neighbour, I ended up reaching a breakaway point where, due to my size and efficiency, ended up ecplising all other civs. In the interest of hastening thing - as I was going to win by culture due to tourism, but that was going to take a little while - I decided to capture the capital of all civs and win by conquest. This was made easier by the fact most of them had their capitals by the sea...

So I built a fleet of a dozen Battleships and shitloads of Marines. While my conventional land forces invaded through the border and killing everything in sight (Hussar vs Modern Armor), the sea-based assault bombarded the capitals while the Marines, screaming "'MURICA, FUCK YEAH" flooded in and captured the cities.

Then I tried playing that Airship & Steam power mod and got destroyed in 10 turns. Guess I'll need to give that another shot...

I"ve been reading a lot about the USSR and the ongoing cold war politics about the competition for control over scads of tiny countries in hopes of denying assets, or even politically unsetting competing nations. Are there any games which better represent the political/economics side? Civ has never really addressed it, and my understanding is that Civ5's nationstates mechanics partially replicate it, but that overall the game has shifted to more tactical viewpoint.

Yeah, the game is called "It belongs to the Peoples, f*** you."

Crusader kings is very much like that. The downside is that you are playing with lots and lots of tables due to all of the information.

As for Civ 5, I greatly enjoy everything they have added to the game with the expansions. Another benefit of trade routes is it seems to greatly affect diplomacy as well. If another country's income is dependent on trade routes with you, it makes them much less likely to declare war, or vote to shut down your luxuries or embargo you.

Thinking of picking up the Civ boardgame this Christmas as well.

I've heard a few people recommend Europa Universalis as well. I'm just picky and want my modern, Cold War setting I recognize I'm a fringe market, and the best chance of my getting it is to program it myself. Maybe one day I'll just go ahead and do that.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v2grKk4Fv0k&noredirect=1
*fap fap fap fap*

EUIV is frankly amazing. The stories that game generates are epic. It does have a lot of nuance to learn though.

CKII even more so.

Paradox was making a Cold War game in that style but apparently it was boring and they canned it late in development.

That video depressed the fuck outta me. There's just so much wrong with the mentality of "Shit's fucked up on Earth? Oh well! We're hopelessly inured to a policy of disposable consumption, so we'll just embark on more expansionist imperialistic colonization efforts rather than work to fix things!"

Okay, yeah, I realize that there's not much inherent conflict present to drive a game narrative if humans aren't leaving Earth because of a crisis, but goddamn it, it's so damaging to our future to keep telling ourselves these little stories and innocent white lies about being able to get off this rock.

The reality is that it isn't feasible, not now, not in fifty years, not in two centuries. Physics itself denies us. Even putting aside the absurd distances to other star systems, the centuries that would be needed to cross those distances with technologies even as yet only theoretical, the logistics of researching and developing those hypothetical technologies, the logistics of putting it all into use to build, supply, and launch ark ships, the logistics of successfully living inside those ark ships for the aforementioned centuries of transit... there's still the simple matter of numbers.

There is simply is no way to get humanity off this planet in any substantial numbers. We could perhaps seed another planet. But we're talking sending handfuls of people. Hundreds or thousands. Tens or hundreds of thousands would be a stretch. A million would be absurd.

Meanwhile, billions will always, necessarily remain behind. They will NEVER leave this rock. Their children will never leave, nor their grandchildren, nor any descendants. Some lucky few might seed yet another, different planet - or more accurately seed the ship that would seed the planet centuries later. To surrender the fate of the Earth just to launch a fraction of humanity into space, dooming the rest to squalor and ruin because we believed, in our blindness, that we could simply up and leave the earth once we wasted it?

Yeah, depressing. At least the game looks like it might be good, though?

~Umi

...I'm go on a limb and assumed you never liked the sci-fi plot trope of colonizing other worlds due to the planet not being as sustainable.

In a fictional work. And a video game. That was never a 100% realistic simulation of running a country.

(Nvm that the interview on the details of the premise suggests that the game takes place a lot longer then two centuries from now)

(...and that you will meet aliens...who are supposed to be the equivalent of the barbarian tribes from previous Civ games...and where the next planet that can maintain all three states of water is supposed to be quite a bit aways from Earth...and that the idea of non-carbon based life forms is pretty far fetched...yeah man; work of fiction)

So the aliens you will meet are the equivalent of a cockroaches to be exterminated, offering no meaningful interactions and existing only to make your life hell until you wipe them off the face of the planet, is essentially what you're saying.

My complaint isn't the colonization of other worlds, specifically. There's plenty of imaginative adventure to be had with the concept of striking out into the uncharted mysteries of the universe, and the harsh struggle for suvival on a foreign planet.

My complaint isn't even the dystopia of a ruined earth, even. Shadowrun itself is pretty damn dystopian, and if it weren't for the fact that The Awakening allowed Mother Nature to start violently fighting back against the destruction of humanity, the Earth would be a much more dead and lifeless place. (And even despite that, it's certainly on the fast-track for ruination if things continue as they are.) Stories about how horrible life will become if we don't take care of the planet serve as cautionary tales, if nothing else.

No, my complaint is with the bizarre "We Will Overcome" heroic mentality of this trailer, and other works like it. It paints a bleak landscape of humanity having destroyed their homeworld, but then plasters over that with triumphal grandeur of "The Human Spirit!" - how despite being so monumentally stupid as to destroy the cradle of not just civilization but even life as we know it, we're still "Adaptable" and "Intelligent" and "Hard Working" and "[Insert Positive Quality Associated With Humans Here]" enough to tough it out and not just survive, but even thrive!

Stories like these are all about the Indomitable Will of Humanity to do whatever we set our minds to - how even in the face of great adversity, we shall overcome with perserverance. Except they take it too far, and the boasts they make are too big. They distract us from the reality of our situation by giving us a superficially reassuring fantasy that even if we fuck up our planet, It's Okay™ because we can totally just go find a new one! We'll get to explore strange uncharted worlds (of frozen lifeless rocks) and perhaps even encounter advanced alien life (which we will promptly kill or subjugate, somehow despite it being advanced)!

It'll be tough, but fun! (And not actually absolutely cataclysmic and horrible!) Because we're Humanity! We can do anything, which justifies us choosing not to maintain our own homeworld! Moral imperatives? Pfft! Please! We're a fucking virus! We arrive, consume until we've exhausted all resources, and move on! We must always expand! We must always conquer more territory! Because that's definitely never stopped working for us in an apocalyptic manner previously, amirite?

I totally get the appeal of stories about space travel. Hell, I even get the appeal of stories about the complete lack of appeal of fucking our planet over. What I don't get the appeal of is stories that glorify and aggrandize what in reality would be the equivalent of crimes against the Universe.

~Umi

Colonization is only a no-go if you hold the a priori assumption that 'people' are the meat we wear.

Please note, none is the above post is to say that I think the game will be bad. As a game, it might be amazing - and I'm actually interested in seeing more and playing it.

But as a concept and as a narrative that I find destructive for our culture to tell itself, I found the trailer for the game to be incredibly despressing. Since I doubt that was part of their marketing strategy, I figured I'd express this unexpected response and try to explain why I had it with a little self analysis of my own personal viewpoint.

~Umi

I'm not sure, but this statement seems to me to suggest that you're either a Singularist or a Theist.

In my opinion, both philosophies operate off of extreme degrees of delusion.

~Umi

No; actually, when you read the press release, they're going to be more like a fusion between the barbarians and city-states from previous Civ games.

...

You did not see anything else of the game apart from the trailer, didn't you?

No, I did not see anything else of the game apart from the trailer.

The only link in the entire thread is to the Youtube video of the trailer. The press release you speak of is not linked anywhere, and I did not bother to seek it out because I had no clue it existed, since many trailers are released without a separate press release. Hence why I was only talking about my impressions of the trailer.

Furthermore, you're the one who said the aliens "are supposed to be the equivalent of the barbarian tribes from previous Civ games". Clearly that's not what you meant, but I'm not to be blamed for ending up misinformed via your lack of clarity and articulateness.

~Umi

No, it's more of how one article stated just the barbarian part and the other stating that they function kinda-sorta like the city states.

Consistency is apparently a rare commodity these days.

What are you talking about with articles? I didn't read any damn articles.

I watched the trailer. I read your post, in which you said the aliens "are supposed to be the equivalent of the barbarian tribes from previous Civ games". I did not read, watch, or look at anything else.

So when you told me that the aliens "are supposed to be the equivalent of the barbarian tribes from previous Civ games", I kind of assumed that you, ya know, actually meant that they were "the equivalent of the barbarian tribes from previous Civ games".

~Umi

Dude, it's a video game. Calm the fuck down.

Agressive City States WOULD be a novel change to the game as well . .

This looks good, but I think I'm more excited by Galactic Civilizations 3:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=owdjizoiqVY

I agree, GalCiv3 does look good. I'm going to have to upgrade before I can run it, though; it requires Windows 7 or later.

Win7 runs nicely on older hardware.
If you can find a 32bit version, it runs on stuff with a Pentium 4 . .

It's true, Win7 runs on peanuts. I upgraded our network and tried installing it on everything, even those little eee PC things, and it runs ok.

Also, as XP has officially gone end-of-life now, I suspect ALL new games will say they require Win7 even if they'd actually run fine on XP. Developers aren't going to be supporting it on any new titles though so an upgrade is definitely required unless you want to play retro for life

I love the CIV series and still play it. In the game I blithely deforest the planet to fuel my industries and crank out factories as fast as I can. All this despite the fact that I work for Greenpeace.

The cultural narrative that we can escape our mistakes by going elsewhere is a no-starter. There is no Planet B. We fix it here or we are fucked.

I give a nod to Umidori.

http://store.steampowered.com/sub/36075/
civ5 complete edition for 75% off, if you are interested

furthermore, Civ5 now works on linux.

1 & 2, that's what I was waiting for, thanks!

np.
i'd have gotten this myself, but i already own most of this anyway.
the only missing things in my collection are the twisted things, and i am not really sure wether or not i actually want to spend money on that . .
that, like true historical starting locations, should have been a part of the main game already in my eyes <.<

First ever real opportunity to win a Diplomatic Victory. In about 30 years of playing this damn game. Everybody of any size loves me (Brennus of Celts). Built the United Nations. Got voted Secretary General. Lined up the vote for Diplomatic victory. Alexander, Louis XIV, Bismark, and Shaka are Pleased with me, Mao Tse Tung is downright Friendly.

Damned if not just before the vote, Shaka gets Mao to be his Vassal. The vote is between me and Shaka. The one I counted on most strongly, Mao, of course voted for his Master, not me. Had I gotten Mao, my first ever Diplomatic Victory would have happened. Now I have to figure out how to break the deal between the two and try the vote again.

I told all this to my wife. She said, "Looks like you need to perform a vassalectomy."

oi . . that one was terribad . .

Ha! Good job, wife.

If I remember correctly, vassalage only works when the vassal is a certain size smaller than the master. Can you start building cities and pumping them into Mao?

That calculated risk is exactly what my plan is. Cede enough territory to China to make it secede from Zululand. Then gift Mao till his head spins. Then, maybe, he will vote for me the next time the vote comes around. If it fails to work, I will almost certainly win a Cultural victory... but I've been there, and that will take quite a while yet, so the victory points will be much lower.

I've not had a chance to play for a couple of days, but I'll keep you posted.

have you deactivated spies?
if you send a spy as a diplomat, you can trade world congress votes like any other goods . .
if itwill win you the game, then offer him all but your first city for voting for you, because then it simply won't matter anymore . .

I've never seen vassalage happen in Civ 5(BNW+G&K). Thought the only way to get people to vote for you as world leader was to revive their civilization from defeat.

Of course I've yet to pursue a domination victory so far and all my diplomatics have been an exercise in dominating all the city states in the world, so I could be missing something.

Sorry, way back in an earlier post I had pointed out I am still playing Civ IV. Should have mentioned it again.

Ah, ok, carry on without me then . . i never actually played that . .
Last game before 5 i played was 2 and i quit that in disgust back then . .

I'm surprised. I loved 2. Thinking on it, it may still be my favorite ruleset, but I like the resources and the updated AI, so I play 4.

I played 5 and enjoyed it as well, but it feels like it's missing something. I haven't played 4 for like a bazillion years. I suspect if I played them side-by-side I'd remember, but as it stands, I can't quite put my finger on it. I may just miss being young with loads of free time.

don't we all? ._.
i'm honestly very much surprised that it took them 4 parts to figure out that with isometric view you should not use fucking squares as the frame of reference <.<

Furthermore i just found out a pretty crucial piece of information about Civ5:
It does NOT appreciate being started in 5760x1080 resolution using one GPU for nVidia Surround with 3 Screens <.<

Well, as it turns out the vassalage was voluntary, so changing the relative population, size, etc. would have no effect. And as I waited the requisite 10 turns for Mao to decide to leave Shaka behind, the love I was feeling from the others started to cool.

So, no Diplomatic victory. I got a Cultural victory, though. Later in the game, fewer points. Meh.

After some reflection, I may take another run at it, right from the start this time. I suspect I'm not spreading my state religion well enough. I'll work on that.

is religion as OP as it is in Civ5?