| okr said: I have decided to wait with the purchase. I don't think Civ 5 would run properly on my current laptop and thanks to GOG.com and Master of Magic I'm in nostalgia strategy mode atm, so I think I'll search for a used copy of Alpha Centauri instead, which I had already bought when it was released but never really played. So, @those who own Civ 5 and play it, what's your impressions so far? |
Good call there: unless you've got a high-end laptop, you'll probably have difficulties running anything but a small game. As for impressions, forgive me for going stream of consciousness on you here.
I'm still enjoying it quite a bit, although there are some pretty big flaws: the combat system is great now, but the AI doesn't have a particularly good grasp at it, so you'll be able to run them over with little difficulty. Just yesterday, I conquered the World Military Superpower, Russia, with just three units, although I had help from my city-state ally in holding the line at the start of the war.
One thing you should note is that the game is radically different from previous Civ games, and treating it like it was Civ IV.V (c wut I did thar?) will lead to a frustrating and fruitless experience. Money is the new king, and you'll find that specializing your cities is thus more important than ever, since building upkeep costs add up quickly. Several of the new mechanics seem weak at first but become alarmingly powerful once you get a grasp on them. Ditching civics for policies is ultimately a great idea, since it greatly encourages more diverse playthroughs, rather than having everyone pick the same civics.
Also, having cities able to defend themselves is a huge boon, especially in the early game: exploration is much easier without having to worry that a barbarian will conquer your city. Having your workers and settlers only get captured, rather than killed, by barbarians is another nice touch. And giving you a good supply of money for destroying barbarian camps makes hunting down barbarians a fun and useful exercise for your military units. On the flipside, the barbarians are a little too weak and stupid to pose a real threat, especially if you activate one of the policy lines, so they basically become replenishing sources of gold.
A few complaints: tying the number of the more powerful units to finite resources (horses, iron, aluminum, uranium, coal) is a great idea, but since, as stated earlier, you don't need a whole lot of units to win, it ultimately doesn't mean much. I prefer to play Marathon games, but that seems to severely unbalance some of the nations' powers. Also, a couple of the leaders are clearly weaker than others: America and Turkey in particular don't seem to measure up. On the other hand, most of the other leaders have great powers that encourage quite-different playstyles, some of which are less obvious than others. My favorite there is Gandhi, who at first glance seems to be set up for specializing in small empires, but who in reality is the king of the massive empire...
The game has noticeable flaws, but I remember that Civ IV was plagued with similar issues at its launch, and that subsequent patches did much to smooth things over. I expect Civ V to get similar treatment soon. Overall, it's definitely a great game.
