chapset said:
unit stacking made war so much more simple, attacking a costal city in civ V is so fucking annoying because you can only have a limit amount of unit around the city and if the computer didn't improve his jungle or forest tiles you get -1 in vision from those tiles so the early artillery units are often useless, but anyway capturing a city in civ V is never worth it with the huge unhappiness you get from it and puppeting a city is even more worse, for me nothing in civ V was an improvement over civ iv beyond the sword other than the graphics. |
I agree that taking cities is a pain in Civ V, but my gripes with unit stacking still stand, in Beyond the Sword, on Prince or higher difficulties, the enemy stacks insane amounts of units when they invade. Barbarians that attack with 15 warriors from the one most advantageous tile outside the capital in turn 50 can also get old on higher difficulties. I think war should be more tactical and less simple as the Civ series tries to impose the downsides and cost of warfare before diplomacy and trade, which is a very historically accurate depiction. Capturing a coastal city should be a pain, but yes, I agree that they took it too far, especially with the range and relative power of the cities' new bombardment ability.
Civ V is quite simply not very balanced, the biggest annoyance for me is how much you can do with gold directly; buyout's of units and buildings trumps everything else, the player who starts off in the richest gold environment has a tremendous advantage, a lot more so than in previous games.
I wonder what they'll come up with for Civ VI, here's hoping they'll go back to their roots, more towards the depth and flow of Civ III and IV with a deeper trade aspect and a more balanced diplomacy system (simply largely ignoring a civilization shouldn't provoke war by default after 200 turns, it should simply spurr the party being ignored into entering other ventures and pursuing other interests).
