So......Civ V?
Moderator: Thanas
So......Civ V?
Okay, recently bought Civ V.
So I thought, here I go, playing as the Roman Empire.
Well, no dice. No matter what I try, I can't seem to get the game to start me off in Italy. So far I have been landed in the Amazonas, China, Australia and Babylonia. Is there any way to get me to start my civilization in the correct spot?
So I thought, here I go, playing as the Roman Empire.
Well, no dice. No matter what I try, I can't seem to get the game to start me off in Italy. So far I have been landed in the Amazonas, China, Australia and Babylonia. Is there any way to get me to start my civilization in the correct spot?
Whoever says "education does not matter" can try ignorance
------------
A decision must be made in the life of every nation at the very moment when the grasp of the enemy is at its throat. Then, it seems that the only way to survive is to use the means of the enemy, to rest survival upon what is expedient, to look the other way. Well, the answer to that is 'survival as what'? A country isn't a rock. It's not an extension of one's self. It's what it stands for. It's what it stands for when standing for something is the most difficult! - Chief Judge Haywood
------------
My LPs
------------
A decision must be made in the life of every nation at the very moment when the grasp of the enemy is at its throat. Then, it seems that the only way to survive is to use the means of the enemy, to rest survival upon what is expedient, to look the other way. Well, the answer to that is 'survival as what'? A country isn't a rock. It's not an extension of one's self. It's what it stands for. It's what it stands for when standing for something is the most difficult! - Chief Judge Haywood
------------
My LPs
Re: So......Civ V?
Are you playing with all the Gods and King's expansion? All playable nations have a certain affinity to certain terrain types and the game will try to put you there if it can. This won't always be italy but it can be places near or similar to Italy, sort of complicated scripting it is never guaranteed.
For example being Egypt is supposed to most of the type place you next to the nile, the last time I was Rome I was put where Carthage was (Northern Tunis + Nile) and my friend I was playing with who was himself Carthage got placed where Rome is supposed to go. So we had our Punic Wars but with the situations reversed.
If you play on the newest Europe map (I presume your playing on Terra or one of the "Earth" maps), since it does everything by scripting and if you pick Rome it should be more likely than usual to put you in "Italy" or what the map thinks is Italy, but not always.
It was nice in Civ IV playing on that large Europe map as Russia and actually being placed in Moscow but I've never seen it in Civ V beyond "Ok, this spot kinda sorta looks like it could be Italy if I have two more beers." You might be better off playing in "Europe" as the chances for the automap generator to place you in Antartica are lower.
On the other hand I vastly prefer Islands/Continents+ as it gives me a decent mix of land and naval combat without having to worry too much about whether everything is going accurately like in Hearts of Iron.
For example being Egypt is supposed to most of the type place you next to the nile, the last time I was Rome I was put where Carthage was (Northern Tunis + Nile) and my friend I was playing with who was himself Carthage got placed where Rome is supposed to go. So we had our Punic Wars but with the situations reversed.
If you play on the newest Europe map (I presume your playing on Terra or one of the "Earth" maps), since it does everything by scripting and if you pick Rome it should be more likely than usual to put you in "Italy" or what the map thinks is Italy, but not always.
It was nice in Civ IV playing on that large Europe map as Russia and actually being placed in Moscow but I've never seen it in Civ V beyond "Ok, this spot kinda sorta looks like it could be Italy if I have two more beers." You might be better off playing in "Europe" as the chances for the automap generator to place you in Antartica are lower.
On the other hand I vastly prefer Islands/Continents+ as it gives me a decent mix of land and naval combat without having to worry too much about whether everything is going accurately like in Hearts of Iron.
- El Moose Monstero
- Moose Rebellion Ambassador
- Posts: 3743
- Joined: 2003-04-30 12:33pm
- Location: The Cradle of the Rebellion... Oop Nowrrth, Like...
- Contact:
Re: So......Civ V?
Can't you get one of the giant earth map mods? CivFanatics has them I think. I'm pretty sure they come with the option to have actual starting place. 'Download a mod' isn't always the option you want to hear, I know, but it seems pretty painless to do so in Civ5.
I assume there isn't an option for real world starts in the advanced options when you play the actual Earth map that comes with the game? I had a hazy memory that there was, but I might be just remembering the mods.
I assume there isn't an option for real world starts in the advanced options when you play the actual Earth map that comes with the game? I had a hazy memory that there was, but I might be just remembering the mods.
"...a fountain of mirth, issuing forth from the penis of a cupid..." ~ Dalton / Winner of the 'Frank Hipper Most Horrific Drag EVAR' award - 2004 / The artist formerly known as The_Lumberjack.
Evil Brit Conspiracy: Token Moose Obsessed Kebab Munching Semi Geordie
Evil Brit Conspiracy: Token Moose Obsessed Kebab Munching Semi Geordie
Re: So......Civ V?
The problem is most maps large enough to be geographically satisfying also run absurdly poorly once you get to mid game even with the best computers.
Re: So......Civ V?
El Moose Monstero wrote:Can't you get one of the giant earth map mods? CivFanatics has them I think. I'm pretty sure they come with the option to have actual starting place. 'Download a mod' isn't always the option you want to hear, I know, but it seems pretty painless to do so in Civ5.
I assume there isn't an option for real world starts in the advanced options when you play the actual Earth map that comes with the game? I had a hazy memory that there was, but I might be just remembering the mods.
Thanks, did so. Worked out very well.
Whoever says "education does not matter" can try ignorance
------------
A decision must be made in the life of every nation at the very moment when the grasp of the enemy is at its throat. Then, it seems that the only way to survive is to use the means of the enemy, to rest survival upon what is expedient, to look the other way. Well, the answer to that is 'survival as what'? A country isn't a rock. It's not an extension of one's self. It's what it stands for. It's what it stands for when standing for something is the most difficult! - Chief Judge Haywood
------------
My LPs
------------
A decision must be made in the life of every nation at the very moment when the grasp of the enemy is at its throat. Then, it seems that the only way to survive is to use the means of the enemy, to rest survival upon what is expedient, to look the other way. Well, the answer to that is 'survival as what'? A country isn't a rock. It's not an extension of one's self. It's what it stands for. It's what it stands for when standing for something is the most difficult! - Chief Judge Haywood
------------
My LPs
- Flagg
- CUNTS FOR EYES!
- Posts: 12797
- Joined: 2005-06-09 09:56pm
- Location: Hell. In The Room Right Next to Reagan. He's Fucking Bonzo. No, wait... Bonzo's fucking HIM.
Re: So......Civ V?
Is there a way to stop the tech tree at certain ages? For example, I wanna stop advancement at the industrial era.
We pissing our pants yet?
-Negan
You got your shittin' pants on? Because you’re about to Shit. Your. Pants!
-Negan
He who can, does; he who cannot, teaches.
-George Bernard Shaw
-Negan
You got your shittin' pants on? Because you’re about to Shit. Your. Pants!
-Negan
He who can, does; he who cannot, teaches.
-George Bernard Shaw
Re: So......Civ V?
I'd love to do the same thing. I personally lose interest around the time that riflemen become available, things get super complex and I'm no longer feeling like a king but like guy pulling the levers of a machine. Part of the problem is that invasion becomes a very real factor the shape of the world (by me or the other nations), which means that rebellion and unhappiness ramp up if I'm invading or if not then I'm going to get swept under the rug by runaway research and industrial expansion.
Civ's endgame has always been the worst part about it, and I think that's a pretty common experience. I'm not positive that the technological halt would fix that, but it certainly could not hurt it much. Slowing down the ability of an army to mobilize and invade and for subversive units to blow you up or so on and so forth, that's much more fun. The atomic age of Civ games usually ends up becoming a frustrating grind. I'm usually tired of wars by then, but I'm often worried that that one jackass who got lucky and got a whole island to himself is going to research the Space Program or the UN while I'm entangled with some moronic scuffle over in the Balkans. During the steam free civ weekend that's what happened too, someone created the UN and voted for themselves. Despite me being the overwhelming military and scientific leader with maybe only 10 turns from assembling the space shuttle I get beat because someone votes to end the game. How idiotic.
Anything to stop that I'd vote for though.
Civ's endgame has always been the worst part about it, and I think that's a pretty common experience. I'm not positive that the technological halt would fix that, but it certainly could not hurt it much. Slowing down the ability of an army to mobilize and invade and for subversive units to blow you up or so on and so forth, that's much more fun. The atomic age of Civ games usually ends up becoming a frustrating grind. I'm usually tired of wars by then, but I'm often worried that that one jackass who got lucky and got a whole island to himself is going to research the Space Program or the UN while I'm entangled with some moronic scuffle over in the Balkans. During the steam free civ weekend that's what happened too, someone created the UN and voted for themselves. Despite me being the overwhelming military and scientific leader with maybe only 10 turns from assembling the space shuttle I get beat because someone votes to end the game. How idiotic.
Anything to stop that I'd vote for though.
- Flagg
- CUNTS FOR EYES!
- Posts: 12797
- Joined: 2005-06-09 09:56pm
- Location: Hell. In The Room Right Next to Reagan. He's Fucking Bonzo. No, wait... Bonzo's fucking HIM.
Re: So......Civ V?
Good news! I found mods that let you end in various eras. It's on the workshop under "Technology".
We pissing our pants yet?
-Negan
You got your shittin' pants on? Because you’re about to Shit. Your. Pants!
-Negan
He who can, does; he who cannot, teaches.
-George Bernard Shaw
-Negan
You got your shittin' pants on? Because you’re about to Shit. Your. Pants!
-Negan
He who can, does; he who cannot, teaches.
-George Bernard Shaw
-
- Emperor's Hand
- Posts: 30165
- Joined: 2009-05-23 07:29pm
Re: So......Civ V?
Personally I find the end game tedious, but kind of more satisfying. I identify more with a modern society than an ancient one, and I like Spaceship victories.
Although this is coming from Civ II and IV experience, not V.
Although this is coming from Civ II and IV experience, not V.
This space dedicated to Vasily Arkhipov
-
- Sith Devotee
- Posts: 2776
- Joined: 2003-09-08 12:47pm
- Location: Took an arrow in the knee.
- Contact:
Re: So......Civ V?
Isn't that kind of the point? If the nation in 2nd place isn't a viable competitor to win then you've ALREADY WON. Last game I played I had to fight tooth and nail to secure Oil, and once that was done, I realized the Egyptians on the other side of the world were going to win a cultural victory if I didn't do something - so, well, I rushed an invasion that barely succeeded in taking their capital just before they teched to <something> and built their first modern infantry, which would have rendered my army incapable of completing the offensive before it was too late...
Incidentally as of G&K you cannot vote for yourself in the UN, you need enough votes from other civs and city states to win.
Incidentally as of G&K you cannot vote for yourself in the UN, you need enough votes from other civs and city states to win.
I do know how to spell
AniThyng is merely the name I gave to what became my favourite Baldur's Gate II mage character
AniThyng is merely the name I gave to what became my favourite Baldur's Gate II mage character
Re: So......Civ V?
I play multiplayer on the Super Marathon speeds back in Civ 4 and try to play marathon whenever possible in Civ5, its a lot more satifying to have the 6600 turn games because I actually get the time to play with new units instead of them instantly going obsolete within 5 turns, we also turn off all victory conditions except domination as we hate science/diplo/spaceship victory as "ending the game early".
Re: So......Civ V?
Well yes, I would agree. My point was that I was in third place until I launched a big invasion to take out all these other aggressive nations on my landmass (because the AI decided they could not be anything but the biggest of dicks and would never accept my legitimate peace) and then was in second, but the other guy was just going bumfuck crazy to tech up to a win so I had to blitz for a space race victory and failed because he got to the UN before I could either get him nuked to hell and gone or get my own shuttle up and running.
The way I see it, the "I researched and built this so I win" opt-out cards should be ways to win when you are entirely unopposed, or under the direst of circumstances. The space program at least notifies others when you built it due to the space-related wonder. But the UN only notifies you when they finish it, and the first vote is often the last, which is horrible.
In the game I'm speaking of, the Iroquois and I were roughly equal in power ratings (my military was superior, his infrastructure was entirely his own and therefore easier to manage) but there was still nothing I could do to stop his UN victory schenanigans except race for the win. He won, like, literally two turns before I would have.
I suppose in retrospect I could have just fired my entire nuclear arsenal at him to obliterate his cities, creating a massive war that would engulf the world, but I was really tired of the constant wars by then and felt that the UN being built by this guy was such a stupid, unfair, spiteful act on the AI's part. I'd worked so hard and I lose to a half-assed text splash screen and one little dialog button that says "Fuck you, you lose!" (OK)
I'd say that most of the time the game boils down to the other nations not being viable competitors unless they go for one of those "Fuck you, you lose" options, which are boring and uninteresting ways to win the game. Plus it doesn't leave me feeling like I lost, just like the AI decided to shit on the game and ruin the fun. Now with the UN not being a win button, but actually requiring votes, I'm way more interested in seeing how that goes. Hopefully the AI wouldn't just all vote for another AI anyway, because I really would love if I could play diplomatically.
Overall, I'd say it's fair to say I'm not a Civ player by nature. I'd love to delve into the political and diplomatic morass that should really be the never-ending struggle in this game, but it isn't. I may need to check out Gods and Kings though, if they've fixed the UN then they've made me a noble sacrifice and I'd like to take a look.
The way I see it, the "I researched and built this so I win" opt-out cards should be ways to win when you are entirely unopposed, or under the direst of circumstances. The space program at least notifies others when you built it due to the space-related wonder. But the UN only notifies you when they finish it, and the first vote is often the last, which is horrible.
In the game I'm speaking of, the Iroquois and I were roughly equal in power ratings (my military was superior, his infrastructure was entirely his own and therefore easier to manage) but there was still nothing I could do to stop his UN victory schenanigans except race for the win. He won, like, literally two turns before I would have.
I suppose in retrospect I could have just fired my entire nuclear arsenal at him to obliterate his cities, creating a massive war that would engulf the world, but I was really tired of the constant wars by then and felt that the UN being built by this guy was such a stupid, unfair, spiteful act on the AI's part. I'd worked so hard and I lose to a half-assed text splash screen and one little dialog button that says "Fuck you, you lose!" (OK)
I'd say that most of the time the game boils down to the other nations not being viable competitors unless they go for one of those "Fuck you, you lose" options, which are boring and uninteresting ways to win the game. Plus it doesn't leave me feeling like I lost, just like the AI decided to shit on the game and ruin the fun. Now with the UN not being a win button, but actually requiring votes, I'm way more interested in seeing how that goes. Hopefully the AI wouldn't just all vote for another AI anyway, because I really would love if I could play diplomatically.
Overall, I'd say it's fair to say I'm not a Civ player by nature. I'd love to delve into the political and diplomatic morass that should really be the never-ending struggle in this game, but it isn't. I may need to check out Gods and Kings though, if they've fixed the UN then they've made me a noble sacrifice and I'd like to take a look.
-
- Sith Devotee
- Posts: 2776
- Joined: 2003-09-08 12:47pm
- Location: Took an arrow in the knee.
- Contact:
Re: So......Civ V?
Ahh, makes sense that.
To be honest, while they've fixed a lot of things in G&K, I still find Civ IV (once upgraded to the latest expansions, i forget the name offhand) to have the superior diplomatic model - at least in Civ IV I remember a memorable game where two civs I had reduced to rump states in the middle ages begging me at the cusp of the modern era to be my vassals to protect them against the big bad british (who were the #1 military power at the time). Flattered, I accepted and so began an era of cold war. Which did eventually go hot when they tried to bully my poor little vassals.
That doesn't particularly often happen in Civ V, but at least in G&K diplomacy begins to approach something vaguely approximating meaningful diplomacy.
To be honest, while they've fixed a lot of things in G&K, I still find Civ IV (once upgraded to the latest expansions, i forget the name offhand) to have the superior diplomatic model - at least in Civ IV I remember a memorable game where two civs I had reduced to rump states in the middle ages begging me at the cusp of the modern era to be my vassals to protect them against the big bad british (who were the #1 military power at the time). Flattered, I accepted and so began an era of cold war. Which did eventually go hot when they tried to bully my poor little vassals.
That doesn't particularly often happen in Civ V, but at least in G&K diplomacy begins to approach something vaguely approximating meaningful diplomacy.
I do know how to spell
AniThyng is merely the name I gave to what became my favourite Baldur's Gate II mage character
AniThyng is merely the name I gave to what became my favourite Baldur's Gate II mage character
-
- Sith Devotee
- Posts: 2776
- Joined: 2003-09-08 12:47pm
- Location: Took an arrow in the knee.
- Contact:
Re: So......Civ V?
Still, it would have been hilarious from an RP aspect:
And so, did the empire of <player> unleash a nuclear fury upon the empire of <AI> to prevent forevermore the institution of One World Government. Alas, there is now no longer much of a world to govern, it being ashes and dust, but with the spaceship Unity safely on the way to Alpha Centauri, the human race will live on.
Until the Mindworms, anyway.
And so, did the empire of <player> unleash a nuclear fury upon the empire of <AI> to prevent forevermore the institution of One World Government. Alas, there is now no longer much of a world to govern, it being ashes and dust, but with the spaceship Unity safely on the way to Alpha Centauri, the human race will live on.
Until the Mindworms, anyway.
I do know how to spell
AniThyng is merely the name I gave to what became my favourite Baldur's Gate II mage character
AniThyng is merely the name I gave to what became my favourite Baldur's Gate II mage character
Re: So......Civ V?
The other victory conditions have their place. I see it as 'ending the scoring period' for those sides and it shouldn't be a win as much as a way to tally their points and possibly win the game. Or it should be an immense and powerful wonder that persists. Furthermore, it should do a SCORING and not a VICTORY screen, with the winners (and what they win in) listed then. So when someone votes for Joe to be the leader of the UN, if Stan has more points that line up with a diplomatic victory then he'd win. So if the diplomatic guy pushes for a diplomatic victory and votes for Joe because he wants the game to end with World Peace then Stan would win. Hell, make it like a game of Assassin, where you get tasked with victory goals and need to work towards them. So there could be times where your rival nations really do want to work together to achieve shared goals because they'll win their own Civ's goals that way, as well as putting them into the running for winning the game.
Like, if the UN really DID want to vote one person leader, why not let the game continue (if everyone votes to) with that person gaining control over a UN army, the ability to put forth declarations to be voted on (nuclear disarmament/nuclear weapons ban, banning spaceflight, levying sanctions, etc) with the ability to grant special UN diplomatic benefits to nations that comply and scorning those who don't. They could even make it so warring must be done with the UN's approval, lest you face consequences. That's a really interesting dynamic, and fits the diplomatic victory ethos, and you'd only be able to vote for "everyone follows my lead" once you've achieved like four of "The Six Founding Goals" or "Noble Goals" or something and made the world peaceful and orderly.
Same with space. Maybe the space shuttle is a first step, but then the space-controlling nation starts getting unique space benefits that aid them as well. Make it so the shuttle is actually a super rocket whose first landing spot is the moon. So you construct this amazing thing, go to the moon, and find alien artifacts which you return to Earth. Then the next trip is to follow the signs on the artifacts to Mars using technology from The Slab you found on the moon. Then you go to Mars and get more interesting science things to do, since this is the science victory so it caters to science. These would not be good for war, nor make you a lot of friends, but infrastructurally they would be valuable if you start slapping down Martian thingies all about the place. Hell, maybe you have to use workers to place terraforming (or marsaforming) doodads around some portion of your territory so that you can awaken a martian colony to finally hand over the keys to everything. THEN you win, or whoever wins, depending on who has benefited the most from the new science.
The Utopia Project is dumb as hell and should be entirely scrapped. A diplomatic victory IS a cultural victory in the sense that it's nonviolent. A victory of one culture over another culture is also often a domination victory. The "tiny little city that could" victory condition seems pretty dumb to me, but the normal range of 3-8 cities is not a problem, really. Honestly, I feel that diplomatic victories (make friends) and cultural victories (research policies) are so similar because a small cultural nation requires staying out of fights, which generally means trying to be diplomatic as well. I also don't know why other people should lose because one side researched a bunch of social policies but isn't doing anything with them.
Wouldn't it make more sense if a cultural victory was more like using your cultural sway to impress your values onto other civilizations? Like blanketing the globe in your policies and your religion? The game of Civ5 I played had no religions at all, I assume G&K has those again and makes them something, yeah? Personally, I think bringing religions into play as the Cultural victory scenario makes sense. A small, insular nation that doesn't adopt outside ideas should have a strong culture. In fact, social policies and the DESIRE among your people for these policies should leak in from allies.
Having advanced trade routes should increase cultural diffusion, as does advanced communications technology. Science should increase your cultural flexibility too, so that sciencey civs will often get free social policies to pick from (especially around their Enlightenment period) because of cultural diffusion. This means that if one nation develops Communism, other nations might develop a taste for it, causing your people unhappiness if their favorite policies aren't chosen.
The beginning ones would be things like deciding what your government is, how oppressive the taxes, servitude and military conscription are (influencing your money, industry and military production rates) and the rough creation of a religion. Your religion would be something you build ala the Policies map in 5, until you finish slotting elements into it. Your religion's tenants then become major motivating principles of the people who are followers.
Religions also spread, both by edict (conquering a nation and imposing it) and by others taking it out. The strength of the religious faith is not only the amount of faith the people have in X religion, but the degree to which they follow it. Ergo, a strong 'culture' nation might have a few cities with dogmatic faith, near 100 percent, giving no other religion much ability to penetrate in or spread other cultural values. They'd keep others away, they'd send prophets or immigrants (I like the idea of immigrants as settlers you send to another city to spread your culture at the cost of giving them a better version of a worker or craftsman) and they'd slow their science gain to limit the amount of cultural infusion, while also choosing the "long route" away from quick and desirable bottleneck techs like my version of "Enlightenment" or "The Internet" would be. Social policies like "Religious Freedom" and "Freedom of the Press" would not be chosen despite how valuable they are to cultural and scientific gain.
One key facet would be that culture/religion spreads quickly to areas that share similar social policies and social demands. So spreading the Word of Zod to the freedom-loving Lincolnites might not work well, but other people might like Zod's commandments about enslaving the underclass and making them build lots and lots of roads.
But eventually you end up with this rock-hard cultural state that cannot be competed with, can only be invaded and destroyed, and has the ability to inspire dissent and war, or obedience and peace, across the globe depending on the articles of faith you chose and the edicts your religious leaders issue. Not sure what the wonder to kick it off would be, but you'd win by making everyone (or most everyone) adopt the same policies as you--which then makes your Religion/Culture spread like wildfire and shared by everyone.
Anyway, whatever. Civ makes me rage.
Like, if the UN really DID want to vote one person leader, why not let the game continue (if everyone votes to) with that person gaining control over a UN army, the ability to put forth declarations to be voted on (nuclear disarmament/nuclear weapons ban, banning spaceflight, levying sanctions, etc) with the ability to grant special UN diplomatic benefits to nations that comply and scorning those who don't. They could even make it so warring must be done with the UN's approval, lest you face consequences. That's a really interesting dynamic, and fits the diplomatic victory ethos, and you'd only be able to vote for "everyone follows my lead" once you've achieved like four of "The Six Founding Goals" or "Noble Goals" or something and made the world peaceful and orderly.
Same with space. Maybe the space shuttle is a first step, but then the space-controlling nation starts getting unique space benefits that aid them as well. Make it so the shuttle is actually a super rocket whose first landing spot is the moon. So you construct this amazing thing, go to the moon, and find alien artifacts which you return to Earth. Then the next trip is to follow the signs on the artifacts to Mars using technology from The Slab you found on the moon. Then you go to Mars and get more interesting science things to do, since this is the science victory so it caters to science. These would not be good for war, nor make you a lot of friends, but infrastructurally they would be valuable if you start slapping down Martian thingies all about the place. Hell, maybe you have to use workers to place terraforming (or marsaforming) doodads around some portion of your territory so that you can awaken a martian colony to finally hand over the keys to everything. THEN you win, or whoever wins, depending on who has benefited the most from the new science.
The Utopia Project is dumb as hell and should be entirely scrapped. A diplomatic victory IS a cultural victory in the sense that it's nonviolent. A victory of one culture over another culture is also often a domination victory. The "tiny little city that could" victory condition seems pretty dumb to me, but the normal range of 3-8 cities is not a problem, really. Honestly, I feel that diplomatic victories (make friends) and cultural victories (research policies) are so similar because a small cultural nation requires staying out of fights, which generally means trying to be diplomatic as well. I also don't know why other people should lose because one side researched a bunch of social policies but isn't doing anything with them.
Wouldn't it make more sense if a cultural victory was more like using your cultural sway to impress your values onto other civilizations? Like blanketing the globe in your policies and your religion? The game of Civ5 I played had no religions at all, I assume G&K has those again and makes them something, yeah? Personally, I think bringing religions into play as the Cultural victory scenario makes sense. A small, insular nation that doesn't adopt outside ideas should have a strong culture. In fact, social policies and the DESIRE among your people for these policies should leak in from allies.
Having advanced trade routes should increase cultural diffusion, as does advanced communications technology. Science should increase your cultural flexibility too, so that sciencey civs will often get free social policies to pick from (especially around their Enlightenment period) because of cultural diffusion. This means that if one nation develops Communism, other nations might develop a taste for it, causing your people unhappiness if their favorite policies aren't chosen.
The beginning ones would be things like deciding what your government is, how oppressive the taxes, servitude and military conscription are (influencing your money, industry and military production rates) and the rough creation of a religion. Your religion would be something you build ala the Policies map in 5, until you finish slotting elements into it. Your religion's tenants then become major motivating principles of the people who are followers.
Religions also spread, both by edict (conquering a nation and imposing it) and by others taking it out. The strength of the religious faith is not only the amount of faith the people have in X religion, but the degree to which they follow it. Ergo, a strong 'culture' nation might have a few cities with dogmatic faith, near 100 percent, giving no other religion much ability to penetrate in or spread other cultural values. They'd keep others away, they'd send prophets or immigrants (I like the idea of immigrants as settlers you send to another city to spread your culture at the cost of giving them a better version of a worker or craftsman) and they'd slow their science gain to limit the amount of cultural infusion, while also choosing the "long route" away from quick and desirable bottleneck techs like my version of "Enlightenment" or "The Internet" would be. Social policies like "Religious Freedom" and "Freedom of the Press" would not be chosen despite how valuable they are to cultural and scientific gain.
One key facet would be that culture/religion spreads quickly to areas that share similar social policies and social demands. So spreading the Word of Zod to the freedom-loving Lincolnites might not work well, but other people might like Zod's commandments about enslaving the underclass and making them build lots and lots of roads.
But eventually you end up with this rock-hard cultural state that cannot be competed with, can only be invaded and destroyed, and has the ability to inspire dissent and war, or obedience and peace, across the globe depending on the articles of faith you chose and the edicts your religious leaders issue. Not sure what the wonder to kick it off would be, but you'd win by making everyone (or most everyone) adopt the same policies as you--which then makes your Religion/Culture spread like wildfire and shared by everyone.
Anyway, whatever. Civ makes me rage.
Re: So......Civ V?
In Civ IV we played the "Rise of Mankind" total conversion mod, we added some 500 techs and units; it was glorious. We turned on diplomacy victory ONLY because we had a gentlemans agreement to never use it to "win" so we could pass the resolutions for funzies and compete with eachother with it and make our absurdly large 450 million populations mean something beyond hammers.The way I see it, the "I researched and built this so I win" opt-out cards should be ways to win when you are entirely unopposed, or under the direst of circumstances. The space program at least notifies others when you built it due to the space-related wonder. But the UN only notifies you when they finish it, and the first vote is often the last, which is horrible.
In general though the "opt out" cards in our games are entirely pointless, the person in a position to win with it is already in first place, its inconceivable in our games for a player nation to win with it if they're not already leading the game because they will be too busy trying to catch up; small empires with supercities can only go so far before some bigger nation with more hammers and people can outtech you and outbuild you.
I played a game where I had two super cities and a bunch of useless cities I build to pad my stats, I had a HUGE difficulty competing with the guy (this is in Civ5, Gods and Kings, Islands map) who had 4-5 less valuable not as super cities so he had a 3-2 advantage over my in ships at virtually all times and the rate of attrition was so absolutely horrendous I thought I would lose several times during that perma war.
Here's my uberpost writeup: (That I had posted Elsewhere)
Glorious. Though we never got to continue that game, laaaaame.I was playing some multiplayer with some friends via teamspeaks.
My strategy had been to pretty much spam Golden Ages and pick up alliances with all the City States; map was the improved Islands map so it was all about naval stuff.
At some point one of the players (three of us in total, small map game speed slower than normal but above marathon) decided to go and attack one of my city states without my permission so war begins.
Or rather a bit of maneuvering, I gathered up my fleet and started to move it to intercept his, so he pulled his back and we ended up meeting in the middle.
[TIMG]http://i47.tinypic.com/214t4ex.png[/TIMG]
He attacked me first, he had 2-3 admirals to my one, but the bonuses don't stack so whatever. I manage to (simultanious turns) take out one of his admirals when he left it in the middle of his fleet unescorted in the chaos.
Eventually he brings in some ironclads and he outnumbers me so I pull back.
[TIMG]http://i46.tinypic.com/142fn8n.png[/TIMG]
A bit of running and gunning happen as he's not very aggressive and doesn't pursue me when he should except in a line, at this point I get more ironclads and turn the tide, I drop some 6000$ into buying ironclads as I'm pretty rich compared to him.
Unfortunately I didn't take successive screenshots but we ended up in a perpetual Forever War as he refused to accept my turns to lay off my minors and so he pulled back and I gathered up numbers.
Once he regrouped or whatever he did he takes the bait I left for him (privateers stringed along) and approaches one of my cities and gets promptly bombed by the first use of manned flight for war purposes (great war bombers) and he pulls back again badly mauled.
With a ironclad fleet of about 7-9 ironclads I liberate Lhasa from his rule which was a city state he had taken way earlier in the game just off his mega-island.
At this point the Battleships start appearing and my Grand Fleet is scattered to the nine cardinal directions and I work desperately to regroup, again the enemy fails to capitalize on his gains and I'm able to recover about 2/3 of my fleet back to friendly waters.
Unfortunately the other player decides to be a smart ass and attacks my City State ally as well but I can do nothing as he has the strongest military and both me and the guy I'm fighting (let's call him Bob because I hate Bob) are too stubborn to turn on our common enemy. :mad:
He ends up taking four of my allied city states which kind hurts as my strategy depends on like 2 mega cities and city states to help me out but there's still around 6 or so remaining.
I build submarines and start to hunt his battleships in wolfpacks, pretty damn effective only losing one to incompetence (running right into a battleship and promptly dying) :argh:, the Simu-Turns work as a dual edged sword for both of us, but about 2/3 of the time I'm able to sneak wins against him or pre-empt his own submarines before he can take out mine; much hilarious tears of :qq: ensue on Teamspeak.
I launch two carriers in quick succession and load them up with bombers with which I use to from a distance bomb his own submarines and battleships, at no point does he launch fighters or AA artillery even though I go to the effort to have my own fighters. I go and approach Prague (another of his city state islands he took a long time ago) with a fleet of ironclads, my carriers and some subs and siege it, almost taking it before my own frustrations throughout all of this kick in; as at some point I do through attrition lose all my submarines and my losses are largely irreplaceable but because I can speak over comms as people are sleeping, as far as Bob is concerned I'm making no noise and not being bothered at all and staying perfectly calm which infuriates him. Here's my impression of him: :bang:
I'm pushed back again, Bob gets a lucky shot on my carrier with his own submarine and 4,000 brave souls drown along with an entire air wing, that was an expensive loss and I'm about to give up. :(
I persevere though, I rebuild and upgrade my bombers and new submarines and send a new picket fleet out between his capital and prague. My submarines, thanks to their vastly superior range and visibility due to me going down the Commerce tree earlier picking up the improved naval stuff spot his submarines and I take them all out with bombers. He desperately tries to go after my submarine with battleships but I send out my ironclads on a suicide mission to block them, my submarine survives to shank another day and I get some more Battleship kills to my roster. :black101:
My own battleships are also slowly popping out so I am finally able to cease by hit and run tactics with my carrier and submarines and engage in some Battle of Savo Island-esque engagements.
He gets the atomic physics tech first but has no uranium (while I allegedly do somewhere), despite my own fleet being only a shadow of its former self from its trafalgar days up above, tired and exhausted Bob claims to be "bored" and ragequits probably because he thinks I'll get nukes first somehow.
We'll see if his mood improved enough later on to continue, side note, ships can apparently take cities and not need landing troops, I feel this may be a balance issue.
Navies are fun, also apparently a huge source of frustration for Bob was that all my allied City States each had their own navies forcing him to fight on multiple fronts, while I only had one to fight on, which contributed to the :ninja: kills I kept getting by exploiting his limited attention on my front.