I can't work out the gameplay reasons for it, but in Civ5 I do a hell of a lot less exploring then I did in Civ4. Anyone els enotice this?
I can't work out the gameplay reasons for it, but in Civ5 I do a hell of a lot less exploring then I did in Civ4. Anyone els enotice this?
I noticed. If you are going to build some early wonder like henge or library, you ll need to build worker and than that wonder. You dont have time for scouts.
I usually build worker and than library and national college. Its better to get extra 100 science (average amount i lose if i build lib and nat college 4 turns later), than trying to find some useless "unit upgrade" or "map of ocean".
Agreed, I miss how some civs would get a scout instead of a warrior in civ 4.
I'd like if map trading was brought back... maybe you should get a small science boost for uncovering new tiles
Once you have resources to sell knowing more civs can become very important and if you look for comparative purposes at the price of buying a scout with gold compared to the amount of gold you can get from selling one happiness resource to a civilization you didn't have contact with, having a scout is very good value for money.
I play the game with a "Worker & Scout at Start" mod, so I haven't noticed this. I can usually then build a second scout fairly early on, too.
In my case I think I explore more than CIV IV BTS. I certainly start with a scout in almost every game and it seems to work fine, immortal level. It is important to know whats going on around the capital or get some early boost from ruins. What do you usually build first in the capital? On the other hand CIV IV BTS Incas didn't really explore much until I traded maps later..
scouts only take 5-7 turns...totally worth it, because you can easily get 1-2 more ruins with one, one of which could be a culture boost or free tech, which totally pays for the scout. plus you can find more natural wonders, more CSes etc. if anything, in V they give you more incentive to explore
Not only do you get to look for ruins faster when moving both a scout and warrior in the early few turns (so get benefits including scout becioming an archer), with a scout who can move more tiles per turn you can also find the Barb encampments sooner. Then you can farm them quickly and in sequence when you have warriors or archers available. And like Civ IV, you do get the local map unfogged quicker so you can plan out your city locations in advance, especially when seeking luxuries or iron. I tend to start with monument and scout to get going then go to worker while using polices to get my first settler and a maybe second worker. But to each their own...
Odd; I find myself exploring MORE in Civ5.
Exploring seems even more important in Civ5. A couple of the benefits of early exploration:
1) It's a good idea to survey all the nearby land in a circle around your capital to plan your next cities.
2) Grabbing ruins before others do.
3) Meeting city-states and getting some gold - even better if you're the first. You can get a decent amount of gold just by meeting multiple city-states during the early part of the game. They'll also make requests for you later on.
4) Discovering natural wonders. I like this new feature of the series because it gives you more incentive to explore by boosting happiness. More happiness fuels more growth/expansion.
5) "Fog busting". Especially in Civ5, because once you survey a piece of land, you'll see any future expansions made on it, which is useful.
6) Making contact with other civs early.
7) Finding out where those civs are located.
8) Finding barbarian camps to attack with your stronger units to get more gold and maybe even city-state influence.
There's probably more, but the wife keeps bugging me and I don't want her to see me posting on here because she'll make fun of me!
Also, I usually use scouts instead of warriors because they're quicker and can still easily survive and evade barbarians. My initial warrior I use to survey the nearby ring of land around my capital and then I keep him near my territory for defense.
Of course I explore directly around my capital, and I always build a scout, but after that I rarely explore much outside my continent. I frequently get to the modern era having not met any civs from different continents. Never happened me in Civ4.
I scout. Often my first 140 or 200 usually goes into buying a scout or a warrior. Usually these pay for themselves, or nearly so, by finding ruins so it is a net gain. Also getting out there and pacifying your area of barbs saves you a lot of headache turns down the line.
Ah! now that is different to what you initially implied.Originally Posted by RedRalph
I am usually quite late in searching for other continents unless i am on a reasonably remote one.i.e. with very few civs, as naval techs are almost on their own tree and there is usually a lot more important things to invest science in.
I agree 100%, you just highlighted nearly all of my main points.Odd; I find myself exploring MORE in Civ5.
Exploring seems even more important in Civ5. A couple of the benefits of early exploration:
1) It's a good idea to survey all the nearby land in a circle around your capital to plan your next cities.
2) Grabbing ruins before others do.
3) Meeting city-states and getting some gold - even better if you're the first. You can get a decent amount of gold just by meeting multiple city-states during the early part of the game. They'll also make requests for you later on.
4) Discovering natural wonders. I like this new feature of the series because it gives you more incentive to explore by boosting happiness. More happiness fuels more growth/expansion.
5) "Fog busting". Especially in Civ5, because once you survey a piece of land, you'll see any future expansions made on it, which is useful.
6) Making contact with other civs early.
7) Finding out where those civs are located.
8) Finding barbarian camps to attack with your stronger units to get more gold and maybe even city-state influence.
There's probably more, but the wife keeps bugging me and I don't want her to see me posting on here because she'll make fun of me!
Also, I usually use scouts instead of warriors because they're quicker and can still easily survive and evade barbarians. My initial warrior I use to survey the nearby ring of land around my capital and then I keep him near my territory for defense.
There's also
9) Luxury resource trading.
10) The fact that you can't trade for map info later, so you're stuck with what you can reach before borders cut you off (until modern tech).
11) 'Farming' barbarians to promote early era UUs, or triremes for super ships later on.
12) As Bismark or Suleiman, converting barbarians.
I do this, too. And then build a second scout in my capital. Even when I turn OFF the Ancient Ruins goody-huts. Next up for me, is always the Monument. Only then do I build a Warrior, to garrison the city.
That pattern repeats itself every time I build a new city, though after my second or third city, I usually skip the Scout.
After those are built, I actually focus more on Production-increasing structures, rather than Science-increasing structures. If it takes you 5 tuns to build a library, then 5 turns to build something that gives you +20% production ... building them in the other order may shave 10 turns down to 9 turns.
I won a culture game last night without exploring any further than my own borders!
There is a hell of a lot less reason to do just about everything in Civ5 compared to Civ4. Not much reason to build most buildings, not much reason to do anything other then hit end turn, not many real decisions to be made, no real reason to explore the whole map beyond what the area you plan to settle, the AI doesn't like to make trades so there is little reason to even interact with them beyond massacring their troops when they declare war on you for no reason, not much reason to do much of anything really.
on continent maps, the best thing to do is explore your own continent, then build a caravel when able and set it to auto-explore the rest of the map. arch maps you're better of trieme-exploring as much as you can manually.
I find myself doing no playing.
Have you played any of the recent patches?
Pretty much all of your points are issues from outdated versions.
I used to build a scout first, for many of the reasons outlined above, but that was when I played larger landmasses. Lately I've been trying archipelago and small-continent maps, on which it makes no sense to scout the small areas. A warrior is enough until you can embark a unit for farther exploration. Likewise, a single worker suffices, or perhaps two. And finally, my military remains relatively small, with emphasis on ranged units, since the AI is so easy to defeat. The result is that I can concentrate on buildings and wonders most of the time.
I'm eager to see this!
Well, I was thinking that you were going to give us some examples of why you do more exploring in Civ 5 than in Civ 4. This is definitly not one good example since it apply to all versions of Civilization.
Unless you play without any ruins. Many do that since ruins are so lamme in this game.
Besides, that's another reason that is present in every version of Civilization.
Meeting a failed new feature early? No thanks. I prefer to play without any City-States, again, like many.
That's one valid point, I agree.
"Which is useful"... why? After 3 or 4 games of Civilization 5 you will be able to know exactly when and where the AI will expand. They are extremelly predictable.
So they can start hating and denouncing you earlier? I believe you just gave everybody a reason why NOT to explore.
The only civs that you will have interest in knowing are the ones that are close to you, and that doesn't require extensive exploring, but basic exploring.
Valid for certain civs and of no importance to the vast majority.
Overall I've counted only one reason to do more exploring in Civ 5 than in any other version of Civ, and it has to do with a new feature that, depending on your situation or strategy, won't be of imediate importance.
But I've counted one reason to do less exploring in Civ 5 than in other versions of Civ, so it's another loss for this little piece of bad coding called Civ 5.
Same here.
Well, yes, if you have turned off city states and goodie huts then scouting is a lot less valuable in your games. In fact I'd go so far to say you don't seem to want to be playing Civ V at all! But his points there are very significant bonuses when talking about the base game.
Also you really underestimate the value of discovering your neighbors. Even if you don't see the value of knowing what they are up to strategically on the map, selling them stuff and getting research agreements with them early and often are almost required tactics for high level play.
This, admittedly was somewhat true for similar reasons in IV and previous incarnations because of trading, but with V you have a very direct reason to want to meet as many people as possible, as quickly as possible. Namely that you can only have one research agreement at a time with any one civ where in past incarnations trading was much less limited.
It boils down to this, your early units can pay for themselves. It IS rather luck based, and you have modded away two of the main ways this happens, but even just removing barb camps can be a source of income.
This. Just go back to Civ IV. you'll make yourself and the rest of us a lot happier.
Tell me how to get Civ4 to use a Hexagon-based map, and I will.
@jacypr
I simply said, "A couple of the benefits of early exploration", not, "A couple of examples of why exploration is more important in Civ5 vs. Civ4"
I was replying to the original post that said they perform almost no exploring at all. I'm sorry for the confusing structure of my original post. I merely stated my opinion followed by why it's a good idea to explore in this game, since again, the OP initially said they didn't do it. I thought it was a noobie-help thread.
I have some responses to your own if you happen to be as eager enough to read them as you were my other ones you preyed upon.
Of course, surveying your immediate surroundings and grabbing ruins/huts are important in BOTH Civs and wouldn't support an argument on which version it's more important in. I certainly agree with that. Like I said, I was just giving the OP examples of why it's useful to expand.Well, I was thinking that you were going to give us some examples of why you do more exploring in Civ 5 than in Civ 4. This is definitly not one good example since it apply to all versions of Civilization.
That's funny, because I was going to add a remark in parentheses that read something like, "unless you play without them", too, since they're somewhat trivial and optional. Oh well...Unless you play without any ruins. Many do that since ruins are so lamme in this game.
Besides, that's another reason that is present in every version of Civilization.
But then again, I usually refer to the default game and assume it's played as it was intended to be played unless someone states otherwise.
After all, if we're going to refute each other by saying, "well I don't play my games with that feature!", I or someone else can just say exploration is useless entirely because in OUR games we've removed the fog of war and have the entire map revealed from the start.
Also, you say ruins are lame. Fair enough; that's your opinion. But you also say “many” of the players believe so as well. Are you certain of this?
I personally like the ruins because they give a little more of an incentive to explore and reward those that do so early, making the decision to build scouts vs. other things more important early in the game (even though I do dislike a few of the rewards from those ruins, like the map one, grr). Plus, I believe they're just fun and I like the sound effect.
Again, I usually refer to the default game and assume it's played as it was intended.Meeting a failed new feature early? No thanks. I prefer to play without any City-States, again, like many.
Disabling ruins is one thing, but to tear-out a feature like city-states which is so entwined with many other aspects of the game seems detrimental to me personally.
I’ve actually never really played with an intended feature disabled; how does it work? If you disable city-states, what happens to Ramkhamhaeng, Alexander, or Genghis’s unique ability? How is the Patronage branch altered, as well as many other things? If nothing else adapts to the change, it looks like a pretty broken game when you start ripping things out, in my opinion.
Also, there’s that “many” again. I hope when you say that you don’t mean “majority”.
<thumbs up>That's one valid point, I agree.
If you can’t see the usefulness of it then I don’t really know what to say."Which is useful"... why? After 3 or 4 games of Civilization 5 you will be able to know exactly when and where the AI will expand. They are extremelly predictable.
You really know "exactly" WHEN and WHERE (as in the “direction” too) the AI will expand without busting away the clouds? That’s impressive.
You also know the shape of the generated map that all these civs lie on? (Go ahead… tell me you play on those Earth maps too.) You also can plan ahead because you know where the mountain ranges have been generated which totally alter the way you travel across the map (unlike in Civ4 where you could easily march past them in most cases), right?
In Civ4, fog busting was useful and helped reveal the shape of the map (which I would also like to note, was much more predictable and inferior to the map generator in Civ5) as well as the location of civs and resources. But in order to keep a good enough tab on those other civs, you had to continuously explore the same area to see what they were up to. So it was more like a temporary benefit; an assurance that nothing was there only on that very turn, the start of the next one, and maybe for a few more turns following it. After a couple of turns, the information is obsolete.
But, since Civ5 gives you immediate territorial updates for the rest of the game once you bust away the clouds, it makes your initial exploration much more valuable and encourages you to explore even deeper to reveal more of the map instead of having to patrol an area. Hence, the earlier and more aggressively you get out there and explore the more you benefit and can plan with the information you gain and will continue to gain.
Well, unless you start playing the game like a belligerent oaf, expand foolishly, haphazardly choose your friends and enemies, and/or lie to and betray them, most civs are usually neutral/friendly towards the beginning and can provide you with extra gold, resources, and research agreements.So they can start hating and denouncing you earlier? I believe you just gave everybody a reason why NOT to explore.
Once the empire machine is up and running and you engage in war(s) to further yourself, THEN the world starts to hate you.(Hopefully this’ll be adjusted in future patches.)
But yeah, I suppose I can somewhat agree that finding other civs for the sake of “contact” is not so important if you plan on burning-down the world and warmongering from the start. Though, in this case, just locating civs would still be useful.
It still requires exploring, be it basic or extensive, which was what I was initially explaining.The only civs that you will have interest in knowing are the ones that are close to you, and that doesn't require extensive exploring, but basic exploring.
Also, I disagree. Knowing where your “neighbors” are is important, but if you’re a good player you know that it’s also useful to find out where and who your neighbors' neighbors are as well so you can plan accordingly.
Example: You explore deeper and find out that Askia is behind your neighbor. Even better, you discover thru further exploration that he’s become blocked-in by your neighbor's expanding. Right there is a possible opportunity you can take now or down the road to bribe Askia into attacking your neighbor if it helps with your own plans. Even if you don’t wish to bribe, it’s still something to keep in mind because you know eventually the neighbor IS going to be attacked by Askia; so you can plan accordingly.
No importance at all? I disagree. I even disagree if it pertains to one of your games (and the vast “many”) without city-states. While not even looking at the potential influence-boosting capabilities, camps are still a nice source of gold early in the game with the added bonus of toughening-up your units with experience. Also, sometimes they have a worker held captive within the camp (and no, they don’t only capture city-state workers). I would think that getting an extra worker early in the game would be important. You do play with barbarians, right? Or do you disable them as well?Valid for certain civs and of no importance to the vast majority.
Maybe in “your” games with features disabled; especially new ones like city-states. That’s like arguing that naval units in Civ5 aren’t more useful than they are in Civ4 (because you disabled ranged attacks in your games).
Also, since you’re referring to natural wonders as the new feature, I believe extra happiness “is” of immediate importance early in the game during the expansion phase (even if vertical), especially for the mere cost of a scout (or two).
Sorry, I missed that one. What is the reason?
Here’s an extra one for ya: “Herp Derp. +1 naval movement from being the first to circumnavigate the globe is gone in Civ5.”
Perhaps you should start playing again to refresh on things, jacypr.Same here.
Last edited by jpbar81; 04-26-2011 at 02:42 PM.
Two reasons I can think of:
1) You can safely assume your opponents always have military resources so it is not necessary to discover this sort of thing.
2) City placement is not nearly as important.
I skip worker altogether.
I build scout, settler then a wonder.
The second city will build warrior and then a settler.
I repeat and only buy the worker once i got cash.
I expand faster yet still be able to build a wonder
At diety, correct me if i am wrong, i can never build Stonehenge, so instead i build the great wall
In MP you can build a wonder in such development only if no one wants it. To raise chances you need worker and than immedeately wonder. At 10th-12th turn.
If you are not going into early wonder, the best choice is national college as fast as possible. Any objections?
You get it by 25-35 turn, and there is no other way to get the amount it gives (20-30 total). And after that you may expand as you wish. I think that nat college should give 1extra science per 2 or 3 citizens instead of +5 constant (or +75% instead of +50% but without +5 constant)
Some calculations (a bit tricky for someone - close to economic "lost opportunities" principle) show that by building scout before lib and nat college you lose 2-3 science for 4 turns because of not having lib, and 4.5-7.5 (that is 50% increase of city science with population 4-8) and plus 7.5 (that is constant bonus +5 multiplied by 50%) because of not having nat college.
So the total is 2*4 + 4.5*4 + 7.5*4 = 8+18+30 = 56 science lost. That is minimum amount if population is low (4). (when production priority is set)
When growth priority is set you lose 3*4 + 7.5*4 + 7.5*4 = 12+30+30 = 72 science. That is true cost of scout.
What you get by early scout?
1-3 happiness by natural wonders.
30-90 gold (you may get half of it later), gold to production conversion (buying) is very inefficient at the beginning of the game (7:1) and should be used only in emergency.
some random bonuses of gold, culture or science (the best is culture if you dont have tradition, science - is unlikely that you ll get tech you need now, and gold is inefficient as i told)
These are all countable advantages you get by early scout.
playing without a worker doesn't sound like the best strategy. I usually build a scout then a monument and then a worker in the capital. Then I either go for a wonder or a second city. The worker pays back the turns lost very quickly by adding growth, gold and production to the capital and then the second city which usually comes from the free settler in the liberty social policy branch.I skip worker altogether.
I build scout, settler then a wonder.
The second city will build warrior and then a settler.
I repeat and only buy the worker once i got cash.
I expand faster yet still be able to build a wonder
At diety, correct me if i am wrong, i can never build Stonehenge, so instead i build the great wall
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote