Civilization Five: Gods and Kings

[Nexus6]

Hey all, the release of Gods and Kings, Sid Meier's major overhaul of Civ5, was for me the most eagerly awaited game release since Skyrim. Was it worth the wait? I would say for the most part yes. Although as the one review I've read noted, the expansion was not an earth shattering change of the Civ5 experience, the changes are all good and well-executed.

First the big changes. I never liked spies in the earlier civs as they were a bit too tricky to use. In Gods and Kings though, the implementation was good bordering on great. Spy management is all handled from the spy menu where you can assign them to your competitor's cities, or keep them at home for counterintelligence. Once you assign them to a city, all you need do is sit back and wait for results. Positive results can yield stolen technology and a promotion for your spy, though negative results can get them killed (very bad because you don't get that many in the course of the game). They can also cause a diplomatic incident if they are caught. In fact one competitor declared war on me after my spy was caught in the act. Also,spies will warn you of upcoming attacks on you or other civs. If it is on another civ, you have the option of sharing that information with them. Anyway, it is all very cool and seamless, though being a lover of esthetics it would have been nice if your spies had pictures rather than just a name.

I'm happy to report that their implementation of religion this time was brilliant. I absolutely hated religion in Civ4, as I felt the religions were a bit generic and skewed the game too much. In Gods and Kings though, you are allowed to customize your religion to best suit your needs and play style. For example, one trait can allow you to use faith (in lieu of gold) to recruit pre-modern combat units (hello Islam . Another enhances your civ's happiness, and in any event the game gives you a lot of attributes to choose from. When you found a religion you are given a list of the usual suspects, but you can change the name. I recall in one game as the Byzantines I chose Christianity and renamed it to Saint Theodora. Also, although religion may loose some of its luster as the enlightenment creeps in, I found my religion useful all the way to the end. Anyway, again, I thought Sid hit a bull's eye with religion this time around.

There were a plethora of minor changes as well. You get new technology, new units, new wonders (favorite is the Great Firewall , and most importantly, nine new civilizations. It's interesting to note that of the nine, four of them are led by women: Theodora of the Byzantine Empire, Maria Theresa of Austria, Queen Boudica of the Celts, and Queen Dido of Carthage. My favorite is Theodora and the Byzantines. For one thing they have two special units ,the Cataphract and the Dromon fire ship, that you get early and remain viable for a long time up until the advent of the knight and the caravelas respectively. This is in contrast to civs like the Japanese who get the Zero fighter which has a relatively short window of useability late in the game. Also, playing Theodora allows you to choose additional religion traits when founding a religion.

The other thing I wanted to mention at this point is that in addition to the standard game you have three scenarios. Thus far the only one I've played is the Fall of Rome, and it was fantastic! I think I liked it a bit better than Rome Total War: Barbarian Invasions. I played the Eastern Empire, and it was running with the devil, touch and go, as you would expect. One thing really interesting about it is that as you loose cities and your morale falls, you have to choose from a selection of negative policy enhancements (that simulates a collapsing infrastructure), very painful decisions indeed. I found the worst part of the scenario was trying to budget properly and keep your morale from plummeting, both of which I ultimately failed to do (even though I still somehow managed a win). Anyway, in the course of the campaign I lost all the Danube marches and several cities in the East, and the only reason I didn't loose Macedonia and Greece was because of that wonderful Byzantine navy. I did have a measure of payback when I managed to recapture Adrianople and Thessalonica from the evil Huns, though in typically Byzantine fashion I did it on the cheap. I had grandiose plans though of making bashing the Persians a top priority, but things didn't quite work out that way. I stripped as many troops as I could from the west and quiet sectors, and concentrated an army in the East to teach the Persians a lesson in humility. Alas, as soon as I started my advance the Persians quite unexpectedly made a major attack further south and captured Edessa like some thief in the night. By game end it was only by a hair's breath that I was able to call off the offensive and redeploy to prevent the loss of Antioch. This points up another cool thing about the scenario. After the initial storm, the barbarians and Persians seemed like they were spent and content to hold on to their early gains. They came back with renewed vigor late game though, and I was glad the scenario ended when it did. Anyway, again, one of the best Roman campaigns I've ever played. I look forward to trying it again as the Western Romans or one of the barbarian factions.

There are two other scenarios that sound very cool. One is about the transition from the high Middle Ages to the Renaissance, and the other is what sounds like an uber cool Jules Verne retro scifi steampunk scenario. A great time should be had by all.

On a negative note, some have argued (and not without cause) that the Gods and Kings content should have been included with the original game. Maybe so, but better late than never I always say. In any event I found it well worth the $30 price tag.

Anyway, I look forward to reading comments about Gods and Kings from other civ fans in this forum. IMHO the bottom line is that although Gods and Kings may not set the franchise on its head, most civ fans should like it a lot.

[Vinnie]

Thanks for the review. I've recently begun playing civ5 again, multiplayer hottest with my wife. I felt it was a great step backwards from civ4 but from what you say, this may be a big improvement.

[Nexus6]

Hey Vinnie, so why did you think Civ5 was a big step backwards? I'm curious.

For my part, I was crazy about Civ2, but for some reason three and four just didn't have the same magic for me. With Civ5 though I think the great one Sid Meier is back on track. Getting rid of those monster stacks and replacing them with very robust one unit per hex military formations was the best thing he could have done to revitalize the series. It gives combat a more tactical feel even though the game is still grand strategy.

I won my first totally non-violent space race victory last night with the Byzantines, and it was very cool indeed. Although I chose the continent map to play on, my starting position was a very large island with plenty of resources, and the only people I was sharing it with was a militaristic city state that I sucked up to and they provided me with a steady stream of top-of-the line military units. My closest competitor was Queen Liz, but I converted most of her population to my religion and this was of course a big disincentive for her to attack me. It was also interesting how although there was a lot of espionage going on and a lot of trash talk from my competitors, no one ever had the nerve to attack me. There is much to be said for the 'Credibility of Deterrence'.

I think though that this points up a major enduring strength and weakness of the Civ series. Although the random map and faction setup ensure that no two games will ever be the same, it also means that you will experience games of wildly differing difficulty. If you get stuck on a continent with shitty resources and belligerent neighbors, you could have what amounts to the proverbial Kobayashi Maru scenario. In one recent game I was next to Ramses. The Egyptians are already a bit obnoxious to begin with, but when they embraced Islam they were worse than the minions of Sauron. In another recent game I took great pleasure in trashing that smug little twerp Ram of Siam. I can't stand those guys! lol

Anyway, next up is the transition from the Middle Ages to the Renaissance scenario. Of course I'm taking the Byzantines again, and the big question is whether I want to go on the offensive against the Muslim tribes to liberate Jerusalem and make the world safe for Christianity (Eastern Orthodox, that is , or attack West in an attempt to resurrect the old Roman Empire.

PS Vinnie....Thanks for the reputation thumbs up.

[Nexus6]

FYI all, the usually reliable Kevin VanOrd at Gamespot gives Gods and Kings a solid nine. Check out his video review: http://www.gamespot.com/sid-meiers-c...eview-6383756/

[Nexus6]

Well all, after the great fun with the Fall of Rome scenario, I'm sorry to say that 'Into the Renaissance' left a bit of a bad taste in my mouth. For one thing the initial setup was not at all what I had expected. Usually in the historical scenarios you get a reasonable facsimile of the empire you're playing, not so this time. At least as the Byzantines, all I got was a slightly developed Constantinople at the Bosporus, one combat unit, one worker, and two settlers. Basically you're starting from scratch. Also, the barbarians that respawn in unsettled areas were a major annoyance in this scenario. They were absolutely ravenous, and you don't dare send your workers to the fringes of your borders without escort.

On the face of it the contest between the three great religions, Catholicism, the Eastern Orthodox Church, and Islam, should have been way cool. One problem though was as the Byzantines, everyone else hates you except for Kathy the Great in Russia, and she's too busy getting trashed by the Mongols to be of much help. Also, I had to constantly be recruiting inquisitors to ferret out Catholicism and Islam that kept creeping in to my cities, and this got rather tedious after a while.

Campaigning against the Muslims in the Middle East was a major pain in the ass, as the terrain is very rugged and the cities are a defender's dream. I recall being very frustrated with one city because the woods and hills around it prevented me from deploying siege weapons at a two hex range. Also, citizen happiness, always problematic in the Civ series, was especially frustrating in this scenario.

Anyway, as I got to late game I realized that I was going to have to capture some cities owned by other religions if I was going to win, so I came up with what I thought was a brainstorm: I would do a King Richard style amphibious landing not far from Jerusalem. I spent a lot of time very methodically building up a large invasion force, thinking I was going to catch Suleiman and Saladin with their pants down. My heart sank though when my force arrived off Cyprus, because from there I could see that the region was heavily defended by galleys, trebuchets, and Jannisaries. It looked worse than the Normandy beaches! Anyway, I called off the operation and proceeded to Plan B. That is, I landed my forces in Anatolia and figured I'd have to do it the hard way overland. By game end I had captured three Turkish cities including Antioch which nearly bled me white, and I just missed taking a fourth city by the time the clock ran out, so no win. Also, like King Richard, I failed to take Jerusalem.

That points up another problem with the Civ series: You can sink a lot of time and effort in to a game of Civ, only to come up short at the end. This can be very irritating. Not to be totally negative though, there are at least about 12-15 factions in this scenario, and all of them are playable. Also, unlike the Rome scenario, you have a great deal of discretion on how you can play it. Anyway, there's one more scenario I haven't played, the Jules Verne steampunk one, and hopefully it will be good. To be fair, I've played all the official scenarios released for Civ5 and up to now have enjoyed all of them. The conquistadors and the new world was a blast, the Mongol invasion was a conquest player's dream, the Norman Invasion Doomsday Book was quite imaginative, and I even enjoyed the slightly odd King Kamehameha scenario. Bring on Jules Verne.

[Vinnie]

My problem with civ5 really centres around a perceived slowness to the game. I've never stuck through a whole game until the end, quitting when it was clear I was going to win if I crushed all opposition. The ai is not good at the more complex combat.

The inability to balance the economy of the empire since money and science and tax is based entirely upon buildings rather than the old percentage basis. If you wish to do well, get your economy high and buy your way to victory.
It's a feel I'm not keen on. Admittedly I have an odd way of playing, playing two player hottest normally but overall I found it slightly dull.

[Nexus6]

Vinnie, I have to agree with much of what you said. To be fair though, the AI does occasionally pull some uncanny surprises. In my latest game the Arabs unexpectedly attacked me, but when it became clear that they were not going to be able to break my line, they wisely called off their attack, pulled back, and sued for peace. Also, I'm finding that the AI factions are not to be trusted at all and will betray you in a heartbeat, though this is very much like real life. In fact I fought a short war with one faction, and as soon as we made peace they asked me to join in an alliance against another faction. Wow! Is that Orwellian or what??? I would also mention that in my last game Suleiman put up a very spirited and agressive defense of eastern Anatolia and northern Syria that cost me many casualties and probably lost me the game. Another time though recently in an islands map game five AI civs declared war on me at once. I braced myself for a tough naval war, but the attacks never materialized. Not sure what was up with that? You may be correct in that the AI does not handle complex combat like naval combat well. I don't think I've ever seen the AI hit me with a well-coordinated and balanced naval task force.

I would say that unfortunately you are mostly correct about the buying your way to victory thing. In fact sometimes I think the Patronage social policies can skew the game badly, both for the player as well as a couple of the AI factions (the Siamese and the Greeks). That is, get a good bank account and take the Patronage social policies, then start bribing the city states. This has a positive snowball effect on your happiness, economy, and science, and yes, it is sort of buying your way to victory. I think Firaxis recognizes this, hence some of the changes they made in Gods and Kings to the city state relations, though from what I've seen thus far I don't think the changes go quite far enough. Still in all I've had more than a few games where I've been overwhelmed by superior AI military forces that even my money and patronage couldn't stop.

Also, I concur that Civ5 can sometimes get a bit tedious when your empire grows large, though I think this is a bugbear in just about every turn-based strategy game I've ever seen.

[Nexus6]

Just finished playing 'Empires of the Smoky Skies', the third and final scenario that came with Gods and Kings, and felt it was good if not great. What they give you is mostly good. The leaders look like variations of Philleas Fogg, and you have cool units like the land leviathan and the sky fortress. The main problem though is that the scenario doesn't go quite far enough in embellishing the 19th Century retro scifi milieu, and I didn't think it was as good as the similar scenario that came with the Civ2 expansion. If you were hoping to see Martian war walkers or Captain Nemo's Nautilus, you will be disappointed. Also, the tech tree was rather short; I had it maxed out by about mid-game. I did fight a cool defensive war at the end, and as you would expect it had a mild WW1 feel, with the units being very much rock-scissors-paper. Also, many of the wonders are contingent on having certain buildings in all your cities (like the National College in the standard game), and of course this can be frustrating to the expansion minded players. The victory conditions are contingent on getting five titles (like captain of industry) by end game, and although I only had 3 of 5 I won it by having the most victory points. when the clock ran out. Anyway, it was mostly fun, if something of a missed opportunity.

Also, my last standard game I played with the 'epic' time frame. What this does is slow up production and research, the result being that although the game is longer, you spend more time in each of the eras. This was kind of cool because it allowed me to fight a WW2 style war before the onset of modern weapons. Also, I did build two nukes for deterrence, but fortunately never had to use them. I would add though that the graphic effects they use in the game for the nuke explosions are way cool!

Anyway, my final quick take on Gods and Kings:

Standard Game - Best implementations of religion and espionage in the civ series, and the added civs, technology, and units are great. A solid 'A'.

Fall of Rome scenario - I enjoyed this as much if not more than Rome Total War: Barbarian Invasions. I wanted to give it an 'A+', but you can't negotiate with the barbarians when playing the Roman factions. History buffs will recall that the Byzantines were great at getting their enemies to fight each other. 'A'

Into the Renaissance scenario - The player is given a large number of factions to choose from to play and a great deal of freedom in how you want to play it. I was a bit disappointed though that they give you minimal starting cities and forces. They should have given you a facsimile of the historical empires circa 1100AD. 'B-'

Empires of the Smoky Skies scenario - A mostly fun retro 'steampunk' variation on the standard game, but something of a missed opportunity. 'B'

[Nexus6]

FYI Civ fans. I'm playing my latest game with two excellent mods: the unofficial patch and the Extended Historical Eras mod. The unofficial patch does a lot of little to medium changes (including tweaks to the AI) to improve the Civ5 overall experience. The extended eras mod, however, is really, really cool. One of the persistent problems with the civ series all these years is that quite often technology advances so fast that your units are obsolete as soon as you finish building them. What this great mod does to correct the issue is slow down research and speed up build time, thus allowing you to experience wars in all the major historical eras. Last night I fought my 'Trojan War' with the Iroquois around 1800 BC, and it was very cool. Anyway, I highly recommend both mods.

[Nexus6]

Not only is Sid Meier's Civilization one of the most beloved turn-based PC strategy games of all time, but over the years it has also been consistently visually appealing in a genre usually not known (at least until fairly recently) for nice graphics. Having said that, I've attached some Civ5 screens here that I thought were kind of cool.

Not only are these wonders of the world paintings quite beautiful, but the quotes attached to them are great:

The Sistine Chapel:
SistineChapel.jpg

Concerning the Michelangelo quote, certainly truer words were never written.

Big Ben:
BigBen.jpg

The Leonard Bernstein quote sounds like something right out of the corporate boardroom.

The Kremlin:
Kremlin.jpg

Although I'm not a big fan of Islam, that is a rather astute quote from Mohammed. It's also interesting that the game creators would add that quote to the Kremlin, sort of tying the Russians to Islam. In fact some Nostradamus scholars believe that WW3 will be ignited by Muslim nations armed with Russian nukes, not a far-fetched scenario at all.

On a lighter note, I love this screen shot of Cathy Romanov going ballistic (forgive pun :
CatherineGreat.jpg

As Civ Five players know, some of the AI Civs tend to be better neighbors than others, and Cathy Romanov is usually one of the bad neighbors. Another one is Isabella of Spain. She's one of the most deceitful and aggressive I've seen in Civ5.

On a related note, I've read that the Persian Empire under Darius was one of the most stable and efficient empires the world had seen up to that time, but it was sort of their bad luck that their next door neighbor was Alexander the Great.