My only two gripes with this game.

[Aegrim]

Happiness being based on your entire empire, and late game economic problems.

I enjoy everything else, the new combat especially is great and makes multi player more fun.

But it doesn't make sense having my entire empire begin to stop functioning because some people in some cities I've recently invaded aren't very happy about it. Or 1 city for whatever reason at all stopping all my cities from functioning correctly. Unhappiness should cause problems in just the city that is unhappy.

I think the late game economy thing has been mentioned plenty of other times, i generally manage to claw myself into the black, but a few times I've had to make do with preventing it reaching -5gpt so i don't start losing units. A lot of the time i'm fixing it by setting all my cities to gold production, and that hinders my ability to build new units.

Overall though i am enjoying the game, unfortunately it's the industrial era onwards that i normally enjoy the most, and that's where I'm being hit by these the most.

[yin26]

Other gold tips (in case you aren't doing these things):

* Sell Open Borders to the AI.
* Pillage enemy lands before actually taking the city (this can also be a way to slow growth in a city that you don't want growing).
* Delete some units (especially if you have workers sitting around or scouts that are not productive).
* Sell off extra luxuries. I know this is far less preferable to trading them for a luxury you are missing, but better that than having them just sit unused if there is no better trade to be had.
* [exploit?] Sell every luxury and strategic resource you possess to another AI ... right before you declare war. You get a ton of cash, and you get everything right back that you just sold. [I have suggested some ways to fix this.]

Anyway, nothing very new there, I guess. Just some thoughts vs setting cities to Wealth, which is rarely worth it.

[wodan11]

I'm not sure I understand the thinking behind "I have too many units but want to make more, so it's the game's fault." Seems to me the solution is to get rid of excess units.

Historically, this is a VERY typical cause of wars. Large standing army + economic problems? Solution: Go fight somebody. It would seem that Civ 5 is designed exactly right.

[Asmodean]

I'm not sure I understand the thinking behind "I have too many units but want to make more, so it's the game's fault." Seems to me the solution is to get rid of excess units.

Historically, this is a VERY typical cause of wars. Large standing army + economic problems? Solution: Go fight somebody. It would seem that Civ 5 is designed exactly right.

[jnh140]

Well, the United States today has a happiness level of approximately -5, and our government has absolutely ground to a halt, so actually I think its a pretty fair model.

[sowings]

But it doesn't make sense having my entire empire begin to stop functioning because some people in some cities I've recently invaded aren't very happy about it. Or 1 city for whatever reason at all stopping all my cities from functioning correctly. Unhappiness should cause problems in just the city that is unhappy.

I think an interesting change to this would be to make the discord "regional". Imagine if your neighbor city is rioting because of policy or whatever, you're more likely to know about it, and/or have the same gripes. If a city across the globe is unhappy with something, I'm less likely to be concerned. E.g., I'm not really bothered that the French might have to continue working until they're 62, because I won't be able to retire until I'm 66.

It's not clear, however, how this would fit in to the CivV model. I for one am rather glad that "distance to capital" penalties are gone.

[Ming]

I like the switch to empire wide happiness. To me, it just makes more sense. In the US, if people are rioting in LA, the effects can be felt throughout the entire country.

I like the new combat system for SP play... but then I'm an old war gamer. I do think the cost of armies is a tad excessive, and I hope they tone it down a bit. It's very difficult maintaining a large army if you are a small/compact empire.

As Yin points out, there are many ways to bring the costs down or get more money. But I do hate when a single unit gets finished, and you go big time minus on cash becasue of it. I also don't like that Great People count. I like keeping a great person around to have for a special wonder or expensive science (or to leap frog through the tech tree with multiple great scientists), but it's expensive to keep great people sitting around doing nothing.

[sowings]

I like the new combat system for SP play... but then I'm an old war gamer. I do think the cost of armies is a tad excessive, and I hope they tone it down a bit. It's very difficult maintaining a large army if you are a small/compact empire.

As Yin points out, there are many ways to bring the costs down or get more money. But I do hate when a single unit gets finished, and you go big time minus on cash becasue of it.

Yes, agreed. I'm curious to know if someone has (yet) done an analysis of unit costs. In my experience, it seems that units are supported in pairs. If I notice that I'm in the red, I might disband an idle worker. I get the cash for disbanding the unit, but my GPT remains the same. Only when I find and delete a second idle worker does the GPT improve, often by a big jump. I was once -8 in the hole per turn, and deleted a unit to jump to +6. All of this while purportedly well below my total support, as seen on the economic summary page.

[Arrian]

[exploit?] Sell every luxury and strategic resource you possess to another AI ... right before you declare war. You get a ton of cash, and you get everything right back that you just sold. [I have suggested some ways to fix this.]

Holy ****, that was an exploit in CivIII! It's not like it's terribly difficult to fix. Soren fixed it, and then made sure it wasn't in CivIV.

Oy.

-Arrian

[Aegrim]

I'm not sure I understand the thinking behind "I have too many units but want to make more, so it's the game's fault." Seems to me the solution is to get rid of excess units.

Historically, this is a VERY typical cause of wars. Large standing army + economic problems? Solution: Go fight somebody. It would seem that Civ 5 is designed exactly right.

The Armies aren't very large, this is during a build up and often going in with less than I'd desire.

[wodan11]

Large, compared to what?

[Aegrim]

Large, compared to what?

5 infantry, 3 artillary, 3 destroyers, carrier, 5 fighters (2 land based), 1 nuclear bomb off the top of my head, a few more units staying up home or providing replacements.

Not large.

You should be able have enough to really flatten an area if you move everything to the same place, and still break even.

[ColdPhoenix]

I was once -8 in the hole per turn, and deleted a unit to jump to +6. All of this while purportedly well below my total support, as seen on the economic summary page.

Note that the unit support limits are different in civ 5 than civ 4. In 4 you started paying for units above the limit and they were free before. In 5 it's a hard limit, you pay for units below and can't build more once you reach the limit.

[Asmodean]

Note that the unit support limits are different in civ 5 than civ 4. In 4 you started paying for units above the limit and they were free before. In 5 it's a hard limit, you pay for units below and can't build more once you reach the limit.

True...but his other point is something that I have seen as well. I don't have enough observations to support any claim that units are supported in pairs, but I have certainly observed deleting one unit resulting in no change in GPT, but deleting another immediately thereafter resulting in GPT going up by 5 gold.

Asmodean

[ColdPhoenix]

Oh yeah, no arguments on that point. Unit maintenance certainly appears to be in pairs of units.