Aha, would the resources on trade screen not account for incoming resources from allied city states. Which is annoying, because as far as I can tell the only way to count up your luxury resources is to look at every square on your damn map and look through every allied city state. Which is a pain in the ass because I’m playing a huge map with 28 city states.
And actually they had 2 furs - it wasn’t relevant to my question so I screwed that up.
There’s a a very good mod that makes the luxuries part of the GUI a lot clearer.
Thanks. That looks perfect.
Does using Mods break being able to get Achievements? (The idea being achievements must be obtained using the packaged game and not one that may give some advantage with a mod)
Personally I do not care about achievements except in a cursory way. Just asking.
Yes.
Has anyone else run into the problem of having an AI opponent offer to surrender cities to you, puppetting them, and then not being able to finish your turn because the “City Needs Production Orders” thing won’t go away?
It nearly wrecked my latest game, until I saw a sort of workaround on the CivFanatics forum; you basically have to reject the AI’s grovelling offer, wait until your turn, then go back to the AI opponent and demand the same deal- which you’ll get.
Seriously, the number of bugs and crashes in this game is an embarrassment. If there was one game that I thought I could just buy, install, and run with no issues, it’d be a Civ game. Evidently not, alas…
I’m starting to get pretty annoyed with the way peace agreements are as of now. The first time they’ll grovel, but after that even if their entire army is destroyed and their second capital is surrounded they will refuse to offer any gold per turn, or anything. They are insanely stubborn.
It’s come to the point where I don’t think any PC game is playable on release, especially if it’s a strategy type game.
Don’t even get me started on Paradox. I used to be their biggest cheerleaders but after Victoria 2 I can’t even bring myself to play one of their games.
Had it happen once. Loaded from an auto save, got offered the deal again and no bug the second time.
I haven’t found the game to be buggy. That one time and the one time I got the repeating peace notification are the only bugs I’ve seen.
Unless it’s released by Blizzard. But yeah, it’s gotten really bad. Use the world for your beta. 
Not happened me but it’s to be fixed in the patch.
I’ve not had any bugs either, well, not of the variety being described here. Had the occasional graphical glitch but nothing that stops the game being playable or enjoyable.
I’m with you on the bizarre approach the AI takes to brokering peace deals RandMcnally. Kind of makes anything other than the first war a waste of time because you know you’ll have to either take a simple peace offer or be willing to wipe the civ off the map.
Is the “other sources” under happiness/luxuries total the effect from the cultural diplomacy patronage policy?
I’m playing that huge map/12 civ/28 nation states game and I’m kinda getting hosed. Like 22 or 23 out of the 28 nation states have either silver or spices as their only luxury. So here I am allied with like 10 of them and I’m barely benefitting from the cultural diplomacy policy because I just have like 11 silvers and 8 spices instead of a decent variety of resources. Bad roll of the dice on this game.
I have like 6 maritime state allies so my expansion is interesting. I get some new happiness via luxury trade or happiness building and my cities instantly grow, which then gives me a nice new -5 to -10 happiess within 3 or 4 turns, and then growth stalls again until my next happiness building, and then a growth spurt…
Had a fun incident with the AI - Playing as the Greeks, the Iroquois gave me a pact of secrecy against the English, and I then entered into a pact of cooperation with them. They they proceed to ask me three or four times to declare war on England, which I refuse as I’m not on a war footing. The English then attack one of my allied city-states, and I declare war on England. The next turn, the Iroquois pop up and tell me they don’t like my war mongering ways and cancel their treaties with me.
Both of these civs are now no more.
Just shows that everyone is still schizophrenic, which is something they’ve apparently decided they just can’t fix so why bother.
I don’t think that’s what anyone is looking for. I’d just like to know if Elisabeth, with whom I’ve joined in constant pacts and agreements with over the last three thousand years is sharpening her knives.
I don’t want to game the system, but I’d at least like to know if my ally for the last thousand years is starting to get less enchanted with me while I still have time to do something about it - whether that’s giving her gifts or mobilizing units to the border.
-Joe
The other sort of frustrating thing was that despite an inevitable wave of destruction headed her way, she would never offer anything more than a straight peace treaty. I didn’t want to wipe her out, but had to to keep her from coming back at me. But I wasn’t going to take nothing for an offer.
Or, the fact that we’d both benefit if I traded my furs for her pearls, but instead she’ll only give me her pearls if I give her my furs, spices, and incense.
Huh?
And it’s all of them, every time. Three-to-one.
-Joe
This has frustrated me in all of the Civ games though. I just view it as the computer’s way of saying “You are too far ahead, I am not going to help you any more.”
A balanced trade may benefit both parties, but it does not necessarily benefit them equally. IMHO: when a player gets too far in the lead, it is rarely a good idea to trade with them even if it is to your benefit too. The winning player can leverage that trade much better than the losing player.
I am on my 3rd Civ 5 game and I really like it. The AI needs work and I guess there needs to be some rebalancing, but I think the core framework of the game is solid. Count me as someone that likes the social policies; I like the idea of a parallel tech tree for social stuff. I’ve always felt like the governments seemed out of place in the tech tree. But then again, I liked religion in Civ 4.
I also don’t miss the two turns of anarchy, espionage, micro-managing cities, and transporting units across water. I don’t miss having to keep a unit in each city; letting cities fight for themselves works well.
The one unit per tile gives more of a board-game feel than a video-game feel and I appreciate that a lot. I like the limitations imposed by resources. And I like the addition of city-states. It makes the game seem more realistic to me – that not every state is trying to dominate the world.
Naval units seem quite powerful; I’ve been able to bang on coastal cities and units without much reprisal, but I haven’t seen the AI do this or even counter my attacks.
Sure, but I’m not talking about “I’m crushing you all under my heel and I just want Incense to complete my resource collection”, I’m talking “Hey, it’s early game, we both have a couple cities and it would be nice if we could do some swaps”.
Hell, if the computer is using logic like that I’m assuming the computer players never do any trading then?
Here’s a question. I’m trading with Biff of the Aztecs. I look at my ‘resources to trade’ and I see Spices (1). Does that mean that I have 1 spice and my happiness is going to drop, or does that mean that I’ve got 2 spices so one is free to be traded?
I like that navies actually MEAN something now. Naval power was, and still is, a huge factor in world affairs. In old Civ games they just existed to stack with your transports so they didn’t get sunk.
I’d like to know what barbarian ships get out of parking near (but not blockading) one of my cities only to be sunk after two or three turns of bombardment.
-Joe
And in response to that, I’ve also been on the receiving end and decided to see if I could buy off my attackers.
Nope. Offer them literally everything but my capital city and they tell me my offer isn’t good enough.
THEN JUST HAVE HIM TELL ME HE WON’T REST TILL ALL MY CITIES ARE BURNED! DON’T WASTE MY TIME!
-Joe