View Full Version : Civ 5, what will be taken away from Civ 4


Tk1
Sep 04, 2010, 03:12 AM
Hi folks,

I just want to know concisely, what we currently have in Civ4 will no longer be there in Civ5, can anyone help?

Thanks!

Tk1

Willowmound
Sep 04, 2010, 03:18 AM
Religion, the SoD, civics, corporations, multiple leaders...what else?

Auncien
Sep 04, 2010, 03:27 AM
Espionage, health mechanic, war weariness, ability to raze capital cities (presumably), a plethora of units and barbarian animals (which is the most grievous of all!)

Cilpot
Sep 04, 2010, 04:35 AM
The only thing I know I'll miss is cottage->hamlet->village->town :(

Aussie_Lurker
Sep 04, 2010, 04:50 AM
Far, far too much. Its weird how the defenders of Civ5 declare that anyone who wants the good things from Civ4 retained is merely asking for a new Civ4 expansion-but that's such a childish argument. There were many good things from Civ3 that got incorporated into Civ4 (even if they didn't work perfectly in Civ3) such as culture, individualized civilizations, golden ages & resources-the stuff that got removed (like corruption & pollution) were removed because they increased MM for no benefit. Yet I feel that there are things from Civ4, that were really good, that have been dropped from in Civ5 for no other reason than to simplify the game. Yet there is such a thing as oversimplification-& this time I feel that this is the path they've taken!

Aussie.

Schuesseled
Sep 04, 2010, 06:03 AM
It's a lot easier to make a good game by removing features and starting again than it is to just cram more stuff into in a civ 4 clone.

@OP I think the most important thing to remember is that this is supposed to be adifferent game to civ 4, so you can't treat these things as missing.

Aussie_Lurker
Sep 04, 2010, 06:14 AM
It's a lot easier to make a good game by removing features and starting again than it is to just cram more stuff into in a civ 4 clone.

@OP I think the most important thing to remember is that this is supposed to be adifferent game to civ 4, so you can't treat these things as missing.

I'm not asking for a Civ4 clone, any more than I wanted a Civ3 clone in Civ4. Civ4 was still a very different game from Civ3, with only a few key changes (tile improvements, civics, religion & city maintenance mostly). I also think that Civ4 was *better* than *all* its predecessors by adding extra complexity (Civics were much more complex than the governments of Civ1 to Civ3; tile improvements were more complex than the Mines & Farms of Civ1 to Civ3; health was-in some ways-more complex than the pollution mechanic of Civ1 to Civ3). Yet in Civ5 I feel that they believe that it can be made better by making things much more simple than its predecessors & by removing far more than was removed in the transition from Civ3 to Civ4. Indeed, I really feel at the moment that this game breaks the 1/3rd new, 1/3rd removed, 1/3rd improved rule that used to be a major design philosophy!

Emstinson
Sep 04, 2010, 06:35 AM
The biggest worry of mine in that line of thinking Aussie is that the 1/3rd new is "new" stuff from Civ Revolutions.. Which I fondly enjoyed but is no where near the level of the computer titles. And I'm sure that got beaten around these forums a bunch already so no reason to go into details. I hope I like the less roads concept, it seems like with 1 upt it would be better to have more roads and maintain the extra cost to invading armies on their movement points. But I'm sure the overall direction of the game required it to add some "strategy" via roads... lol funny to say, lets hope it's atleast true! Oh and the only thing I was going to add on to missing stuff is my favorite unit from civ 4 bts, the airship... man I loved racing to physics so I could see those slow frigate/galleon SOD's coming from off the shore 2 turns early...

AlpsStranger
Sep 04, 2010, 06:41 AM
I'm not asking for a Civ4 clone, any more than I wanted a Civ3 clone in Civ4. Civ4 was still a very different game from Civ3, with only a few key changes (tile improvements, civics, religion & city maintenance mostly). I also think that Civ4 was *better* than *all* its predecessors by adding extra complexity (Civics were much more complex than the governments of Civ1 to Civ3; tile improvements were more complex than the Mines & Farms of Civ1 to Civ3; health was-in some ways-more complex than the pollution mechanic of Civ1 to Civ3). Yet in Civ5 I feel that they believe that it can be made better by making things much more simple than its predecessors & by removing far more than was removed in the transition from Civ3 to Civ4. Indeed, I really feel at the moment that this game breaks the 1/3rd new, 1/3rd removed, 1/3rd improved rule that used to be a major design philosophy!

I think Civ5 is a slash and burn game, and I actually think this is a good idea. In the absence of this sort of approach a series will eventually stagnate. This is far more of a "Warcraft 3" sort of sequel than a "Starcraft 2" sequel.

I can see why it freaks everyone out, but I think Shafer will be vindicated when the dust settles. Time will tell.

Wolle68
Sep 04, 2010, 08:10 AM
The biggest worry of mine in that line of thinking Aussie is that the 1/3rd new is "new" stuff from Civ Revolutions..

Seems to me that the major new stuff in Civ 5 is:

Hexes
1upt
Ranged combat
City states
Social Policies
Revamped culture victory
Revamped conquest victory


Of all these things, only the last is from CivRev. Why do people keep insisting on this when it's so obviously wrong?

bjbrains
Sep 04, 2010, 08:16 AM
Seems to me that the major new stuff in Civ 5 is:

Hexes
1upt
Ranged combat
City states
Social Policies
Revamped culture victory
Revamped conquest victory


Of all these things, only the last is from CivRev. Why do people keep insisting on this when it's so obviously wrong?
Don't forget:
New strategic resource system
Revamped unit maintenence
Increased uniqueness between Civs

Of these, Civ Rev only had unique civs, and the Civ 5 system is nothing like the Civ Rev ability system.

Where is all this Civ Rev influence I keep hearing about? Seriously, people always proclaim it, but it doesn't exist.

PieceOfMind
Sep 04, 2010, 09:49 AM
Seems to me that the major new stuff in Civ 5 is:

Hexes
1upt
Ranged combat
City states
Social Policies
Revamped culture victory
Revamped conquest victory


Of all these things, only the last is from CivRev. Why do people keep insisting on this when it's so obviously wrong?

Similarities between Civ5 and CivRev that I can think of:

Shorter and simpler tech tree (prerequisites not as confusing)
Natural wonders that give some sort of bonus to first to discover.
Barbarian encampments.
Ancient ruins - never give something bad
End of road spaghetti spam
More intuitive or less complicated combat mechanics
Cultural victory requires the player to accumulate a certain number of achievements and then build a completing wonder/project.
Art style
Streamlined interface (removing cluttered bunches of buttons etc.)
Conquest victories require player to capture some number of enemy capital cities.
No commerce and slider system. (There was sort of commerce in CivRev but each city would put it either all into gold or all into science.)

But really we should be talking about the things that are absent in civrev that will be absent in civ5 also. That's usually what people probably mean. For example, people might call the fact that civrev doesn't have workers a "feature". Obviously that's not the case with civ5, but you get the idea. People are critical of CivRev being a guide for what things to "remove" from civ4 for civ5.

There are design concepts being borrowed from civrev, no doubt about it. Almost certainly the design is being more heavily influenced by civ4 - important to remember!

parabellum9x19
Sep 04, 2010, 10:01 AM
look at how many things (including units, like paratroopers) were missing from vanilla Civ IV.

Tk1
Sep 04, 2010, 10:29 AM
Well then...it doesn't sound good. I'll wait and see before I buy the game.

Churchdown Yank
Sep 04, 2010, 10:30 AM
Similarities between Civ5 and CivRev that I can think of:

...snippered...

And almost all of those things are good things. Or at the very least neutral things. I'm not happy about a slightly simplified tech tree, but I can understand why it was streamlined (by like what? 5%?).

You've just blown my mind. I'm not particularly a fan of CivRev (ok - I'm a borderline hater) but maybe some good concepts came out of it?

iop
Sep 04, 2010, 10:36 AM
In my opinion, the main thing that will be missing from Civ4 is the mods, patches and expansions - for now, at least.

I can't play Civ4 anymore without the BUG mod, for example, and BtS, to me, is so much better than vanilla (though I almost exclusively play FFH2 now).

Its weird how the defenders of Civ5 declare that anyone who wants the good things from Civ4 retained is merely asking for a new Civ4 expansion-but that's such a childish argument.
I agree with that. Though I think Civ5 brings more complexity. Though let's see what is changing:
- 1upt/Hex: Does away with SOD, makes combat a lot more complex. I like that, because SOD make wars boring to me. Also, I loved Battle Isle.

- Social policies as trees instead of exclusive settings. I see that as an evolution in a good direction: I liked the idea of being able to more carefully choose my civics, but in the end, there were still only a very limited number of combinations I ever used, simply because some of the choices were so much more useful. I don't think I ever adopted environmentalism, for example. The new system is more complex, because you need to accumulate culture to be able to add new civics, and there's a limited amount of civics you'll ever be able to choose. So do you hold off from investing in social policies until you unlock the rationalism tree?

- Tile improvements: We lose windmill/watermill/workshop to buildings and gain the specialist tile improvements. Fortresses get a bit of a boost, which may make them finally useful. Roads costing money makes building them more interesting.

- Religion: I never liked religions very much, because they weren't different at all from each other (FFH2 does an excellent job of fixing that, though), thus adding very little to the game other than making someone pissed at you. It was either rush an early religion and spread it for the money, or wait till there's an established religion. Not much complexity there.

- Units: Maybe I'm just not good enough, but there were plenty of units I hardly ever built. So I don't mind having fewer that I will build. Also, having fewer units means civs get a bit more unique, one thing I loved about FFH2.

King Jason
Sep 04, 2010, 10:42 AM
The art styles of civrev and civ5 are not at all similar; they're on complete opposite ends of the spectrum from each other.

Giant Dwarf
Sep 04, 2010, 10:53 AM
Espionage, health mechanic, war weariness, ability to raze capital cities (presumably), a plethora of units and barbarian animals (which is the most grievous of all!)

Hold on a second. Did they really get rid of the barbarian animals?

iop
Sep 04, 2010, 12:15 PM
Hold on a second. Did they really get rid of the barbarian animals?
Yes. I think it was in the latest polycast.

Edit: Some more things that will go away:
- Transparency in diplomacy (you won't know what exactly made the others like/dislike you). I'm unhappy about that.
- Ability to rename your cities. Don't care.
- Paying less gold to finish production if your unit is already half-built. Buying units/buildings always costs the same amount, but is no longer tied to civics.
- Tech trading. To get a tech you need to research it yourself (or do a research pact which eventually gives you a random tech). Not sure I like this. Probably I will.


Reading the reports, I'm not worried yet. Playing a new game is like moving to another country. When the first enthusiasm subsides, you notice all the bad things about the new place. It is only later that you learn to appreciate all the new stuff the old place didn't have.

Aussie_Lurker
Sep 04, 2010, 08:28 PM
Yes. I think it was in the latest polycast.
- Ability to rename your cities. Don't care.


Actually, ability to rename cities-& leaders-has been confirmed as being *in*. I know you don't care, but I thought you'd still like to know ;).

Aussie.

Wolle68
Sep 05, 2010, 12:34 AM
Similarities between Civ5 and CivRev that I can think of:


That's quite a list. I'll just answer some of them.


Shorter and simpler tech tree (prerequisites not as confusing)


The subject was new features, though. The move from tech trading to research agreement is the new feature that probably made this necessary, but that's not from CivRev.


Barbarian encampments.


That's from Civ III.


More intuitive or less complicated combat mechanics


I disagree that the combat mechanics in Civ 5 are less complicated than Civ 4. How complicated is a stack of doom?

At any rate, the combat mechanics of CivRev are nothing like the mechanics of Civ 5.


Cultural victory requires the player to accumulate a certain number of achievements and then build a completing wonder/project.


That's a very generic way of stating the cultural victory. The details are very different. (You might as well say it is taken from the science victory in SMAC.)


Art style


What? No. The art style in CivRev was completely cartoony. If anything, Civ 5 is less cartoony than Civ 4.


Streamlined interface (removing cluttered bunches of buttons etc.)


That's hardly a gameplay mechanic, though.



But really we should be talking about the things that are absent in civrev that will be absent in civ5 also. That's usually what people probably mean.

Fair enough, but I was responding directly to a claim that the new features in Civ 5 were taken from CivRev.

PieceOfMind
Sep 05, 2010, 12:53 AM
That's quite a list. I'll just answer some of them.



The subject was new features, though. The move from tech trading to research agreement is the new feature that probably made this necessary, but that's not from CivRev.
Spin it however you want. The tech tree is still simpler. It's not necessarily a bad thing. Keep in mind the tech tree for civrev was actually pretty decent and praised by a lot of players. It was one of the more complex parts of the civrev game.That's from Civ III.Did I say anything about being from civ3? I just said similarities between rev and 5. From what I can tell, barbarian encampments in rev and 5 are more similar than with civ3's, but we shall see.I disagree that the combat mechanics in Civ 5 are less complicated than Civ 4. How complicated is a stack of doom?
Combat mechanics =/= combat tactics.

And since you asked, actually stacks of doom are pretty complicated.


At any rate, the combat mechanics of CivRev are nothing like the mechanics of Civ 5.That's why I merely said they are both simpler and more intuitive. Not that they share the same combat mechanics.That's a very generic way of stating the cultural victory. The details are very different. (You might as well say it is taken from the science victory in SMAC.)How different are the details. To acchieve cutlural victory you must unlock a certain number of policy trees and then build a project. In CivRev you needed to build a certain number of wonders or great people etc. and then build a wonder. Same thing basically, except in civ5 it ties in with a new feature - social policies.What? No. The art style in CivRev was completely cartoony. If anything, Civ 5 is less cartoony than Civ 4.Art style is not merely about cartoony vs. realistic. Wait til you see the artwork in the civ5 special edition artbook. It's the same artist/s that worked on rev from what I can tell.That's hardly a gameplay mechanic, though.
Interface is just as, if not more, important as any other game mechanic.
Fair enough, but I was responding directly to a claim that the new features in Civ 5 were taken from CivRev.

And I was responding to the claim "Why do people keep insisting on this when it's so obviously wrong?". It's a matter of opinion, or arguable if you'd prefer. If it were me, I'd say it's pretty obvious some inspiration is being taken from CivRev (just as with other games like civ4 and panzer general) in the design of civ5. That's not exactly unusual considering it's the same development studio who made both games.

bernlin2000
Sep 05, 2010, 12:58 AM
I'm not asking for a Civ4 clone, any more than I wanted a Civ3 clone in Civ4. Civ4 was still a very different game from Civ3, with only a few key changes (tile improvements, civics, religion & city maintenance mostly). I also think that Civ4 was *better* than *all* its predecessors by adding extra complexity (Civics were much more complex than the governments of Civ1 to Civ3; tile improvements were more complex than the Mines & Farms of Civ1 to Civ3; health was-in some ways-more complex than the pollution mechanic of Civ1 to Civ3). Yet in Civ5 I feel that they believe that it can be made better by making things much more simple than its predecessors & by removing far more than was removed in the transition from Civ3 to Civ4. Indeed, I really feel at the moment that this game breaks the 1/3rd new, 1/3rd removed, 1/3rd improved rule that used to be a major design philosophy!

You know the old saying, Aussie: you're entitled to your own opinion, but you're not entitled to your own facts. Social policies (a Civ5 replacement for civics) is far more complicated than in CivIV and will require much more thought than before when deciding which trees to prioritize. Diplomacy is also going to be tougher, with other civilizations attitude toward you and others more opaque (no more numbers detailing exactly why they hate/like you). 1UPT on a surface level will seem simpler, but tactics will become much more important, and thus combat will be more challenging, positioning matters now. The change in the happiness mechanic (making it empire-wide) also seems simplified, but with the research/culture sliders gone, it is going to be much more difficult to overextend your empire: you will have to deal with severely decreased growth and combat penalties when you go too far. Luckily for us, the designer doesn't follow your rigid design philosophy: sometimes new stuff is OK. Regardless, you really need to play the game (me too) when it comes out before you decry changes that none of know their true impact on the game's "fun-ness" (the only factor that matters) :goodjob:

bernlin2000
Sep 05, 2010, 01:03 AM
Don't forget:
New strategic resource system
Revamped unit maintenence
Increased uniqueness between Civs

Of these, Civ Rev only had unique civs, and the Civ 5 system is nothing like the Civ Rev ability system.

Where is all this Civ Rev influence I keep hearing about? Seriously, people always proclaim it, but it doesn't exist.

Well Shafer did say that they did look to Rev for inspiration, but also realizing that the audience for the games are totally different. I think people forget that the guy was a Civ modder for many years: why would he want to make a simplistic sequel to a series that enjoyed adding MORE features to for years. It's just strange.

Aussie_Lurker
Sep 05, 2010, 01:06 AM
Luckily for us, the designer doesn't follow your rigid design philosophy: sometimes new stuff is OK.

Um, thats not *my* design philosophy-that is a direct quote from Soren Johnson-lead designer of Civilization IV. Guess what, that design philosophy is probably what helped make Civ4 the most successful game in the franchise-& the designers of Civ5 would have done well to stick to it. For the record, I'm not opposed to the new stuff (1upt or City States for example), but I am pretty aggro about what has been dropped (like health, culture wars & religion) in favor of what appears to be a far more simplistic game.

Aussie.

Aussie_Lurker
Sep 05, 2010, 01:08 AM
Social policies (a Civ5 replacement for civics) is far more complicated than in CivIV and will require much more thought than before when deciding which trees to prioritize.
Except that, because they were afraid of making people have to make truly *tough* decisions, you can move up in each branch of the tree *without* having to give up the benefits of an earlier policy-which in some ways makes it *simpler* than the Civics System!

Aussie.

parabellum9x19
Sep 05, 2010, 01:09 AM
Um, thats not *my* design philosophy-that is a direct quote from Soren Johnson-lead designer of Civilization IV. Guess what, that design philosophy is probably what helped make Civ4 the most successful game in the franchise-& the designers of Civ5 would have done well to stick to it. For the record, I'm not opposed to the new stuff (1upt or City States for example), but I am pretty aggro about what has been dropped (like health, culture wars & religion) in favor of what appears to be a far more simplistic game.

Aussie.

certain things are simplified, as you mentioned. others have been made more complex (SPs instead of civics, tactical combat, city states, resources). its not a more simple game, but we all have to play it before we can decide whether its our particular flavor.

bernlin2000
Sep 05, 2010, 01:16 AM
Um, thats not *my* design philosophy-that is a direct quote from Soren Johnson-lead designer of Civilization IV. Guess what, that design philosophy is probably what helped make Civ4 the most successful game in the franchise-& the designers of Civ5 would have done well to stick to it. For the record, I'm not opposed to the new stuff (1upt or City States for example), but I am pretty aggro about what has been dropped (like health, culture wars & religion) in favor of what appears to be a far more simplistic game.

Aussie.

Yes, I was aware it was the design for CivIV vanilla, not Civ5 however, and this is not a bad thing (like you seemed to indicate). How would you make CivIV part 2 better than the original? I would say that CivIV did such a wonderful job of refining the series that any attempt would be fruitless, or would just be a game that played with the edges. I don't want to play CivIV part 2, I've been playing the first part for 5 years and I'm ready for something completely different. I liked all the features that you mentioned (health was very well done and religion will be missed, not for long though), but just because they're removing a feature doesn't mean that it was perceived by the dev team as "bad". It just means that it didn't fit with the vision they have for this game. I understand why some of the changes have been poo-pooed: moving from CivIII to CivIV was much more effortless for me, because there were very few things I miss from CivIII that aren't in CivIV, and a lot more that I'm glad didn't make it (corruption, pollution, UI obviously). Usually it's bad when changes are made to a series just for the sake of change, but when you have a 20-year old series sometimes it needs to be done.

Wolle68
Sep 05, 2010, 03:54 AM
The biggest worry of mine in that line of thinking Aussie is that the 1/3rd new is "new" stuff from Civ Revolutions..


And I was responding to the claim "Why do people keep insisting on this when it's so obviously wrong?". It's a matter of opinion, or arguable if you'd prefer. If it were me, I'd say it's pretty obvious some inspiration is being taken from CivRev (just as with other games like civ4 and panzer general) in the design of civ5. That's not exactly unusual considering it's the same development studio who made both games.

Quite obviously "this" refers to the quote I was responding to. What else would it refer to? If you meant that you agreed with me, but just wanted to add that there was also an inspiration from CivRev, then I misunderstood you. I got the distinct impression that you were disagreeing with me.

PieceOfMind
Sep 05, 2010, 04:41 AM
Well personally I find the whole "remove a 1/3, keep a 1/3, 1/3 new" statements rather pointless. I'm sure the devs don't actually think in those terms and there's no way to quantify these things. My point is that some of the new stuff in civ5 (compared to civ4) is probably being based on lessons learned from civrev. Sure, it's not going to be piece for piece the same game mechanics, but, for example, civ4's culture system was pretty different to civ3's. It doesn't mean we say that's not a feature that civ4 got from civ3.

I would agree with you that it's not the entire "1/3 of new stuff" that is taken from civrev.

Trev
Sep 05, 2010, 04:56 AM
Remember the Vanilla version is always simpler anyway, so that they can later produce 2 expansions with additional features which will increase the complexity and enjoyment of the game a fair bit. So some of the things that have been dropped will be added back in in the expansion packs.

iop
Sep 05, 2010, 07:14 AM
Actually, ability to rename cities-& leaders-has been confirmed as being *in*. I know you don't care, but I thought you'd still like to know ;).

Aussie.

Thanks for the heads-up. I used to care in Civ1, where I kept a historical atlas next to the computer to properly name the cities, but that hasn't been necessary recently.

Kilroywashere
Sep 05, 2010, 04:29 PM
"remove a 1/3, keep a 1/3, 1/3 new"

:confused:
Um, wouldn't that make only 2/3rd's of a game?

Psyringe
Sep 05, 2010, 04:42 PM
:confused:
Um, wouldn't that make only 2/3rd's of a game?

Correct. :) In the original statement (made by Jeff Briggs IIRC, though it may be older) the numbers add up though: 1/3 old, 1/3 improved, 1/3 new.

Scramble
Sep 05, 2010, 05:04 PM
My view on CiV seems to be that they want entry level players who have never played before to have a simpler time, while the later level more advanced veteran players have plenty of complexity and challenge. Because of this, we see more permanent social policies, a simpler city growth system and more automatic tax system with more emphasis on the "action" of the game... war. Now while it seems to me that this stuff is made simpler, there are more than enough ways to optimize, customize, maximize and perfect...ize... your play, which will be a joy for veterans like myself. From what I have heard, making a building civ (my favorite) rather than a warring civ, will actually be easier than in civ4. I agree that it is kinda sad to lose some of the complexity, but I can't imagine it will lose enough complexity to make the game boring to play...


Keep in mind as well, that a huge amount of features you know and love from CivIV were added in patches, expansions and mods. I wonder if we will see a good amount of those in the future of CiV.

Arrowhead
Sep 05, 2010, 07:42 PM
I can't believe people are MOANING already without even playing the darn thing.

Oh brother.

PieceOfMind
Sep 05, 2010, 08:11 PM
:confused:
Um, wouldn't that make only 2/3rd's of a game?

Quite right. It's so pointless I can't even remember it properly. ;)

novaya
Sep 05, 2010, 09:09 PM
Edit: Some more things that will go away:
- Ability to rename your cities.

=o

That bugs the crap out of me.

bjbrains
Sep 05, 2010, 09:51 PM
=o

That bugs the crap out of me.

He's wrong about that. Greg posted confirming that renaming cities is in.

remconius
Sep 06, 2010, 06:14 AM
Somewhere in the back of my mind I remember Aussie_Lurker in similar discussions when Civ 4 came out :) I guess you dont like change?:think:

Personally I like the way they radically changed Civ III and I look forward to the changes for civ 5. It will be a different game (as was civ IV compared to III) but from I read it will be as enjoyable. If not more.

Below my take on the removed features:
Espionage - Good riddance, never really used it and it didnt add much.
Health mechanic - This was non-added value. City gets unhealthy and you build stuff to keep it growing, or trade resources. It limited growth, which can be done otherwise.
War weariness - Was a nuissance as was corruption (civ3) in the past. Not sure how this will be compensated to avoid AW games, but probably in the empire wide happiness.
Ability to raze capital cities - This is to do with the fact that for domination need to capture all capitals.
Barbarian animals - didnt know, doesnt matter if meet a guy with a clbu or a bear.
Religion - Had too big influence on diplomacy. AI were not objective on whether they needed to work with you. Religion (randomly spread) had great influence. If you did not have a religion,you could not be friends with some. I think religion comes back in social paths.
The SoD - Good riddance, war was such a one trick pony. Build stack, send stack, replenish stack. Only strategy was in which unit to send first to attack.
Civics - replaced by social paths I think. Which makes for more organic civic decisions.
Corporations - They were too late in the game and did not add much. Fun to try once, but not needed to win.
Multiple leaders - for one nation? This easy to add later on. Start with 18 is fine.
Cottage - replaced with trading posts. Guess this can work, but I am not sure how gold is earned. I guess filling the map with towns wasnt so realistic either.

All in all, I am excited about the changes and cant wait to see how they play out. From the past the firaxis team has proven to be able to change a successful into a different also great game. I have full confidence.

Aussie_Lurker
Sep 06, 2010, 07:09 AM
Somewhere in the back of my mind I remember Aussie_Lurker in similar discussions when Civ 4 came out :) I guess you dont like change?:think:

Dead Wrong I'm afraid. Civ4 was the sequel I was *most* looking forward to, based largely on Sullla's Walk-through (though I was already excited before that). Indeed, I was so excited that I went out & bought a NEW COMPUTER just so that it would run flawlessly for me!! I'm still playing-& modding-it to this very day. So, no, I do like change-as long as the change makes sense. I see no good reason to remove maintenance & health-or cultural assimilation. I accept that Religion had its problems in Civ4, but I don't really believe that they couldn't have fixed the problems, rather than drop it entirely.
I like the Social Policy system (except Piety, which seems really weak & under-developed), I like the removal of SoD's, I like the addition of City-States & I like the Unique Abilities for each Civilization. Yet for everything they've done which I heartily approve of, there seems to be something they've done which I think is bone stupid-like making Happiness do triple or quadruple duty, retaining Culture Bombs, removing the cottage->hamlet->village->town mechanic that rewards long-term planning/commitment &-yes-the total removal of religion!

So please, remconius, if you're going to accuse me of a certain point of view, at least take a few minutes to do the research to make sure that the facts back you up-or else you just end up looking foolish!

Psyringe
Sep 06, 2010, 08:50 AM
Somewhere in the back of my mind I remember Aussie_Lurker in similar discussions when Civ 4 came out :) I guess you dont like change?:think:

The back of your mind is wrong. Actually, I vividly remember Aussie being pretty much thrilled about the same additions in Civ4 (religion being the one I remember most) whose removal he now criticizes. Seems pretty consistent to me and exactly the opposite of what you assume.

remconius
Sep 06, 2010, 08:59 AM
If I offended you, this was not my intention. Apologies for that. My remark was not meant as an accusation. Maybe I should have written "I guess you dont like this many changes?" or "I guess you dont like all the changes?". Sometimes the point gets lost when writing in a non-native language.

It's just that I remember reading discussions before civ 4 came out 6 years ago. And I was happy to see Aussie_Lurker is still around as many of us old-timers are. And you are still being critical of changes that are being made, as you were back then. That is , if I remember correctly (been a while....).

For me it was a happy deja vu...