Which changes you expect not to like?

For me it's espionage, it's always felt arbitrary and boring to me.

I'm a bit skeptical about the change from 10 HP to 100HP for units. I don't want to take 10 turns to defeat one unit. Other than that, I am pretty open minded about the rest. I have never been one to really complain about espionage. And the new system (what we know of it anyway) sounds interesting. I am still a bit confused on Religions... have to wait for more info on it.

Not really part of the features:
The thing I most not look forward to are the initial imbalances and exploits.

With so many new features it is bound to have balance issues.
I'm sure it'll be sorted after a few patches, Civ5 got sorted out pretty well too, and I'm quite confident in the end G&K will be properly balanced as well.

So far, I have loved everyting I have heard about Gods & Kings. Espionage is something I look forward, but it is a "double edged sword". If not done properly it can ruin the game or at least some part of it. For example, in Civ4 I hardly used the espionage system as it was pretty boring and ugly. On the other hand, loved the Alpha Centauri espionage/probe team operations ("Probe Team compromised" :D) and Civ II spy missions (poison water supply, plant nuclear device, bribe enemy unit, incite a revolt etc.) I agree with many here that kind of menu espionage system is better than moving around units.

Changes to min/max. City distance is another thing that worries me a lot. If I remember right, the distance was 3 tiles when the game was released and then changed to 2 tiles in one of the early patches (Dec'10 or maybe Feb'11?) and then back to 3 tiles. I hope it will not ever changed back to 2 tiles and would gladly see it increased to 4 tiles. As a option in a advanced setup it would be nice to have choice to set shorter distance in smaller maps and higher on large maps.

Also tampering "too much" or making bad decions with the tech tree, could easily lead to decreased game-play.

Espionage is something I look forward, but it is a "double edged sword". If not done properly it can ruin the game or at least some part of it.

It is unfortunate that Espionage gets such a bad rap. Yes, the bolded statement above holds true with Espionage, but I would say that it holds true to any feature.

Well I'm not looking forward to the idea that espionage can give me new technologies. It always felt a bit silly in previous games when your spy just gave you a whole technology. (How on earth did my spy figure out particle physics that quickly?)
That said, I think it would be cool if a spy could gradually give you beakers towards a new technology.

Well I'm not looking forward to the idea that espionage can give me new technologies. It always felt a bit silly in previous games when your spy just gave you a whole technology. (How on earth did my spy figure out particle physics that quickly?)
That said, I think it would be cool if a spy could gradually give you beakers towards a new technology.

Your spy probably doesn't even know the first thing about particle physics! He just saw the documents and research notes, stuffed them in an envelope or took a picture, and returned them back to you so that your own scientists could peice it together.

I'm a bit skeptical about the change from 10 HP to 100HP for units. I don't want to take 10 turns to defeat one unit.

The way I always saw it was that damage would be in the same proportion, just with more diversity in how combat can go.

Off the top of my head, two units with equal strength attacking each other did 4-6 damage. In this new system, I assume it'd be more like 40-60 damage.

The best thing about it is that with the 10 HP version, there's only 3 different values that come out of combat. In the 100 HP version, there's 20 different values or so. Much more variation, and that'll mean that each point of strength will help, however subtly.

The way I always saw it was that damage would be in the same proportion, just with more diversity in how combat can go.

Off the top of my head, two units with equal strength attacking each other did 4-6 damage. In this new system, I assume it'd be more like 40-60 damage.

The best thing about it is that with the 10 HP version, there's only 3 different values that come out of combat. In the 100 HP version, there's 20 different values or so. Much more variation, and that'll mean that each point of strength will help, however subtly.

Most importantly, minimum 1 damage means nothing now. Before, 3 archers could easily do at least 6 damage to an infantry unit. They will still do that now but 6 damage is not 60% of total health but 6% of total health.

Which changes you expect not to like?

For me it's espionage, it's always felt arbitrary and boring to me.

I think it's hardly fair to judge a new feature based on past implementation. Does the way it is described as being in the new game seem boring?

Anyway, I'll echo the thoughts of others that combat changes might worry me the most. I thought it works fairly well right now. Tweaks for the positive might be ok, but it also runs the risk of ruining a good feature.

I think it's hardly fair to judge a new feature based on past implementation. Does the way it is described as being in the new game seem boring?


It isn't fair but I do it anyway :P

I just dislike saving up points to do some one-moment action. I prefer a coherent system of bonusses and mechanics (like the culture system).

Not looking forward to espionage.I never liked it in past civ games and I am sure it will be over powered and abused to the max by players.

I am really looking forward to the longer tech tree and the addition of units. It really felt like the musketmen => riflemen => infantry part was too fast.

I am really looking forward to the longer tech tree and the addition of units. It really felt like the musketmen => riflemen => infantry part was too fast.

He was asking what you are not looking forward to but I agree

Simpling balancing research agreements and great scientist will fix the problem


I am not looking forward to espionage I never used it and liked it

He was asking what you are not looking forward to [...]
Ah, my bad.

I am also a bit scared of espionage, but we'll see.

I am not looking forward to a longer early game, which is kinda needed to let Religion develop. The early game is crowded as it is. So my hope is that the Pantheon part of Religion will be minor and it will only get going with the Middle Ages/the World Religion stage.

I get why many people are worried about Espionage, the last few tries of implementation were not really succesful: too tedious, too much micromanagment, not enough impact. But I guess they know that and it seems like a new system... We'll see.

Most importantly, minimum 1 damage means nothing now. Before, 3 archers could easily do at least 6 damage to an infantry unit. They will still do that now but 6 damage is not 60% of total health but 6% of total health.

I may misunderstand this, but the way I read the announcement is that while units will have a larger HP pool, the damage will also be increased; the difference is only that the new approach will allow for more fine tuning (which in the current system would have equaled values such as 1.2 or 2.7, and in G&K will be 12 and 27).

Yeah, that's the case, but now every single attack won't do 10 damage at least

I'm looking forward to the whole expansion.

But, I'd agree with Thorburne about being skeptical about the 10hp-100hp change. I totally believe they will pull it off right and probably won't hurt game play or change it drastically. It's just going to be a bit of getting used to because it's such a huge change from the current system. Lots of the stuff is more or less added features and units etc, which is awesome. But the HP change is actually changing a current mechanic that I'm used to playing with, like the patches were doing for the first yr or so.

No matter what, I'm still uber excited for the expansion and definitely plan on picking it up the day its released.

Also, I really hope they release it on like a Friday so when I inevitably stay up all night playing I won't be a Zombie at work the next day. But that's a minor concern.

I may misunderstand this, but the way I read the announcement is that while units will have a larger HP pool, the damage will also be increased; the difference is only that the new approach will allow for more fine tuning (which in the current system would have equaled values such as 1.2 or 2.7, and in G&K will be 12 and 27).

This is correct.
Does anyone really believe that an archer will take 50 turns to kill of a unit? Get real.

Well, integers do use less memory than floats, so there's that.

(Waiting for someone that actually knows programming to slap me around...)

*slap* nope, integers are more exact and will need less processing power (but that's rather negligible).

hey!, I could swear that was similar to what I said!... right??

right???... J?

Well, integers do use less memory than floats, so there's that.

(Waiting for someone that actually knows programming to slap me around...)

*slap* nope, integers are more exact and will need less processing power (but that's rather negligible).

nope nope.

Integers and floats use the same amount of memory (a word). - unless using 'special' data types (read: created for a specific reason, not standard) that use multiple words and have their own algorithms to deal with them (at which point the compiler then the CPU micro-code ignore what you wrote and decide upon something better).

they take 'effectively' the same processing power, except in extreme sub-cases, but we aren't seeing those here.

Plus, most (likely all, but hey who knows what crazy things are out there) CPUs have special floating point code already, so even in rare cases, it's negligible (especially in multi-threaded or multi-core systems that don't even bother 'focusing' on one task at a time, or can spread it out).

the rare slap double nope combo there.

they take 'effectively' the same processing power, except in extreme sub-cases, but we aren't seeing those here.


How do you know that :p?

How do you know that :p?

I be smrt? :lol:

'extreme' cases would be a lot of 'negative'/'negative' floating point calculations. Given combat is 'positive'/'positive' (X effective combat strength vs. Y effective combat strength), the calculation are fairly straight forward.

*facepalm* okay, I'm an idiot, didn't notice that there are no negatives here, sorry :blush:.

*facepalm* okay, I'm an idiot, didn't notice that there are no negatives here, sorry :blush:.

and people say we don't need a *facepalm* smilie. :scan:

s'ok though, don't feel too bad, most people wouldn't know it anyways.

i just suspect that the expansion will require many additional patches and changes until it works. just based on experience i guess.... But to be honest, isnt it kinda stupid to start a thread like this about something we dont know anything about? Doesnt whining usually comes AFTER something has been released? You are breaking Whiners Code here:)

Cynicism is just a realistic stance regarding videogames today. I wish it wasn't like this, but it is in many levels. It may be because we are not kids anymore. Back when I was wee, man did companies released a bunch of crap that just went under the radar.

So yeah... fool me twice, shame on me.

No substantial improvements to multiplayer. It would be a dream if they copied everything about CIV4s multiplayer options and format, and just ran with that. Especially the lobby, and none of this regional garbage.

The way I always saw it was that damage would be in the same proportion, just with more diversity in how combat can go.

Off the top of my head, two units with equal strength attacking each other did 4-6 damage. In this new system, I assume it'd be more like 40-60 damage.

The best thing about it is that with the 10 HP version, there's only 3 different values that come out of combat. In the 100 HP version, there's 20 different values or so. Much more variation, and that'll mean that each point of strength will help, however subtly.

Yes exactly, the damage would have to be scaled to match the units strength. More variety of damage. They should put a rout and retreat rule in place as well. Or have units surrender in some cases. Rarely do units fight to the last man.

Which changes you expect not to like?

For me it's espionage, it's always felt arbitrary and boring to me.

Same, espionage, but moreso because I've never felt it's been implimented well and doesn't really fit the scope of the game. It really doesn't add much except hassle.

I hope they make it optional right off the bat so I can disable it immediately.

Same, espionage, but moreso because I've never felt it's been implimented well and doesn't really fit the scope of the game. It really doesn't add much except hassle.

I hope they make it optional right off the bat so I can disable it immediately.

That would be nice. I will try it ofcourse but being able to turn it off incase I don't like it (or just want to play some games without it) would be great.

Which changes you expect not to like?

For me it's espionage, it's always felt arbitrary and boring to me.

I like the menu driven mechanism, it feels more managerial. The screens and description I've seen of it Reminds me a bit of Floor 13 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Floor_13_(video_game)), a menu driven spy game from Virgin. You had so many agents, you send them on surveillance, tailing, assasination asignments and you get reports back.

No moving units on a map, very top level stuff.

What I never liked with Civ2/Civ4's espionage system is the units. But I guess some people like that kind of stuff.

Same, espionage, but moreso because I've never felt it's been implimented well and doesn't really fit the scope of the game. It really doesn't add much except hassle.

I hope they make it optional right off the bat so I can disable it immediately.



If espionage is integral to city state influence, I suppose you can turn off CS and just not use it. I still think having it used for city states is a genius move if they can get it to work properly.

I like the menu driven mechanism, it feels more managerial.
If espionage is integral to city state influence, I suppose you can turn off CS and just not use it. I still think having it used for city states is a genius move if they can get it to work properly.

Although I don't think it should influence city-states too much, I do agree with you about a menu-based system of managing spies by assigning them to cities, promoting them, and finally using them to cause chaos in a rival empire.

The only thing I'm worried about is Espionage, and specifically stealing tech. Seems like out of everything that has the most potential for abuse. I hope its very difficult or only able to be pulled off at a decent rate by someone specializing in espionage -- I wonder if there will be an espionage policy tree?

I gotta go with the others in that I'm not looking forward to tech stealing from espionage. I like the addition of espionage but I don't want another feature that gives free techs.

I dreaded espionage when I first saw it would be added back in, but after reading the little info they gave as well as their assurance that it wouldn't be implemented the way it was in the past, I'm willing to give it a try.

What I'm not looking forward to is the extreme likelihood that it'll come with bummer civs. Civs that, sure they may have something going for them, but most people wouldn't want them in the game over Rome, Persia, Britain, Egypt, etc. I like my opponents chosen at random so I'm surprised; that's more fun for me. It's also better for the roleplay factor-- the world didn't begin with Spain knowing there was some crazy guy named Montezuma out there for them to find. In civ IV I could edit the xml so the computer wouldn't pick all the bummer civs at the exclusion of Persia et. al., but I can't do that in V if I want anything I do to count toward achievements. So I'm not looking forward to having several =/ civs bumping the cool ones out of a slot.

Half assed execution and unbalanced gameplay?

Because I think the only thing to worry about is how they pull it off...

I'm not looking forward to ...... umm...... umm......... um......

Hm.. there's actually not a single thing i'm worried about. Maybe cuz I don't know much.

I'm just hoping Chieftain won't become too difficult to play xD. I already seem to struggle with random DoWs on Warlord D:

Half assed execution and unbalanced gameplay?

Because I think the only thing to worry about is how they pull it off...

Yeah, balance is my main concern. Every time they release a new game or expansion pack, the game is highly unbalanced, and it takes complaints from forums like ours that expose the game's balance flaws before they are fixed in subsequent patches. The game will be much more fun several months after release than it will be the day of the release.

I also do not look forward to the endless amount of threads from people whining that Firaxis released a broken game, which also happens with every release.