The best thing they could have done to Civ V over IV is getting rid of religion. They incorporated it into the social policies, which is exactly what they should have done. Civ V smashes the competition of any other Civ game, and I HAVE been playing them since the first. If your having trouble adjusting and think its "dumbed down" you may need to buy a strategy guide. This is not Civ IV.2, its Civ V, its new, its better, and yes its different.
Religion gone from Civ V is a Blessing
- Thread starter etipton3
- Start date
Doesn't seem like it's trouble adjusting most folks are having -- it's the ease of adjusting, then the boredom that follows after the adjustment.
Doctor Phibes
Prince
Yeah, the big clunky icons and the general approach to screen real estate just scream console to me. That and the dumbed down load/save screens - I'm surprised it didn't just offer ten save game slots labelled #1 to #10...
Sometimes I am a warmongerer, sometimes diplomatic, cultural, etc...I do them all, and they are all different strategies. Thats what makes this game great. The problem is everybody wants the same game with additional features, basically a CIV IV upgrade. This happens everytime a new game is introduced to the series. My advice is go back to IV, they already have your money so it doesnt matter and Civ V will never be Civ IV, luckily. 
JLoZeppeli
Prince
- Joined
- May 11, 2009
- Messages
- 598
I bet they prefer that we pay for expansions and DLCs too, so your last statement is not entirely true....
bromidias
Chieftain
Well im glad you like it. Have you see any AI horseman/air units? couse im probebly just unlucky that I havent seen em at all...
But I agree with your opinion about relligion, just NOT with your ciV is best ever!
But I agree with your opinion about relligion, just NOT with your ciV is best ever!
Disgustipated
Deity
I don't like the way social policies are in this game. Most people will just skip piety (unless they want the happiness bonus') anyways. So you essentually have no religion.
Religion was taken out when it shouldn't have been.
Say what you want, but we know their reason to take it out was BS. Diplomacy my ass. Diplomacy is hardly working right now. So you can't say they took it out to make diplomacy work. Diplomacy right now in civ5 is a joke. We know the real reason is because they did not have the time or money to devote towards programming religion in and fixing the bad stuff about it in civ4.
Religion was taken out when it shouldn't have been.
Say what you want, but we know their reason to take it out was BS. Diplomacy my ass. Diplomacy is hardly working right now. So you can't say they took it out to make diplomacy work. Diplomacy right now in civ5 is a joke. We know the real reason is because they did not have the time or money to devote towards programming religion in and fixing the bad stuff about it in civ4.
Piety is actually useful, I have used it many times in many different strategies with this game. It gives the option of religion, not just some crap you have to learn to deal with. Its more realistic, its rediculous to think one nation will fall under one religion. Good riddance religion!!
JLoZeppeli
Prince
- Joined
- May 11, 2009
- Messages
- 598
I don't think so, I pay for Man of War expansion right now, so i have plentry of time to enjoy a good game.
If it will be patched for good ok, but no more money from my wallet... Maybe i'll wait a good mod.
Cheers
If it will be patched for good ok, but no more money from my wallet... Maybe i'll wait a good mod.
Cheers
I take it that you're a warmonger?
For a builder/dove player -- the removal of religion, absent an equally rich replacement, is a gamebreaker. It's one of the primary contributors to the boring Next Turn syndrome that plagues players who never really cared about previous iteration complaints about quecha rush this/axeman rush that.
Civilization was never supposed to be primarily a wargame -- and religion provided the non-warmonger with significant options and challenges to play a peaceful game and have that game be interesting rather than just 1500 next turns, with about 25 SP selections sprinkled throughout.
Religion had a variety of uses -- it could be a science contributor, an enormous cultural contributor, a significant commerce contributor, and also a significant diplomacy contributor.
If you desired to expand peacefully and skimp on your armed forces - spreading your religion at least to isolate a potential enemy was a must. Add in options for holy wars, forced peace treaties via the AP, and the potential to draw in like-religioned AIs to your aid, and it meant that you no longer had just one route -- building and maneuvering your own army -- for grand strategic diplomacy.
The bonuses presented by religion - and religions via religious buildings and civics allowed one to use it as a science booster.
The building paths - and scalable expansion (4 temples per cathedral, etc) would allow interplay between expansion of both the empire and the religion within it.
I'm not claiming religion was perfect -- I think RoM/AND got it better than vanilla -- but it was a significant part of the game for the peaceful player.
The removal of it and simplification of the concept is the most glaring cause of the boredom most builders have with Civ V. The globalization of happiness, elimination of city health, removal of espionage, removal of civics/governments all play a role -- but religion was the death blow and I blame it more than anything else for the Next Turn-fest that V has become for me.
For a builder/dove player -- the removal of religion, absent an equally rich replacement, is a gamebreaker. It's one of the primary contributors to the boring Next Turn syndrome that plagues players who never really cared about previous iteration complaints about quecha rush this/axeman rush that.
Civilization was never supposed to be primarily a wargame -- and religion provided the non-warmonger with significant options and challenges to play a peaceful game and have that game be interesting rather than just 1500 next turns, with about 25 SP selections sprinkled throughout.
Religion had a variety of uses -- it could be a science contributor, an enormous cultural contributor, a significant commerce contributor, and also a significant diplomacy contributor.
If you desired to expand peacefully and skimp on your armed forces - spreading your religion at least to isolate a potential enemy was a must. Add in options for holy wars, forced peace treaties via the AP, and the potential to draw in like-religioned AIs to your aid, and it meant that you no longer had just one route -- building and maneuvering your own army -- for grand strategic diplomacy.
The bonuses presented by religion - and religions via religious buildings and civics allowed one to use it as a science booster.
The building paths - and scalable expansion (4 temples per cathedral, etc) would allow interplay between expansion of both the empire and the religion within it.
I'm not claiming religion was perfect -- I think RoM/AND got it better than vanilla -- but it was a significant part of the game for the peaceful player.
The removal of it and simplification of the concept is the most glaring cause of the boredom most builders have with Civ V. The globalization of happiness, elimination of city health, removal of espionage, removal of civics/governments all play a role -- but religion was the death blow and I blame it more than anything else for the Next Turn-fest that V has become for me.
Fine tune?
How can irrevocable choices presented in "one leads only to the next" be considered "fine tuning"?
If you want to say it forces more forethought - OK (I'd say it forces forethought for just your first 4 or 5 games... then you learn the synergies and it becomes automatic 'wait for the next pop', but that's another discussion). You want to say it makes decisions more consequential than civic flip-flopping - OK (I'd respond that the answer wasn't to eliminate civics, the answer was to make changes more consequential... which could have EASILY been done by adding SPs TO civics - and providing cultural bonuses for keeping a civic longer and culture point hits for switching).
That's the opposite of fine-tuning.
Moderator Action: etipton, in future, please don't post duplicates of a message in more than one thread. You posted this as a thread, but also in the "is civ5 dumbed down thread". Keep the conversation in one place by putting it in one place or the other - not both.
Moderator Action: Posts moved to this thread. Sorry if I moved any posts that shouldn't have - PM me if so.
Why should I buy a strategy guide when I learned to beat Deity on standard settings after three games? The problem is not that new players are unable to adapt, the problem is that there no longer are any important decisions to be made. Build four horseman, rule the world. You can pretty much ignore happiness and social policies.
And also, if you can become a good Civ-player by reading a strategy guide, then clearly something is wrong with game. This actually proves my point, that people who enjoy Civ V likes to develop a strategy that they repeat until they are the best. In Civ IV, that was not possible on harder difficulty levels.
There are so many different strategies to take in this game, you can explore endless possibilities for game completion, but there will always be people who dont like the new game, stuck in their old ways kind of people, glad i'm getting my moneys worth.
CornPlanter
Emperor
Not sure I understand what are you trying to say. But I believe anyone who thinks the game was dumbed down already understands it well enough.
Never thought of that before. But it's a very good point. Agreed.
Eh, no. Just a few, and no matter what you do, beating the snot out of everyone remains the cheapest, simplest and most effective way towards your victory goal, no matter what it actually is.
Do list at least a few of the many different strategies you mention, please.
Similar threads
