Expansion pack announced - Civilization V: Gods & Kings

Unless they fix multiplayer animations and improve diplomacy, I'm not getting it.

and again

- One of the main aspects of this EP is 'improved' diplomacy or a tweaked. something like that


AS WELL

It was announced that multiplayer animations are coming, wether it's in an EP or as a Patch I don't know. ti was announced before the EP was.
 
It was announced that multiplayer animations are coming, wether it's in an EP or as a Patch I don't know. ti was announced before the EP was.

I think it's going to be a patch.

As for the expansion, well, what can I say? Is the word "EXCITED!" enough? ;)
 
So, like others in this topic, I have to wonder... How are religion and ideological choices going to affect diplomacy as it is right now? Flawed as its execution may be, the idea behind the current diplomacy, if I remember correctly, is that the AIs are supposed to stand for real players, who are actually trying to win the game. Players who shouldn't be swayed by something as arbitrary as which religion you have (so that you won't have a case where Isabella of Civ IV is the dominating superpower who could wipe you out really easily, but doesn't because she's really happy that you share the same religion).

Now, I didn't mind that so much in Civ IV because that's the way the AI were for a lot of things; you could share the same civics and religions, give them stuff to make them happy, and they were programmed to not declare war on you if they were pleased or friendly (depending on the character). But the AI design of Civ V is fundamentally different; the AI isn't meant to be swayed by things like that (isn't that why they got rid of Civ IV's religion system? Because it didn't mesh with the new game well? I could be wrong...). I can't really imagine this system being halfway between the two AI designs, since they seem so different.

I do like to imagine other ways in which religion and ideology can affect diplomacy. More trading options perhaps? Maybe you can only make a declaration of friendship with leaders of the same religion (or research agreements are more effective, etc.)? I have a hard time coming up with ideas of how religion could influence diplomacy under the current system.

That being said, other than questions about diplomacy, I'm really interested in the way the religion system system is designed. It sounds really cool, and quite a bit more interesting than the way Civ IV implemented it. (Here's hoping they balance it properly...)

One thing I really want: Make declarations of friendship worthwhile, either by removing the AI's "friendly requests" of 30 gpt or by allowing us to make such a request as well (and keep the AI's request reasonable, I was once asked to give all of my 1800 gold). I like the idea behind the declarations of friendship acting as temporary guarantees of no war and of favorable trade agreements for both sides, but right now the AI's demands can be more costly than a war against it...

I always felt the victory-focused AI took a little enjoyment out of the game. Given enough bonuses and lucky breaks (winning early wars, great starting location, etc.) the AI is naturally going to compete for the peaceful victory conditions, and some will roll a domination strategy.

I don't know why - I just never appreciated the AI trying to sabotage your reputation or getting pissy with you because you built a wonder or identified some other action as consistent with it's victory strategy. You laugh the first time and say, "Ya, you got me" but then every game after you just hit escape every time they pop up B.S.ing you about some war they won't really fight in or a fake friendship they're programmed to try to exploit.

Maybe the old modifiers stay and maybe some of the new ones will give more opportunities to improve relations or, in some cases, provide even further reasons for AI to hate you. It definitely sounds like an improvement to me though. I'm guessing it won't make the AI any better or worse with regard to victory conditions. The reworked combat system does, however, look like it may improve AI performance a little.
 
Does anyone know if Worldbuilder will work with this expansion at time of release?
 
I hope we can choose at game setup if we want to have religion and espionage as part of a particular game. Would this be possible with the expansion?? It would be interesting to toggle this way...
 
So, like others in this topic, I have to wonder... How are religion and ideological choices going to affect diplomacy as it is right now? Flawed as its execution may be, the idea behind the current diplomacy, if I remember correctly, is that the AIs are supposed to stand for real players, who are actually trying to win the game. Players who shouldn't be swayed by something as arbitrary as which religion you have (so that you won't have a case where Isabella of Civ IV is the dominating superpower who could wipe you out really easily, but doesn't because she's really happy that you share the same religion).

Now, I didn't mind that so much in Civ IV because that's the way the AI were for a lot of things; you could share the same civics and religions, give them stuff to make them happy, and they were programmed to not declare war on you if they were pleased or friendly (depending on the character). But the AI design of Civ V is fundamentally different; the AI isn't meant to be swayed by things like that (isn't that why they got rid of Civ IV's religion system? Because it didn't mesh with the new game well? I could be wrong...). I can't really imagine this system being halfway between the two AI designs, since they seem so different.

I do like to imagine other ways in which religion and ideology can affect diplomacy. More trading options perhaps? Maybe you can only make a declaration of friendship with leaders of the same religion (or research agreements are more effective, etc.)? I have a hard time coming up with ideas of how religion could influence diplomacy under the current system.

That being said, other than questions about diplomacy, I'm really interested in the way the religion system system is designed. It sounds really cool, and quite a bit more interesting than the way Civ IV implemented it. (Here's hoping they balance it properly...)

One thing I really want: Make declarations of friendship worthwhile, either by removing the AI's "friendly requests" of 30 gpt or by allowing us to make such a request as well (and keep the AI's request reasonable, I was once asked to give all of my 1800 gold). I like the idea behind the declarations of friendship acting as temporary guarantees of no war and of favorable trade agreements for both sides, but right now the AI's demands can be more costly than a war against it...

There is an indirect reason for me as a Christian to like other Christians.

Not sure on the specifics, but lets say one ability for me as a Christian is that units get a combat bonus near all Christian Cities (this can also be substituted for others like get 1 gold per turn per city) it is in my best interest that all cities be Christian since I could reasonably be expected to fight anywhere. So if Player A is spreading it, I like his existence since it furthers my goals. Player B spreading his filthy XXX (not gonna say a real religion so I don't offend) is making it so Heathens will get a bonus fighting because which makes me weaker relative to them. So her existance harms me because she strengthens any potential opponent relative to me.

Granted this is not an end all be all, but is a contributing factor.
 
I have -totally unfounded- belief that all civs will have 1 Ub and 2 UU's.
 
I have -totally unfounded- belief that all civs will have 1 Ub and 2 UU's.

Nope, I don't think so.
I had the same thought and checked the numbers: We would need 28 new UUs and 17 new UBs for all core game and expansion civs (31 UUs and 21 UBs if you include all DLC civs) and Gods & Kings will 'only' add 27 new units and 13 new buildings (probably including the new Civs' UUs and UBs, otherwise the numbers seems ridiculously high).
 
We also know of a couple new units that already eliminates this possibility.
 
Wait, wait. Victorian science fiction scenario? Did I just read that there's going to be a way to play Steampunk Civ 5? YES PLEASE!
 
Awsome! Please please add more trading with the other nations. Something should be gained by traveling the world and discovering nations faar away. As it is now other nations are just in the way, and you gain nothing from being friends with smaller nations. Trade pacts would change that.

I would love if trade lanes where visible on the map. On roads or sea. Think small cravans folowing the roads and if we could blokade the trade ships like in total war naval warfare would become much more intresting as well.

And yes please please make a good Earth map with historical positioning!
 
So, like others in this topic, I have to wonder... How are religion and ideological choices going to affect diplomacy as it is right now? Flawed as its execution may be, the idea behind the current diplomacy, if I remember correctly, is that the AIs are supposed to stand for real players, who are actually trying to win the game. Players who shouldn't be swayed by something as arbitrary as which religion you have (so that you won't have a case where Isabella of Civ IV is the dominating superpower who could wipe you out really easily, but doesn't because she's really happy that you share the same religion).

I also hope that either religion doesn't really play too much in the diplo, or if it does, it's with a system where that makes sense. For example, there are rewards for adopting another's religion (e.g. gold or hammers) and other rewards when others adopt your religion (e.g. culture or faith).
 
1. I hope religion doesn't play too much into diplomacy; some bonuses would be fine and perhaps a slight positive modifier

2. I really hope there will be an option to play without espionage (as they had to put in with a later BtS patch). And I hope that without espionage, any modifiers get removed from the game.

3. I disagree about working diplomacy and then not allowing the AI to backstab so it can win. Not only has that happened many in times in real life but what would be the point of playing if you want the AI simply to stand aside so you can win?!?

4. It would be cool to see new civs, buildings, units, wonders, etc. as long as they are reasonably balanced and meshed seamlessly into the game (unlike some mods which just adds crap for the sake of adding stuff).

5. Religion was cheesy at best in Civ4 and Espionage was horribe in Civ4. I hope they learned from those and come up with a very different implementation for Civ5.
 
I'm going to echo what some have already said: I'll get the expansion if it makes diplomacy more immersive (i.e. not just comps aiming to kill you), so that the game actually has a unique trajectory. Right now, nearly all Civ V games are "You're doing well! Let me kill you!" or "You're doing well, but I won't declare war, I'll just denounce you despite 4000 years of friendship, since I can't kill you right now." Make the UN better (more resolutions), add more positive modifiers (trade, keeping a promise, etc), and relationships between nations a little harder to simply break.
 
I am excited to hear of the new expansion, it's definitely a step in the right direction, but I can't help feel a bit disappointed that the "new features" in Gods & Kings are actually features that were in the unmodded Civ 4 which was released in 2005. It is what it is, but I hope at least with Civ 6 we won't have the same regression to later sell features that should be standard.
 
I suggest taking a very close look at the screenshots in the article for your religion question. A picture speaks louder than words after all! ;)

As for your second question: :mischief:

It looks just great and all the religions are there. I had to put my eyes back in their sockets. :lol:

I have come back to the forums just to check and see if there was any news. Boy what a surprise.

"New World War I-era military units and several additions to naval combat." That means biplanes. If I guess correctly. Great! Yep I was right. "The new WWI-era units were added to give players the joys of flight earlier in the game." I remember suggesting this in the forums on a past thread. It met with mixed feelings but, I feel this is a considerable move to improve the game. "New clunky tanks" and "A new privateer unit can capture enemy ships and launch raids on costal cities." finally my wished for privateer. I am glad that all my complaining and suggestions were read. I feel now that all of us here at civ fanatics have some voice in what we'd like to see in the game.

I read a long time ago that CiV was pushed out too early due to deadlines, leaving a lot of things out of the game. Of course that was just one rumor. In any case, I am glad these shortcomings are being rectified.
 
I want a good naval AI for those overseas maps so they don't just send one unit and that's it

I also hope that other Civs travel around to meet overseas Civs or land countries far away from their little section of the map. It would be nice to not see "this civilization has not met any third party countries" or whatever the hell that statement is. It would be nice to trade "Communications" with them too so they CAN speak to countries they haven't met

-Mark
 
So her existance harms me because she strengthens any potential opponent relative to me.

Granted this is not an end all be all, but is a contributing factor.

Are you talking about Izzy here xD

I'm glad Embarked units can defend themslves, makes it less risky to lose your army of Giant Death Robot to a Galley -.-
 
Top Bottom