Yeah chess has a good strategy. But I like civvin', I don't want chess or a board game.
Oh, i really hope they bring numebr of soldiers in each troop implementation. otherwise, the game would be much board game-like.
A bit dissapointed!
- Thread starter Thorburne
- Start date
Oh, i really hope they bring numebr of soldiers in each troop implementation. otherwise, the game would be much board game-like.
Zomgmeister
Emerged Lurker
I firmly believe that this idea about leaders speaking their own language is completely ridiculous and terribly wrong. I hate it with passion.
Because it will made modding new civilizations in so much harder, if modders would like to have consistency and to reach level of vanilla civilizations.
Oh, and hands off from Stalin. Russian here, who probably knows way more about him than that antisoviet propaganda most of you heard tells about him and that time. We don't try to erase his memory from history, that is just not true.
Don't want to expand on this subject, because it is totally offtopic and bound to erupt into flame-fest with terribly unbalanced numbers on sides, thus I just stated my point and that's all.
Because it will made modding new civilizations in so much harder, if modders would like to have consistency and to reach level of vanilla civilizations.
Oh, and hands off from Stalin. Russian here, who probably knows way more about him than that antisoviet propaganda most of you heard tells about him and that time. We don't try to erase his memory from history, that is just not true.
Don't want to expand on this subject, because it is totally offtopic and bound to erupt into flame-fest with terribly unbalanced numbers on sides, thus I just stated my point and that's all.
You do realize that many players never use any mods, right? Never should the developers feel limited in their creativity because of modders. Actually, I would have prefered if they went even farther and had real actors perform the different leaders instead of animations.
Zomgmeister
Emerged Lurker
These players basically hurt themselves. Not that it is wrong thing to do, but still.
It has been said that Civilization 5 will provide unprecedented modding capabilities. Necessity to craft animated and voice-overed leader to gain consistence with vanilla civilizations contradicts this statement.
Even ignoring modding issue: this feature is not creativity. This is redundant eye- and ear-candy. I hope it is possible to turn it off in game options.
Civilization was and, hopefully, will continue to be bastion of substance in deep sea of meaningless style. If I wanted to look upon animated leaders, I'd watched South Park, there are lots of them in there. Or, well, something. Like news. With live actors. Awesome.
But if I launched Civilization game, that means that I like to play it. Possibly without meaningless interruptions.
It is called atmosphere and immersion. I realize that is is entirely subjective, but I sure prefer a Civ 5 game that looks and sounds like a modern game instead of a Civ 5 game that looks and sounds like Civ 1, but to each their own...
mjs0
The 4th X
Atmosphere and immersion are critical factors when it comes to the success of the product with the wider market beyond the fans here and on other similar sites. Reviewers pay a lot of attention to the eye and ear candy when rating games, a great game with excellent balance will get marked down if its graphics and sound disappoint.
Without likely success in that wider market the game will not get made. I can put up with a lot of fluff (animated leaders, throne rooms, fancy 3d graphics, wonder movies, etc etc) if their existence guarantees I get to play yet another iteration of the Civ franchise. I might even enjoy some of them when no one is looking!
Without likely success in that wider market the game will not get made. I can put up with a lot of fluff (animated leaders, throne rooms, fancy 3d graphics, wonder movies, etc etc) if their existence guarantees I get to play yet another iteration of the Civ franchise. I might even enjoy some of them when no one is looking!
Ingvina Freyr
wants a Steamfree option
So the long tradition of free speech in Russia gives you more insight into the subject than people of the west whos information is government-controlled and often subject to nationalistic frenzy?Zomgmeister said:
Anyway, as a Russian, wouldn't you rather have Peter I or Ivan IV?
CMKMStephens
Serious.
It just means that modders will have such an easier time (comparatively) adding all the English speaking 'civs' to the game....like New Zealand
I'm also quite indifferent to the whole 'speaking their own language' thing. It just seems a lot of work for something that I always found meaningles. In Diplomacy I'm always more interested in what people are saying and not how.
But to each their own, that's just my opinion.
But to each their own, that's just my opinion.
TheFourthDoctor
Chieftain
- Joined
- Jun 18, 2008
- Messages
- 71
I agree. If you wanted to play ancien regime France, you could play Louis XIV. If you wanted to play revolutionary France, you could be Napoleon. If you wanted to play golden age England, you could be Elizabeth I. If you wanted to play ra-ra! British Empire, you could be Victoria (or Churchill...). Etc etc I suppose that you can still pretend and just change the leader's name when you choose the civ, but it was also nice to encounter states of different historical times as well.
Sorry, but that sounds so much like the argument that television has to be dumbed down to the lowest common denominator audience. I refuse to accept that a modable game should not have polish above that of which modders are likely to be able to emulate with their own skills. It is after all just candy for the senses as you later point out. There would be a real issue if modding was not possible to meet an equal level of game play.
Computer games are a visual and auditive medium just like movies. We strive for the best possible visual and sound experience when watching a movie, so why not in games?
I'm not saying that its not great, it's just not very high on my list of priorities. There are other things I enjoy a lot more, some even have to do with graphics, for example zooming in real close and watching my Empire.
And perhaps the high-quality diplomacy changes make me fear that I'll have to buy a new laptop to enjoy Civ V everywhere I want.
Zomgmeister
Emerged Lurker
Exactly. You've probably tried to sound sceptic, but, ironically, that's just about right.So the long tradition of free speech in Russia gives you more insight into the subject than people of the west whos information is government-controlled and often subject to nationalistic frenzy?
Ivan III, then Peter I, then Ivan IV. Last one is very controversial and myth-ridden.
Update: whoops, sorry, misread your question — thought you just wanted to ask my opinion on who is better between these two, not excluding Stalin. Correcting myself: no, I'd rather not. Stalin all the way. No one is more worthy. No one is better at presenting both heroic and tragic history of my home country. Joseph Stalin is way, way better choice than yet another monarch no one except us Russians know/care about.
Redundant complication. USSR was direct evolution of Russian civilization. Just as United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland is direct evolution of English civilization (I already hear wailing of angry scots, welshmen and irishmen, Mel Gibson style, irrelevant now though). No one suggests that Winston Leonard Spencer-Churchill should be identified as “Churchill of British”.
Oh, and speaking about butchering tyrants — just ask any Indian, what do they think about Churchill and his actions in India.
I really don't understand how u came to this conclusion. guys (including me) opposing 1leader/civ is not opposing just because of the name. so replacing the name is just not enough. I liked to have different strategies with each civ. Like I said before, we will not be able to discuss whether
* darius or cyrus benefits more from immortals
* boudica/brennus for gallic
etc etc.
The names are not that much important for me. The persian leader could just be Xerxes of Darius or Cyrus. But having 2 is fine. The problem for me is to have less leaders, less strategies. So less leaders to play and less taste, less replayability.
In BTS we had a combo of (11:2)-3=52 leaders. It seems we start with 18 now.
If they will add more multi-leaders in EPs, it is ok for me. But I really doubt this. If they don't make leaders and civilizations as different parameters in the source code of vanilla, it will be harder to add later. Or at least the coders will just get indolent to add leader parameter later on. That is my issue. I am a programmer, that's why I know. I am not a phyton programmer but doesn't matter the language. I would be glad if i had free time to work on it.
about Stalin; he was a soviet leader though he had georgian origin. and thus he was a russian leader. why? if u know about his life you would understand this to be true.
when lenin, stalin, sverdlov and many fellows began political life, there was Russia. So they were Russian. As a nationality, Stalin was a Russian citizen of Georgian minority. So their organization had many parts/offices in different regions but a united illegal political party organized all the activities. And their aim was to found a union of republics rather than seperating Russia into many states. If Stalin was a political activist who tries to grant independence to Georgia and if he succeeded this, then he wouldn't be called a Russian leader already.
Stalin worked in the central committee of this organization and so from the beginning till the end he was an activist who was trying to make a revolution in Russia. The republic is founded as a union of states. But we know that Russians are the dominant part of it. And Stalin was a Russian leader with the origin of a non-dominant partner of the union.
Is this clear? So there is no reason not to accept him as a Russian leader. He just worked on politics of Russia.
Similarly Che Guevera can be considered as a Cuba leader. He was not of Cuba in origin but he moved there and joined the rebels. Played an important part on the revolution. So what he did is more important than his origin.
I also accept UK to be a direct evolution of English. I don't think scots would oppose this. Why they asked for independence is already a proof of this. They wouldn't riot if they didn't feel the empire was dominantly english.
This is roughly similar to Russia-USSR. Not the same but similar. English was the dominant nation of British Empire. Then scots and Eire departed.
This is just like Turks and Ottoman Empire case. Ottoman Empire was dominantly Turkish though it had many minorities.
Zomgmeister
Emerged Lurker
Stalin identified himself as “Russian of Georgian origin”. Russia is and always was multiethnic country without any signs of nationalistic tendencies shown by its' titular nation, Russians. USSR was built on advancement of Russian principles, with equality of nations, fifteen official languages and all that.
Cases of “leader of one national origin governs completely different country” are very common through all world history. Just think about intertwining bloodlines of European monarchs, including Russian Catherine II of German origin. Peruvian ex-president Alberto Fujimori may serve as another modern example.
i see we agree on this matter then?
now back to topic, is there anybody who hasn't noticed this thread
which includes some articles.
http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=355785
Disgustipated
Deity
one thing that worries me is the combat. I've never played Panzer General, but it seems to me wargames have their own small niche of gamers. And it worries me they are taking inspiration from that. Us hardcore guys of course want more strategic combat. but I also want the game to sell well. If the average gamer doesn't like it the game could bomb. I see a lot of civ like games free on the internet, and I know competition is fierce. I just don't want to see the Civ TBS franchise die. Or the genre itself to die to free internet games.
personally I'm ok with single unit combat (assuming they implement it well), I just hope casual gamers aren't put off by it.
P.S. anyone else disappointed elvis isn't in it?
personally I'm ok with single unit combat (assuming they implement it well), I just hope casual gamers aren't put off by it.
P.S. anyone else disappointed elvis isn't in it?
Drago Askani
Warlord
- Joined
- Jun 19, 2007
- Messages
- 293
Correct me if I'm wrong here. Its been so long since I played Vanilla cIV but didn't the original version only have 1 leader per civilization and we got more in the expansions?
Similar threads
