IGN Preview of CiV

Sorry Chongli, again I disagree with you. I found Civ4 to be the most *realistic* of all the Civ games to date-i.e, the one in which I felt I was running a *real* civilization, rather than a loose Confederation of City-States-religion & Great People definitely went a long way towards achieving this goal-as did the shift away from strait-jacketed governments (Republic & Democracy-great for peace, Monarchy & Communism great for war). I agree that implementation of Great People, Civics, Religion etc wasn't perfect, & could be improved-but show me any game system which is implemented perfectly in realism terms (just look at the economic & military systems of the game-for Pete's Sake), but sometimes realism must be sacrificed for gameplay purposes. So, yes, implement the things you mention (like non-infinite resources), but *not* at the cost of removing the things which have truly defined civilization over the millenia-like religion, ideology & great people!

EmpireOfCats said:

We need some sort of a demo video soon.

Click to expand...

Agreed.

Aussie_Lurker said:

I also can't understand people's issues with Espionage. Vanilla definitely had a "tacked-on" feel about it, but by BtS it was *really* good.

Click to expand...

This would be my argument for why I'm ok with religion and espionage not being in Civ5 Vanilla. Obviously they are extensively reworking combat, and I'd rather wait for a 'really good' religion and espionage system in an expansion pack than have it feel tacked onto Vanilla.

Now if they don't include them in an expansion pack, I'll gladly join you in a tirade on why we need religion and spies in the game.

So far for me the core of the available info boils down to:

• Clearer and more realistic field combat (positioning, movement and terrain), but less realistic city combat (hardly need for walls and castles anymore with only one unit to hold)
  
• More realistic presentation (graphics, advisors), but less realistic content (no religions, no espionage, no tech trading)
  
• More thinking and micromanaging of armies for positioning, movement and terrain, but less thinking and managing of other concepts

I appreciate the efforts of making the game less complex and more attractive to RTS players, board game players, combat orientated players and lovers of 19-20th century scenarios. But - sorry for being negative - being a more peaceful player with a preference for human aspects, deep diplomacy and ancient and medieval scenarios, so far I cannot find the overall impression of Civ5 more tempting than Civ4.

ColdFever said:

So far for me the core of the available info boils down to:

• Clearer and more realistic field combat (positioning, movement and terrain), but less realistic city combat (hardly need for walls and castles anymore with only one unit to hold)
  
• More realistic presentation (graphics, advisors), but less realistic content (no religions, no espionage, no tech trading)
  
• More thinking and micromanaging of armies for positioning, movement and terrain, but less thinking and managing of other concepts

I appreciate the efforts of making the game less complex and more attractive to RTS players, board game players, combat orientated players and lovers of 19-20th century scenarios. But - sorry for being negative - being a more peaceful player with a preference for human aspects, deep diplomacy and ancient and medieval scenarios, so far I cannot find the overall impression of Civ5 more tempting than Civ4.

Click to expand...

Less realistic city combat because you can't cram in 50 units into the cities anymore?! I believe this will be more realistic, hopefully with more defensive buildings, walls and things to improve city defense.

I don't think they're taking out espionage or religion altogether, and both systems could probably be improved. Were they really that much fun in civ4?
And techtrading, the way it worked in civ4 and 3 for the matter can hardly be seen as realistic, it was a bad and boring feature that I'm glad they're removing/changing.

I'm optimistic about the changes. Hopefully they get the core-game right and can expand it with deeper concepts later if needed.

ColdFever said:

But - sorry for being negative - being a more peaceful player with a preference for human aspects, deep diplomacy and ancient and medieval scenarios, so far I cannot find the overall impression of Civ5 more tempting than Civ4.

Click to expand...

I'm more a peaceful player than anything else and I'm very much looking forward to what Civ V has to offer, a large part of that is simply because it's going to be new and different. I feel like I've exhausted the fun potential of Civ IV and haven't played it in months.

cf_nz said:

I'm more a peaceful player than anything else and I'm very much looking forward to what Civ V has to offer, a large part of that is simply because it's going to be new and different. I feel like I've exhausted the fun potential of Civ IV and haven't played it in months.

Click to expand...

Seconded. Personally, I'm pretty confident the developers know what they are doing and I haven't seen a single thing that worries me, on the contrary.

I'd like CiV V to be a different game then its predecessors. No point in buying it otherwise. Looking forward to more news.

Jaca

Hey, this is Steve from IGN.

When I called religion arbitrary and exploitable, I meant that it was just another tool in the diplomacy bag. The only practical thing it really did was add one more love/hate flag to each of the civs. I think the new idea in Civ V is to let diplomatic relations evolve based more on the changing strategic situation. If you're building up cities along my borders and refusing trade, that should influence my reaction to you more than whether or not we share the same religion.

I definitely agree with Steve here. Religion was always a small part of my games, and the only thing I used it for was to make people like me. I don't mind that religion is gone at all. But I would welcome it in an expansion if it was done in a less generic way.

Religion was clearly more than just another love/hate flag. Found a religion in your capitol, use bureaucracy and spread your religion around and say its just a love hate tag. Then build the AP and all the temples and monasteries. Religion actually can be quite powerful.

When I play an earth game as the Arabs, the most critical part of my strategy is founding Islam (of course partly due to my need to roleplay). Found an early religion, and then get "Sailing" so you can have all these magical trade routes even if you haven't explored at all. Then watch your treasury go thru the roof as Islam spreads everywhere your trade routes reach. Its the difference between 60% science and 100% science sometimes. Its easily exploitable I'll admit, but its certainly more than just a love/hate tag.

mrbee said:

The only practical thing religion really did was add one more love/hate flag to each of the civs. I think the new idea in Civ V is to let diplomatic relations evolve based more on the changing strategic situation.

Click to expand...

I have a different opinion here. IMHO Religions in Civ4 brought far more than just love/hate flags, it brought an entirely new way to play Civ, at least in my games. Especially the Apostolic Palace of BtS and its rich diplomatic consequences turned my Civ4 games from Gold to Platin.

I understand that many combat/competition-orientated players had no need for religions and their sometimes strange consequences, but all that has been part of history. And I am afraid that without religions Civ V could go back to be more like Civ III, and so to be played more mathematically like Chess again and less human as Civ IV. I can accept this designer approach to attract more RTS-, board game- and combat/competition-orientated-players, but I am afraid this could cost historic-, human- and diplomacy- orientated players.

I think the problem with religion's effect on diplomacy was that it was AI only. Ideally, you should have the same effect whether or not you're playing against a person or a computer.

ColdFever said:

I have a different opinion here. IMHO Religions in Civ4 brought far more than just love/hate flags, it brought an entirely new way to play Civ, at least in my games. Especially the Apostolic Palace of BtS and its rich diplomatic consequences turned my Civ4 games from Gold to Platin.

Click to expand...

I fully agree.
But I’m even more concerned about the lack of espionage in Civ5
Why did we get the Civ4 “Beyond the Sword” expansion then?
I love Panzer General and its concepts which will add depth and tactics in combat which I missed in previous versions of Civ – but there is no reason to me to remove such fundamental elements as espionage and religion - and go backwards.

Will we have to pay for them in expansion pack AGAIN?

I can only conclude with a comment I’ve seen on IGN:
“I hope the scrapping of religion and espionage is not indicative of a larger trend. The BtS systems weren't perfect but the idea was solid. I was very happy when this game was announced, but now I'm dreading how it will maim the Civilization game.”

chongli said:

Also, get rid of the distinction between and . That's just silly.

Click to expand...

Actually it's an important piece of information. It differentiates between gold yet to be allocated to treasury/science/culture/espionage and gold simply to sit in the treasury . +50% can be much more valuable than +50%.

I thought Religion was more a track for how you develop your country now, getting certain bonuses for being a theocracy/evangelical nation vs. some other kind. That sounds pretty good to me. As far as espionage, I'll miss that. That's probably X-pack material. Let's face it, there will be X-packs.

seasnake said:

I thought Religion was more a track for how you develop your country now, getting certain bonuses for being a theocracy/evangelical nation vs. some other kind. That sounds pretty good to me. As far as espionage, I'll miss that. That's probably X-pack material. Let's face it, there will be X-packs.

Click to expand...

I don't mind having to develop your country towards an evangelical nation, but what does kind of anger me is that it is considered "evolution" to go from polytheism to monotheism. What that does is it basically just takes all the religions and lumps them into vague, lifeless blobs.

Oh well. Can't have everything.

cybrxkhan said:

Oh well. Can't have everything.

Click to expand...

Ain't that the truth. I want the Iroquois back for this installment, but I do realize it probably ain't gonna happen.

As for religion, I think less important than founding a religion is defining the role religion has on your empire. So I'm okay with this change, in theory.

cybrxkhan said:

I don't mind having to develop your country towards an evangelical nation, but what does kind of anger me is that it is considered "evolution" to go from polytheism to monotheism. What that does is it basically just takes all the religions and lumps them into vague, lifeless blobs.

Oh well. Can't have everything.

Click to expand...

I thought the way it was handled in Civ4 also was pretty lifeless, becaue they were all so generic. Anyway, I would like the evolution of religion to end in atheism. But somehow I don't think that will happen...

ColdFever said:

I have a different opinion here. IMHO Religions in Civ4 brought far more than just love/hate flags, it brought an entirely new way to play Civ, at least in my games. Especially the Apostolic Palace of BtS and its rich diplomatic consequences turned my Civ4 games from Gold to Platin.

I understand that many combat/competition-orientated players had no need for religions and their sometimes strange consequences, but all that has been part of history. And I am afraid that without religions Civ V could go back to be more like Civ III, and so to be played more mathematically like Chess again and less human as Civ IV. I can accept this designer approach to attract more RTS-, board game- and combat/competition-orientated-players, but I am afraid this could cost historic-, human- and diplomacy- orientated players.

Click to expand...

I agree with you here. Religion brought a whole new aspect to the Civilization franchise. As has been stated many times, the system needed some work, but it was a great addition that added flavor to the game. The same thing goes with espionage... it wasn't perfect, but with some tweaks and such, it could have been much better. The other part of espionage is that it is an important part of diplomacy.

mrbee said:

Hey, this is Steve from IGN.

When I called religion arbitrary and exploitable, I meant that it was just another tool in the diplomacy bag. The only practical thing it really did was add one more love/hate flag to each of the civs. I think the new idea in Civ V is to let diplomatic relations evolve based more on the changing strategic situation. If you're building up cities along my borders and refusing trade, that should influence my reaction to you more than whether or not we share the same religion.

Click to expand...

While your example is well stated, still, there are many factors that can affect diplomatic relations. Yours is one example, Religion is another. Espionage would be, yet, another. It would have been better for them to rework the weights instead of ripping a whole important feature out that brought a very interesting new dynamic to the franchise.

In regards to your article next week, I must admit that I am both looking forward to it and dreading it. I fear the direction they appear to be going with Civ V. After the rocky road of Civ III, Civ IV really set them on a good clear road. With Civ V, however, instead of seeing where that road led, they just took a sharp left turn toward very uncertain skies. While, in the end, it may come out fine, at this point, I just see nothing but danger up ahead.

Shiggs713 said:

Religion was clearly more than just another love/hate flag. Found a religion in your capitol, use bureaucracy and spread your religion around and say its just a love hate tag. Then build the AP and all the temples and monasteries. Religion actually can be quite powerful.

Click to expand...

I agree it can be powerful and a fun way to play the game. One of the best things about Civ is that people can approach it from many different angles but, speaking just for me, religion's main function in supporting diplomacy is more significant in the big picture than the civics bonuses and unrest issues. If these other practical benefits of religion are more important to you, hopefully their absence will be redeemed by some other new feature.

RoyalT said:

I fully agree.
But I’m even more concerned about the lack of espionage in Civ5
Why did we get the Civ4 “Beyond the Sword” expansion then?

Click to expand...

For Civ4. This isn't Civ4. Civ4 still exists if you want it.

Will we have to pay for them in expansion pack AGAIN?

Click to expand...

Assuming they will. Maybe what made sense in Civ4 won't necessarily make sense in Civ5. Then again, there's a difference between no espionage and no espionage as we know it. I'm still going to wait and see, to be honest.