So how's the state of Civ 5 these days?

Camikaze said:
Religion isn't meaningless diplomatically in Civ5, it's just that you're not automatically hated for following a different religion. If another civ follows a different religion and you spread your to them, they won't be happy. But if they don't have any religion, you'll get a positive modifier for spreading, because they'll get to share in the Follower Beliefs. Whereas in Civ4 every religion was identical, in Civ5 they are always different, with different bonuses. If another civ's religion allows you to have Cathedrals, you might want that in your cities. But if the Follower Belief isn't so great, you'll want that religion to stay out.

Civ5's religion system is far more complex than that in Civ4, basically. It may have drawbacks, and if you could of course still prefer Civ4's religion, but if you're looking for complexity, this is a front on which Civ5 clearly wins out.
Click to expand...

OK, that sounds pretty good. While I like religion in Civ 4, I find it a bit simplistic and over the top diplomatically. It's good to see there's more variations in the system now.
 
I don't like how you make all these analysis from what other people say as opposed to immersing yourself to it directly. There's more to a game than mechanics. There's also music and Interface, which in whole, you can't judge from screenshot or video play-troughs.

Evaluation of a game is not economics. There's no list of comparison to be had because even if there are similar things in the two games, you just don't realize how much weight should be given to it unless you experience it directly. Right now, you're playing an astronomer, which is fine. But we aren't talking about quasars or supernovas, we're talking about a lightbulb in the other room.


This discussion is getting rather sentimental, I think everybody would enjoy it if you gave us your take on it after playing it for a while, whether negative or positive. Right now, it really does feel like trying to explain a blind person what blue is.
 
Civking5 said:
So you start a thread asking about the game, and then jumping to conclusion without even playing it once? Also giving above advice based on what? On the side not, civ5 may not be as complex as civ4 ( although a second expansion is coming with many new features), but it is really a fun game to play. Of course, you have no idea what I am talking about since you haven't played it.
Click to expand...

I don't understand. I'm merely stating my opinion that this isn't the game for him. I rather like what they've done with the exapansion and the next one sounds promising.

But he and I enjoyed different things about past versions. The things he enjoyed about 4 are diminished in 5. I, on the other, am very glad they are gone or minimized. Good game for me, but not for the OP.
 
Willem said:
That was one of the things that I didn't agree with in the original game. The fact that borders expand one tile at a time means that you don't really have to make any decisions regarding how your are going to develop your "big fat hex'. You simply need to respond to whatever terrain happens to appear at the time. It was yet another decision making process that I felt was lacking in the overall game. Too much had been removed in that regard for my liking, which is why I've never gotten the game. No tech trading was another one of those.
.
Click to expand...

I don't know from where you get these ideas or why insist so much on discussing based on false assumptions? You have to make decision on how your border expands in civ5 by combining land purchase and cultural expansion. The way you expand your border can help your over all empire by having resources and lux inside your border. And sometimes border expansion and land purchase toward a neighbour may lead to war.
 
Civking5 said:
I don't know from where you get these ideas or why insist so much on discussing based on false assumptions? You have to make decision on how your border expands in civ5 by combining land purchase and cultural expansion. The way you expand your border can help your over all empire by having resources and lux inside your border. And sometimes border expansion and land purchase toward a neighbour may lead to war.
Click to expand...

So you actually have some control over where your borders expand? I was presuming that it was just a spontaneous thing like it's been in both Civ 3 & 4. What mechanism do they use in order to let you decide where to expand?
 
Willem said:
So you actually have some control over where your borders expand? I was presuming that it was just a spontaneous thing like it's been in both Civ 3 & 4. What mechanism do they use in order to let you decide where to expand?
Click to expand...

You don't control where it expands; the AI basically just looks for the best tiles (resources first, then great farm tiles, then everything else) and shoots towards them. The culture generated within that specific city controls the rate of expansion but that's about it.
 
Smokeybear said:
The individual Unit in CiV is the equivalent of a division or brigade, so you have multiple divisions of the different arms (infantry, armored, artillery, etc.) on different tiles being positioned and using actual tactics depending on the terrain, opposition and player intent. To me, that is light years ahead of one army on one tile. That's much too small of a territorial space to fit an actual full-fledged army on. That would be like fitting all of soviet Russia and Germany's eastern front campaign units into one park outside of Smolensk somewhere.
Click to expand...

I am sorry, but this is nonsense. You greatly overestimate the physical size of armies and underestimate the size of land. As a historian, this is in fact one example of the countless historical implausibilities in the game which upset me so much, since it leads to the misconception that you and others have expressed. Civ should be educational, not misleading.

Even in ancient times many battles involved over 100.000 men, and took place in geographically very limited areas. During history the numbers of combatants in the conflicts grew, be it the massive armies of the middle ages or in early modern history, without being spread across the land. It is pointless to name examples, since actually no battle ever has seen armies occupy vast regions like in Civ 5. If we move further into WWII, the game's absurdity in this regard becomes ridiculous. To mention two of the most prominent examples, the Battle of the Bulge involved 1.1 million men, while the battle of Stalingrad had twice this number in casualties alone with approximately 4 million combatants in total. That sure sounds like the clash of two giant stacks to me!

You may prefer Civ 5's combat system, but please don't argue that it makes any kind of sense historically.
 
Arachnofiend said:
You don't control where it expands; the AI basically just looks for the best tiles (resources first, then great farm tiles, then everything else) and shoots towards them. The culture generated within that specific city controls the rate of expansion but that's about it.
Click to expand...

Which brings me back to my original assumption. If culture only expands one tile at a time, a lot of decision making has been removed as to how you develop your city area.
 
Willem said:
Which brings me back to my original assumption. If culture only expands one tile at a time, a lot of decision making has been removed as to how you develop your city area.
Click to expand...

This is not true. You can control the land expansion by purchasing land. I don't even know why I waste my time over this thread.
 
It's been years since I played Civ III and I never played Civ IV and I'm having a hard time figuring out how other expansion methods would lead to more choices. Unlocking the river-less plains tile and the luxury tile at the same time isn't going to encourage me to farm the plains tile first, I've still just got one smart option in that scenario.

Besides, any loss in decision making is compensated in splitting culture and science from economics. The slider system is the prime reason I'm hesitant to try Civ IV.
 
Funky said:
You may prefer Civ 5's combat system, but please don't argue that it makes any kind of sense historically.
Click to expand...

I agree. Depending on the map size, a single tile can represent over 200 square miles. You can fit an awful lot of troops in that amount of space. Stack combat like the previous civ games was much more realistic. Now if they would have used a separate tactical map for the actual battlefield, it would have made a lot more sense to have 1UPT battles. But on the world map it's completely unrealistic. No sane military commander would have his troops spread out that much. And Archers aren't capable of shooting an arrow 400 miles to hit their enemy.
 
Funky said:
I am sorry, but this is nonsense. You greatly overestimate the physical size of armies and underestimate the size of land. As a historian, this is in fact one example of the countless historical implausibilities in the game which upset me so much, since it leads to the misconception that you and others have expressed. Civ should be educational, not misleading.

Even in ancient times many battles involved over 100.000 men, and took place in geographically very limited areas. During history the numbers of combatants in the conflicts grew, be it the massive armies of the middle ages or in early modern history, without being spread across the land. It is pointless to name examples, since actually no battle ever has seen armies occupy vast regions like in Civ 5. If we move further into WWII, the game's absurdity in this regard becomes ridiculous. To mention two of the most prominent examples, the Battle of the Bulge involved 1.1 million men, while the battle of Stalingrad had twice this number in casualties alone with approximately 4 million combatants in total. That sure sounds like the clash of two giant stacks to me!

You may prefer Civ 5's combat system, but please don't argue that it makes any kind of sense historically.
Click to expand...

This is non sence. What educational history r u talking about? May be you r looking for educational history lessons when Aztec destroys USA 200 BC, but most people just try to play a game and have fun. And civ5 delivers the fun part.
 
And that is why realism doesn't necessarily make for a good game! Stacks remove much of the tactical thought involved in warfare, it's odd seeing you defend them while you complain that Civ V is much simpler than IV.
 
Civking5 said:
This is not true. You can control the land expansion by purchasing land. I don't even know why I waste my time over this thread.
Click to expand...

Then take the time to explain to me how it works. But you can't be bothered doing anything but slam me for being ignorant of the mechanisms being used. You're just wasting everyone's time if all you do is cop a hostile attitude. So yes, go away as you don't seem to have anything constructive to contribute.
 
We need a moderator to close this thread for good. Why so much discussion? Buy the game in one of the steam sales ( it is cheaper than a spending a night in a bar), try it then come back so at least you will have an idea about the game.
 
You can purchase any tile with gold that is both currently in no man's land and in a 3 tile radius of your city. The cost of a tile varies depending on how far out it is and what's on it. Part of America's UA allows them to buy tiles at half the cost.
 
Arachnofiend said:
And that is why realism doesn't necessarily make for a good game!
Click to expand...

It's entirely possible to have a good game without stretching the boundaries of realism beyond belief. As I've mentioned, having a separate tactical map for combat would have worked just fine, leaving the world map to be used just for stack movement. That would also have solved the issue that some people are obviously having of moving troops around being a tedious and frustrating process.
 
Arachnofiend said:
You can purchase any tile with gold that is both currently in no man's land and in a 3 tile radius of your city. The cost of a tile varies depending on how far out it is and what's on it. Part of America's UA allows them to buy tiles at half the cost.
Click to expand...

And cultural expansion puts priority toward better land and resources. So if you buy land toward specific direction, u will also guide the direction of cultural expansion.
 
Civking5 said:
We need a moderator to close this thread for good.
Click to expand...

No, we just need people who have nothing constructive to add to go away. Most of us here have been able to maintain a civil discussion, yet you just seem to want things to degenerate into a flame war.

Why so much discussion?
Click to expand...

Why not? There's absolutely nothing wrong with a civil discussion about the game.

Buy the game in one of the steam sales ( it is cheaper than a spending a night in the bar), try it then come back so at least you will have an idea about the game.
Click to expand...

Now why should I waste my money on something I might not enjoy anyway? It's fortunate that you obviously can afford to throw away your money, but I can't. I'm unemployed with limited funds and have to make hard decisions as to I spread them around. Spending a night in a bar isn't an option for me either.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

mastrude
I'd like to play Civ V...
Replies
0
Views
333
mastrude
mastrude
ThermobaricPunch
Multiplayer desyncs (loading screen between turns) and weird bugs
Replies
1
Views
765
coolhandluke11
C
Blake00
CivBattleRoyale Season 4 (CBR X4)
Replies
6
Views
1K
Blake00
Blake00
S
Is it Possible to Set Up Civ-V to play like Civ-III...?
Replies
5
Views
1K
aieeegrunt
aieeegrunt
Blake00
[MoO] Anyone play FreeOrion v0.5 these days?
Replies
0
Views
148
Blake00
Blake00
Top Bottom