Expansion pack announced - Civilization V: Gods & Kings

I wonder how this expansion affects critical gameplay elements such as combat? Does the combat AI finally play to win as it is claimed to attempt in diplo?

It's nice that army composition is more balanced if there is a need for a more balanced army composition i.e. improves the effectiveness of the army. However, it is harder to see what inherent quality does balance as a goal itself have.
 
The interesting thing I've noticed is some people don't want vast changes. Whats great about it is that they can stick to CiV vanilla. I have a feeling that most who played CiIV would welcome the new changes. I am one of those. Perhaps new players new to civ prefer the way vanilla has developed. Some just want a easy game to play in spare time. Civ should be versatile like that. Why not? :)
 
nokmirt said:
The interesting thing I've noticed is some people don't want vast changes. Whats great about it is that they can stick to CiV vanilla. I have a feeling that most who played CiIV would welcome the new changes. I am one of those. Perhaps new players new to civ prefer the way vanilla has developed. Some just want a easy game to play in spare time. Civ should be versatile like that. Why not? :)
Click to expand...

Exactly, all that I want to make me happy is

Religion (being added)
Vassalge
And adv. UN and Apostolic Palace voting system like in BtS.

And God and Kings are adding a ton of flavour to otherwise 'bland' game in Hotseat, so I'm so excited for it.
 
TheKingOfBigOz said:
Exactly, all that I want to make me happy is

Religion (being added)
Vassalge
And adv. UN and Apostolic Palace voting system like in BtS.

And God and Kings are adding a ton of flavour to otherwise 'bland' game in Hotseat, so I'm so excited for it.
Click to expand...

Me too I cannot wait for this to come out. There were so many debates, thread after thread, about what changes should be made. What headaches they were sometimes. It seems all those arguments and discussions paid off. Firaxis has taken some huge steps to make this game better. I also agree that Hotseat should be vastly improved because of the expansion. So much more depth being added is a big plus.
 
Im a long time lurker here, and can only hope Firaxis fix some core issues. I really, really hope the gents "fix/improve" the AI, diplomacy and battlemechanics. Compared to Civ IV the V is a strange beast. I love the single-unit/hexagon but thats about it. Im a big fan of naval warfare(and the importance of logistics in warfare history) and hopefully the melee-units can improve it. And the diplomacy now is very strange, almost no feedback. In Civ IV one could deduce alot of info from all the information given to the player before making an important diplomatic decision. And the moving culture-borders from the IV was very interesting. I could take over cities with my culture. Like McDonalds! :)

I truly hope this will make Civ V a better game overall.

PS. Sorry for the grammar, im a Swede ;) DS.
 
TheKingOfBigOz said:
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.
Click to expand...

Thanks. I haven't been keeping up with Civ5 news in a couple months. I only thought to check out the site because I saw Steam updated Civ5, and I thought maybe a new patch came out.
 
Amazing! Two things I have wanted most in Civ V that occasionally make me go back to IV (even though I hate Stacks of Doom): religion and espionage. Particularly the latter.

That said, I thought the espionage point system in Civ IV was quite well-done....would be interested in hearing more about the inner workings of espionage.
 
Here's hoping jet fighters will finally intercept nuclear bombers.

Of course, I will buy this expansion, but I do hope religion isn't too dominant and espionage isn't too tedious. Frankly, I could live without religion in the game, but I guess it will add another much-needed dimension to Civ5.
 
I'm hoping that the new 100 hp rule will help to eliminate some of the annoyance of the minimum HP rule. It should help ensure that strong units survive when they should. Though I don't build GDRs regularly, this change would help that unit whereas normally 10 hits from any unit would take it down regardless of its combat strength.
 
This is a step in the right direction - kudos Firaxis. But I'm still waiting for the day everything is bundled into a complete pack and sold for 39.99.

I will be interested if the new lead can salvage the game. Obviously there's only so much that can be done with the ill-conceived combat system, but the inclusion of espionage and religion is intriguing. I recall an interview from waaay back when where religion in civ IV wasn't what the designers really intended. Because they were afraid of backlash, they couldn't do things like give Islam military bonuses or Christianity conversion bonuses or Judaism financial bonuses. They were worried that people would call them bigots, etc..

Removing the titles and having the religions actually do stuff is a great improvement. The downside is that it seems there will be one religion per civ? That seems silly as it kills the concept of religious alliances.

Still, good move forward. Gives me hope for the franchise and Civ VI
 
About the whole, "how can religion affect diplomacy if the leaders only care about winning" discussion.

A simple way to do it is too keep the civilization leaders as cold, pragmatic, real-politikers, but have the population of a civ care about how moral and religious their leader is. Arguably, this dichotomy has existed for large parts of history.
How could this be implemented?
Simple, every trade deal/research agreement/treaty you do gives you +/- happiness depending on whether you share a religion or not. If that has too much impact on the happiness system, make it so that it increases/reduces your culture output (to represent people's increasing/reducing wish to get involved in creating state propaganda and improvements).

Fits very well from a gameplay perspective, and arguably pretty well from a historical/immersion perspective.
 
Lord Olleus said:
About the whole, "how can religion affect diplomacy if the leaders only care about winning" discussion.

A simple way to do it is too keep the civilization leaders as cold, pragmatic, real-politikers, but have the population of a civ care about how moral and religious their leader is. Arguably, this dichotomy has existed for large parts of history.
How could this be implemented?
Simple, every trade deal/research agreement/treaty you do gives you +/- happiness depending on whether you share a religion or not. If that has too much impact on the happiness system, make it so that it increases/reduces your culture output (to represent people's increasing/reducing wish to get involved in creating state propaganda and improvements).

Fits very well from a gameplay perspective, and arguably pretty well from a historical/immersion perspective.
Click to expand...

I've always wanted this too, exactly as above (especially if there are more things that directly link happiness to culture and tech; for example, in NiGHTS, the rationalism opener is a 15% boost in science when happiness is above 0). Each civ's population could also have a warmth rating with each other civ's population to make foreign relations more challenging.

On top of that, I'd have two-way-street bonuses simply for sharing religion awarding like so:
- adopting another's religion gives the kind of bonuses small civs need to compete (e.g. hammers)
- others adopting your religion gives the kind of bonuses large civs are deficient on (e.g. culture)
Something that will get the bigger civs competing for the admiration of smaller (for now) civs.
 
Darkeagle6 said:
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.
Click to expand...

"Play to win" -AI was Shafer's ideology. Now when he is gone, I guess they can loosen it a bit. I can't see why halfway between vanilla V type of play to win and CIV-type of role playing AI wouldn't be possible.
 
The screenshots, particularly religion, only show bonuses. They can't simply add more to what's already there. Where and what are the minus numbers for each choices made?
 
MkLh said:
"Play to win" -AI was Shafer's ideology. Now when he is gone, I guess they can loosen it a bit. I can't see why halfway between vanilla V type of play to win and CIV-type of role playing AI wouldn't be possible.
Click to expand...

Exactly. For instance, in Alpha Centauri, the Believers would have a great tendency to declare war on the University. But, if the University had a stronger military might, the Believers would leave them alone.
 
Buccaneer said:
The screenshots, particularly religion, only show bonuses. They can't simply add more to what's already there. Where and what are the minus numbers for each choices made?
Click to expand...

I think it's just pluses. so I don't think there's minuses, but then again, there's not much minuses in Civ 5 with the exception of Gold per turn and Happiness. (oh and food)

There's no downfall to policies either.
 
That's my biggest complaint with Civ V, the only costs of SP are opportunity costs--one thing over the other choices. In Civ IV (or in SMAC, the best implementation, IMO), there was more nuance. There were pros and cons to any one civic--though admittedly, they tended to get better the higher you went up.

Oh well.
 
Helmling said:
That's my biggest complaint with Civ V, the only costs of SP are opportunity costs--one thing over the other choices. In Civ IV (or in SMAC, the best implementation, IMO), there was more nuance. There were pros and cons to any one civic--though admittedly, they tended to get better the higher you went up.

Oh well.
Click to expand...

I think Policies should actually use a One over the other format, because quite frankly I have never encountered a Opportunity Cost in any of the Policies

If I go for Cultural Victory, I got for Piety and Freedom
If I go for Domination, I go for Rationalism and Autocracy
If I go for Science and Diplomacy I go for Rationalism and Order.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

B
Maps Inquiry
Replies
4
Views
906
Bobbarry51
B
StargazingDog
[G&K] "new to expansion" advisor setting does nothing?
Replies
0
Views
522
StargazingDog
StargazingDog
A
Thinking about bailing on Civ V for VI...
Replies
17
Views
3K
Licentia
Licentia
R
Few questions about vox populi and more
Replies
1
Views
309
Yerltvachovicic
Yerltvachovicic
rsc2a
(7a) VP Events Overhaul (Expansion Pack system)
2
Replies
27
Views
3K
APLion
A
Top Bottom