A bit dissapointed!

taillesskangaru said:

Not token at all. She was probably one of China's greatest leaders and certainly one of the most ruthless and most manipulative. Granted, I'd like to see Tang Taizong though.

Click to expand...

I wouldn't really call her one of the greatest leaders. If she were the leader of a smaller nation with a shorter history than China maybe she's be qualified to represent it in civ, but she is chinese and her competition is too strong.

1 leader per civ is not really causing so much more simplification, you still have 18 civs to choose from. Unique leader traits is rather less simplification (18 traits instead of 8 (or how many there is in CIV)) 1 unit per tile is both simpler and more complex, if you play in low difficulties it is simpler but the right position of units could give you a huge edge

Well, one problem with one leader per civ is being clearly demonstrated in this thread... the rampant arguments about who should have been picked.

Theres no reason to be disappointed Thorburne! thx for sharing the information

Willowmound said:

This is most likely to save time and expense on animations and voice acting. It has been said that leaders speak in their own language.

Click to expand...

you reduced leader to simple terms. if there will be 1 leader per civ, that means

* totally less leaders and thus less strategies possible
* no more discussions like "cyrus or darius benefits more from immortals" or "lizzy or vicky is better for CE", or "gandhi or asoka benefits more from shrines" etc.

if 1 leader per civ is true, then most posters would scream for "unrestricted leaders" option in civ5.players like having many different strategies possible. it increases game replayability.

Willowmound said:

...Which to me sounds like it will demand more of the player in terms of tactical thinking, not less.

Click to expand...

If 1unit per tile is true, then i suppose an approach like in the old "Realms" game is required which includes number of soldiers in each troop. otherwise, 1unit per tile will be just like a chess game.

Willowmound said:

I fail to see how this makes anything simpler.

Click to expand...

unique bonus for civ means less correlation. as each leader combo had 2 traits, 1UB and 1UU there were many possible correlations in civ4. An example for correlation is aggressive shaka and ikhanda. so let's see what bonuses will be given to civs and discuss that later then. But i still feel there will be less correlations.

yes, i said i feel pessimistic but all the info given up till now forces me to think so. i am just not satisfied with hexes. what new options we will have? they will remove some of the existing (like religion and SoD) and change tiles to hex. we know these. And what will be added instead then? From civ3 to Civ4 GP and healthiness etc. were added. Civ5 should add new parameters or it would disappoint hardcore players.

cybrxkhan said:

For example, with India in Civ4, it was no longer just the stereotypical "let's all have peace!" with Gandhi - now you could have the slightly less pacifistic Ashoka.

Click to expand...

I beg you to differ. Gandhi in Civ 1 was a pretty bold leader, not your regular pushover



</kidding>

camarilla said:

If 1unit per tile is true, then i suppose an approach like in the old "Realms" game is required which includes number of soldiers in each troop.

Click to expand...

That is what we're hearing. Front lines and the use of diverse units being a must.

Willowmound said:

That is what we're hearing. Front lines and the use of diverse units being a must.

Click to expand...

yeah but have u played "realms" game? in that one, each troop had ~1000soldiers. after each war some of them died, just like in north and south. and when you trained a new troop, the city pop decreased by that number.

in the old "north and south" (in which you can tickle the photographer's back ) you could combine units. it was useful when one of them lost half the soldiers in a battle. i used to play these 2 games in 91/92. especially realms was great.

i suppose civ5 1unit per tile could be good if armies in that tile had number of soldiers. healing the unit after the battle just like u did in civ4 was not reasonable.


and just came to my mind now; when a unit is defeated in the battle it might retreat back with a percentage.
50% dead
25% retreats and is healthy
25% retreats but needs to heal

I never played Realms. But my point is that this new Civ system doesn't sound less complex than the old.

Willowmound said:

I never played Realms. But my point is that this new Civ system doesn't sound less complex than the old.

Click to expand...

Yes, and I muss admit I'm worried, too. If I wanted a simple game, I wouldn't be here -- it is the complexity of Civ that makes it what it is. This does not sound good at all.

Uh. Can we talk about a multicore version of Civ IV again?

My disappointment with Civ V is growing-if the German article is anything to go on. Removal of religions represents a *huge* step backwards in terms of both Diplomacy & the shape of your empire. Although simple in its application in Civ4, Religion was one of the *best* features-after civics! Can't believe that they're going to remove it, & its absence could mean the difference between me shifting to Civ5 or staying loyal to Civ4!

Aussie.

EmpireOfCats said:

Yes, and I muss admit I'm worried, too. If I wanted a simple game, I wouldn't be here -- it is the complexity of Civ that makes it what it is. This does not sound good at all.

Click to expand...

I said, it doesn't sound like it will be less complex. To me, it sounds like there will be more strategy involved. (Or, technically, tactics in regard to units.)

Aussie_Lurker said:

My disappointment with Civ V is growing-if the German article is anything to go on. Removal of religions represents a *huge* step backwards in terms of both Diplomacy & the shape of your empire. Although simple in its application in Civ4, Religion was one of the *best* features-after civics! Can't believe that they're going to remove it, & its absence could mean the difference between me shifting to Civ5 or staying loyal to Civ4!

Aussie.

Click to expand...

That is always the trouble when going from a previous, fully patched/modded and twice expanded version of Civ. You will have to lose a lot going back to a "vanilla" version of the latest version. I´m sure we will lose espionage, warlords, corporations and random events as well.

But just as Jesus threatens to return, maybe religion will make a messianic return of biblically epic proportions in an expansion pack!

Danielos. I can handle losing Warlords, Espionage (actually *no*. If you've got a perfectly good espionage system from the last iteration, why drop it?!?!) & random events-but religion was in Civ4 from the get-go, & should be in Civ5 too. There is no *logical* reason why they should remove something which actually *improved* the vanilla game so much!

Aussie.

Religion was the Big New Thing in Civ 4 the way culture was The Big New Thing in Civ 3. I think it's madness to get rid of it.

religion was an important parameter for economy, culture, happiness, science (priest assigning and monasteries) and diplomacy. so with which new parameter they will overcome the lack of religion, i really wonder.
else than these effects on game overall, i don't care about religion being in the game. just put another parameter in the game which does everything that civ4 religions did, then it is ok for me. But I really don't think they plan to put sth instead of it. Well, maybe they will put it on EP as most guys said.
if they will never put it in the game again because of complaints, then they really need to put sth for this lack or at least, some of the existing parameters should be improved. Culture, espionage, corps etc.

I gladly trade "religion" for "social policy".

For me religion was not that exciting as a gameplay factor,
but well, maybe it could have stayed in the game a different way
(maybe it does, just not that much diplo influencing)

Actually I can do without religon the way it was in Civ4. It was a good idea and added flavor but it could greatly constrain your diplomacy options and shrines (especially if you had more than one) could become a game breaker and let you expand like crazy while keeping the science slider at 100%.

Religion should be improved, not kicked out.

GoodSarmatian said:

Great, they got rid of Mao only to iclude a token female . There's nothing that qualifies her over Tang Taizong or Han Wudi except boobs (which ar geenerally smaller on asian chicks anyway).
Also probably Julius Caesar instead of Augustus
Ang goddamnded Gandhi
Civ4 made me hope for Asoka (or Chandragupta) Mrurya, the trailer made mehope for Nehru.
Well, not dealbrakers but still kind of disappointing.

Click to expand...

Wu instead of Mao
Gandhi instead of Asoka