some details written on 24th of Ferbr.

Thanks posting the new info!
Still no bits on economy... and what about espionage... is it still in?
I would also like to know how the improvement system is going to work and if workers are still part of the game. Well... will have to wait some more.
 
Let's not forget that Shafer was maker of civ4 BTS, I bet he knows what he is doing
Yes, I know him a bit from there. He is a very talented and capable man, and he certainly knows what he wants and how to achieve it. But I am fearing him now just because of that. Civ was one of the last games that I could enjoy as a Builder. It was extremely interesting to use diplomatic skills for spreading Religions and Techs in Civ4, all impossible now for a game with more "realistic combat" and "improved diplomacy" - whatever this means if belief and power in the end boils down only to military aspects. To me this smells more like a "Total Panzer General War 5" for the masses, not so much about a Civilization 5 for us faithful fans. :sad:
 
I guess we better wait and see (huh, hat waiting, though)

Shafer says he is keen on making diplo-ways an effective way,
my bet is that you need a thriving civ for that, hm? :)
 
Interesting. It looks like diplomacy will indeed be expanded. Replacing tech trade with cooperative research will sure make long-term alliances more rewarding.
Very curoius abuot social policies. Hope we'll see a lot more variation in societies/political systems in the early game than in Civ4 where you had monarchies and that one representation guy with the pyramids the handful of predefinded governments in Civ 1-3.
They're sure taking a lot of risks here with all the changes but it looks promising.
I'm just worried about scale. Maps in Civ4 already feel much smaller than the older games and having cities with a larger radius might mean we'll end up with three to five cities per civ on a normal sized map.
 
I'm sad they're taking out religion too, and Schafer's comment on it is completely backwards. Religion created more innovation for Civ's diplomacy system than anything else in CivIV. I had (and still have) so much fun playing the Diplomacy mini-game in Civilization and when Firaxis added religion to the mix, it made things that much more awesome. I feel like they're tearing down the strong walls they built into the series last time. Why would they do that? It's especially saddening because it means that Firaxis feels like religion "doesn't make the cut" as a standard feature of Civilization like, say, War, Culture or Economics do.

The only reason I could see them leaving out religion is if they don't feel like they could do it justice by the game's release date. Look at BTS. It was an AMAZING X-pack that pretty much single-handedly created Civ IV's espionage system. A lot of people complained that vanilla's espionage was weak and look what we got. So maybe we'll get a BTS for Civ V.

Fortunately, I can buy the game anyway because everything else just sounds so great! And, I'm sure someone will rise up to the task of modding Religion back into the game if Firaxis doesn't.

Edit: When I said "Schafer's comment was backward" I meant that, as I read it, it seemed like the statement was the opposite of what is true. I hope it didn't come across as a criticism about his person, etc. Just the comment was confounding.
 
I'm just worried about scale. Maps in Civ4 already feel much smaller than the older games and having cities with a larger radius might mean we'll end up with three to five cities per civ on a normal sized map.

Oh yeah, I meant to comment on this, too. I'm preedicting the maps will be way smaller than previous civ games. However, this doesn't concern me because: 1) I don't give a damn about accurate scale (I'm a board game player, so I'm used to abstractions) and 2) They seem to be leaning quality over quantity. If each hex in the game has more significance, that is awesome, and well worth the fewer number of hexes to have to deal with.

I can't wait to see how culture affects this. Here is my other prediction: You will take 1 neutral hex per turn (culture makes no difference, but economy might; would be SWEET if we got to choose). Once your borders are up against someone else's, the only way to flip their hexes is military or culture expansion. And you don't need to capture a city to take land, either. You just capture the land itself.

We'll see!
 
i am pretty sure that they could make larger maps if they want to, it is not like it wont be custom made anyway :)
 
Well *duh*, that's exactly why I *loved* religions-(a) it was historically accurate & (b) from a game-play perspective it allowed you to get a better handle on who you could trust! It was such a huge step up from the situation where civs just ganged up on you because you were in the lead-i.e. it made diplomacy seem more *REAL*. If this is his reason for canning Religions, then my opinion of John Shafer just dropped quite considerably!!!!

Aussie.
I must disagree diplomacy felt more *real*. It was certainly a step forward, yet, the only big modifier in diplomacy really was the religious one. Wether it was so historically accurate, I can't really say and even doubt it.

Wouldn't it be better, Aussie_Lurker, to refrain from judgement and reserve your opinion of John Shafer untill we have seen the new diplomatic system? If canning Religion would be the reason for you to shy away from CiV V, then my opinion of you just dropped considerably! ;)

Jaca
 
Religions ARE the most important in ANY civilization in the world.
Names one civilization without it?
Names one Civilizations that didn't fight for it?

So to take it away, or to minimize it's important is a MISTAKE periode!

I can bet that the first to be moded (if it is possible) it will be to put back religion were they belong.
 
Flay said:
Religions ARE the most important in ANY civilization in the world.
You mean to say Rome is famous for it's religious warfare on others, or the Mongols?
Names one civilization without it?
The fact that civilisations contains religious people doesn't mean the civilisation is governed by it.
Names one Civilizations that didn't fight for it?
There are many examples of countries that previously in history have waged war in the name of religion, that would never consider doing the same today, despite having the same religion, simply because the philosophy of their society has changed.
So to take it away, or to minimize it's important is a MISTAKE periode!
Not if Firaxis introduces a more advanced system of social policies; Fanatical, zealous, open minded, etc.
I would agree to having religion in as a flavour but with it's importance reduced to that of one social policy;

-We can see you're having the same religion as us but we dislike you anyway because we think you are fanatical nutheads.

-You pray to different gods than we do, but we don't care because we like your emphasis on art and your system of open trade.
 
For what its worth, I still say we have no *definitive proof* that religion will be removed from the game-all that is certain is that it won't be as important in diplomacy as it was in Civ4 (which I'd be perfectly happy with). My hope is that they'll downplay some of the diplomatic aspects of religion & instead focus on its impacts-negative & positive-on each nation (like schisms, religious intolerance etc etc).

Aussie.
 
Top Bottom