Maybe it's because I don't go around starting pointless spam threads. That's why I go to "Forum Games". I tried to be constructive but you can only be so constructive when you're given two grains of sand. Except at this point, the two grains of sand still have more substance than polls that have been done to death. Let me show you why.
You weren't at all trying to be constructive. There was nothing in your post about improvement, and neither is anything below anything more than thoughtless criticisms.
There are at least forty-five and a half polls on this question and hundreds of variations.
Maybe three or four in the year we have had the game. However, opinions change and this poll is for all main aspects, not just this. It is useful for looking at all of the aspects together, rather than just one.
Pointless question. You need cities to be able to defend themselves with 1UPT. If cities couldn't defend themselves, the Conquest victory would be even easier than it is now.
This is just a mindless criticism. I have seen
plenty of people suggesting that multiple units should stack in a city, and you probably have too.
I haven't, and see my first reply.
Well, now we're just scrapping the bottom of the barrel.
No, you're just trolling. I strongly prefer science earned by gold to science earned by population because science earned by gold in turn means sliders, which give a far better control over your empire. Further, by micromanageing your cities, you can increase science at crucial times by focusing on gold. Gold is also positively correlated with population, so, for me earning science by gold is far superior than the boring linear growth of science earned by population in civ 5.
If you post the poll here, people will say UA. If you post it in CivIV, they will say traits. It may be because they're two different games.
Rubbish. There is absolutely no proof that everyone in this forum prefers UAs, or even the majority does. Nobody is going to refuse to play civ 5 simply due to UAs rather than traits, so we can expect a mixed response here. Besides, many people play both civ 4 and civ 5 and go on both forums. And if you'd actually bothered to put any thought in this, you would realise that your opinion would come under the third option for every aspect as 'no preference'. Others may not, so don't assume that your opinion is the same as everyone else's.
Pretty sure this has been talked about to death. It's the only non-pointless question in your list.
A year into its release, and with the patch talked about to death, literally everything has now been talked about to death. But, if you didn't notice, diplomacy is going to change quite a lot in the next patch with the new modifiers, and now with the more transparent diplomacy, religion is becoming more and more of an option for civ 5
Again. CiV expansion works for CiV while CivIV expansion works for CivIV. Therefore, see #5.
This is just a mindless assertion with no actual reasoning for your claims. I see no reason to say that one works better for civ 5 and one for civ 4 until you actually give reasons for your claims. At the moment, it looks like you're simply trying to defend a poorly judged post made in jest when you didn't actually bother thinking about anything.
So, for people interested in making constructive changes, rather than mindless criticisms, do you think that my aspects are the ones to choose? Obviously global happiness has to be incorporated.
) The poll spammage in here is relentless.
