Civ V Expansion?

[Valkrionn]

That would indeed be awesome, but far more likely that they are devoting time to their indie games (which they make money on), as opposed to their mods.

In fact, they even said as much.

 

[MkLh]

Religion in Civ4 was terrible; There was no real point to it, aside from gaming diplomacy (Why follow Islam, when half the world is Christian, and there is zero difference between the two?).

Not true. Religion civics were really powerful, and to get those you needed to appoint a religion, which caused some diplo situations. Of course one can always say it wasn't that deep, but it was a heck more deeper than just about anything in CiV. Everything is so relative.

 

[snarzberry]

I'd agree that religion in Civ 4 was at least bland and that religion as a part of the game has the potential for so much more. I badly, badly want religion added in an expansion. I think it'd add a lot of oomph to the immersion factor and is an obvious vehicle to add some much needed depth and flavour.

Our problem, IMO, is a lack of possibilities to gameplay. There just needs to be more scope to the game, more what ifs?

 

[Valkrionn]

Not true. Religion civics were really powerful, and to get those you needed to appoint a religion, which caused some diplo situations. Of course one can always say it wasn't that deep, but it was a heck more deeper than just about anything in CiV. Everything is so relative.

Civics which only required a religion; NOT a specific religion.

The only use each SPECIFIC religion had was diplomacy.

I'd agree that religion in Civ 4 was at least bland and that religion as a part of the game has the potential for so much more. I badly, badly want religion added in an expansion. I think it'd add a lot of oomph to the immersion factor and is an obvious vehicle to add some much needed depth and flavour.

Our problem, IMO, is a lack of possibilities to gameplay. There just needs to be more scope to the game, more what ifs?

I agree. Any mechanic should add depth, first and foremost. I believe religion can do this, but NOT religion as it was in civ4.

 

[Sullla]

Religion in Civ4 affected culture, science, gold, unit experience, diplomacy, and the Apostolic Palace victory. How much more depth do you want? It's fine if you didn't personally like the system, but it's nonsense to claim that it had no point or no effects.

 

[snarzberry]

My main criticism of religion in civ 4 (and I'm an overall fan of it) is that they were too soft about the possibility of causing offence. I want religions with character. I love history and am fascinated by the worlds religions. Civ is a game about the history of human civilization and there are religions that played a massive role in this story. Is it so bad to want those religions represented in the game? It wouldn't all be crusades, witch hunts and the killing of infidels.

 

[Valkrionn]

That was all tacked on and did nothing to take away the core issue; there is zero reason the entire system couldn't have been modeled via civic. Or anything similar. None of the religions were even the slightest bit different; every single aspect you listed (aside from apostolic palace which was tacked on and OP) can be accomplished without the religion mechanic at all.

If it should make a return, then it should provide actual depth of choice.

 

[CELTICEMPIRE]

Ive wanted an expansion for a long time.

 

[Sarda]

I doubt there will be a expansion pack, they are extremely rare now a days, its all DLC now. If they want to add a feature in they can easily just patch it. Besides features like religion, espionage, UN, and corporations which Sid in all his wisdom decided people were too stupid to use thus detracted from the game experience (so there's no real chance of them returning unless he 180s that.), what could they really add? Pretty much every unit of value is already in the game, this isn't like the base Civ3 or Civ4 were there were huge gaps in the Industrial and Modern eras.

 

[Louis XXIV]

Religion in Civ4 was terrible; There was no real point to it, aside from gaming diplomacy (Why follow Islam, when half the world is Christian, and there is zero difference between the two?).

That does not mean that a redesigned religion could not be a worthwhile addition.

I think there was a little advantage to owning a religious shrine and spreading your own religion, but that's not a compelling reason (especially if you can't get a shrine).

 

[guczy]

2K is releasing a Mafia II Director's Cut which is simply the main game plus all of the DLCs in one package.

I'd rather have a version which removes all of the DLC-s

 

[MkLh]

I think there was a little advantage to owning a religious shrine and spreading your own religion, but that's not a compelling reason (especially if you can't get a shrine).

A shrine was one of the weaker usages of religions. There were stronger ones.

 

[MkLh]

I doubt there will be a expansion pack, they are extremely rare now a days, its all DLC now. If they want to add a feature in they can easily just patch

Really? To me it seems they are quite common even in games that rely heavily in DLC, like Bioware-titles.

 

[markusbeutel]

I think there was a little advantage to owning a religious shrine and spreading your own religion, but that's not a compelling reason (especially if you can't get a shrine).

There were quite a few advantages to religion besides just "gaming" diplomacy.

1. Line of sight if you have the Holy City of your State Religion in all Cities that share it.
2. +1 Happiness and +2 Culture in every City with your State Religion.
3. Adapting your play styles with Theocracy/Organized Religion
4. Making full use of some buildings (Cathedrals)
5. And of course Diplomacy implications.

Personally, I'd prefer being able to positively influence Diplomacy as in CIV IV, rather than through returning a Settler or Worker.

On a side note, Denouncements and Declarations of Friendship serve EXACTLY the same purpose as Religion, (only without the immersion). Declaring/Denouncing one AI causes other AI's to like or dislike you <-> Converting to a Religion causes other AI's to like or dislike you. You can also take the passive route in both games by not choosing a Religion and not denouncing/declaring, and in both cases, the mechanic's still force you to be an active participant. In CIV IV you'd have AI's threaten you unless you converted to their religion, in CIV V you have AI's making demands of you. Your choices affect relations in both instances, (albeit only negatively in V).

You're able to "game" the AI just as much in V as in IV, provided you've been taking detailed notes on who has denounced or declared friendships on/with each other.

Unfortunately, CIV V didn't come with an instruction booklet with the extra blank pages in the back where I could've been taking notes on Diplomacy. IMHO, it just feels like a broken system that will eventually be fed back to us with more depth in an expansion. Or in the words of CIV V diplomacy, "You'll pay for this in time."

 

[elprofesor]

I would really like to have a diplomacy graph à la Civ4 in Civ5: following the denouncements and DOFs might be confusing, and the diplo window on foreign relations isn't quite visual enough.

 

[Louis XXIV]

Sorry, I meant Holy City, not Shrine. If you had the Holy City, the Shrine itself would be inevitable.

Religious social policies and buildings did not offer a compelling reason to choose a specific religion, did it?

 

[MoonFlare]

They're not Valve...They will milk Civ5 players again..and again...and again...Activision and EA style,baby!Only activision and EA can release maps and other overpiced crap like that.And after that they will release an expansion pack with all those DLCs = SCAM.

 

[Sarda]

Really? To me it seems they are quite common even in games that rely heavily in DLC, like Bioware-titles.

The only Bioware game to get a expansion was Dragon Age 1 since the Baulders Gate days atleast to the best of my memory, all their other games were DLC. The closest thing you usually see today is the Stand-alone-expansion like the Dawn of War games.

If there was going to be a expansion it would have been announced already. By this time in the previous Civs we were half past announcement tword the expansions release.

 

[zarakand]

Personally, I liked Civ IV Religion, Espionage, and Corporations, though I didn't use Espionage terribly often.

Adding religion to Civ V in a similar manner (Religion founding linked to Techs, religion adding happiness, happy and/or culture buildings possibly linked to specific religions, religious spread, missionaries, diplomatic aspects, etc.) works for me. I'm sure they could add a setup button where you could disable it if you so chose.

I feel the same way. I loved religion and corporations! Espionage, eh wasn't something I was very interested in.

Could it have been improved? Of course, but it was a very fun feature. I loved the diplomatic blocs it formed.

 

[Civsassin]

I feel the same way. I loved religion and corporations! Espionage, eh wasn't something I was very interested in.

Could it have been improved? Of course, but it was a very fun feature. I loved the diplomatic blocs it formed.

But if you ignored espionage, some civs would eat you alive by performing missions against you sabotaging production, stealing techs, and destroying improvements.