Cottage graphics

[s0nny80y]

I hope they change the cottage graphics to something like Civ 4's cottages (or better). Do you feel the same way about these nasty looking buggers?

 

[GeoModder]

I hope they change the cottage graphics to something like Civ 4's cottages (or better). Do you feel the same way about these nasty looking buggers?

CiV doesn't have "cottages", only trading posts.

 

[comatosedragon]

CiV doesn't have "cottages", only trading posts.

And as they changed the graphic with G&K (Or more accurately; right before the release of G&K), it is almost a certainty that they wont be changing it again.

 

[blackcatatonic]

Vanilla trading posts were horrible, but I quite like the G&K ones.

I don't think they will be replaced or removed but I do think that functionally they will be changed to tie in to the new trade route mechanics.

 

[Louis XXIV]

I'm not sure how to vote in the poll, since they don't call them Cottages. Does "keep the cottage graphics" entail keeping the trading post graphics or changing to the cottage graphics? If you change them, does that mean return to the cottage graphics or do something entirely new?

I'm personally content with them. This isn't Civ4 so they have their own things. I'd rather, at this point, let those things be rather than continue to worry about them.

 

[bob massingbird]

Hell yeah, three things that I miss from CIv 4: Cottage, Globe view and that epic soundtrack.

 

[Securion]

The current Trading Post is not only immensely immersion breaking with its ugly graphics, but also doesn't make any sense what so ever.
What the hell is it exactly?! A house? A small village?

I hope it gets removed completely and that they add more income to the trading routes instead.

 

[BSPollux]

The current Trading Post is not only immensely immersion breaking with its ugly graphics, but also doesn't make any sense what so ever.
What the hell is it exactly?! A house? A small village?

It looks like a trading post, because it is a trading post. Therefor its called trading post.

 

[wilbeard]

It looks like a trading post, because it is a trading post. Therefor its called trading post.

But what is a trading post in the context of our world? Is there any precedent for having a city in, say, the 20th century surrounded by "trading posts"? They're absolutely immersion breaking, to the point I actively avoid building them even if they would be strategically viable.

 

[Louis XXIV]

There are plenty of ancient trading posts. The modern trading post looks like a strip mall and I see those all the time.

 

[Gamling]

The Brazillian woodcamp sems strange if you are still allowed to build trading posts in jungle and forests. I hope they will remove it and replace it with cottages that can be only placed on grasslands, and plains and perhaps flood plains.

 

[chmilz]

But what is a trading post in the context of our world? Is there any precedent for having a city in, say, the 20th century surrounded by "trading posts"? They're absolutely immersion breaking, to the point I actively avoid building them even if they would be strategically viable.

Agreed. Such a wtf improvement. In G&K I don't build them anyway. If I don't get rivers I reroll, and then it's all about the foods. I liked in Civ4 how they were tangible improvements that grew as they were worked, and really satisfied the immersion by showing how a civilization sprawls out with various sized population nodes outside large cities. That may not work in Civ5 but there's got to be a better option than trade posts. Even if they just change from Trading Posts to Suburbs when you hit Industrial age would make sense, with a graphic change to go with it.

 

[HeraldtheGreat]

I really don't care about trading posts and their appearance... because I want towns ressurected!

EDIT: I just realized how sad this thread is... has Firixis really let us resort to speaking of such frivoloties as this?

 

[Dunkah]

Towns and cities allowed the game to get back to a grand scale. Once there were cities all over the place it looked as if you had a civilization.

I agree bring back the towns and cities. But more than that... For me Farms should be Farming Communities and Mines Mining Towns... There should be Port Cities and Industrial Complexes etc.

Make the scale more grand and bring back the cities!

 

[Buccaneer]

It looks like a trading post, because it is a trading post. Therefor its called trading post.

and they look like trading posts in the ancient world and they do evolve into something like a modern strip mall. Far better than those ugly high-rise "towns" of Civ4.

I wish the Civ4 fanatics that keep coming here take a good look at many of the really bad and ugly mechanics, elements and graphics of their game and realize they should have no place in the much improved Civ5.

 

[ferretbacon]

I'd also like them to rework the trading post. I don't even care if it's still called a trading post and does the exact same thing, just change the graphics to make it look like a small town (that matches the culture you're playing and upgrades with the era).

I also think it would be cool to have a "suburb" tile improvement: Unlocks at Industrialization, and can only be built adjacent to a city. Each one (a maximum of six, if the city is built in the middle of the plains and has all six adjacent tiles open) would support a specialist without causing unhappiness in the city and would also boost the effectiveness of that specialist by 50%. The tradeoff, obviously, is that you'd be destroying the farms/mines in the immediate vicinity of the city, so it would only be a viable tile improvement for the largest, most developed cities that could afford to lose those tiles. This would be justified in the sense that only the largest, most developed cities in real life develop urban sprawl and "bedroom communities," usually by eating up land that used to be rural.

The added benefit aesthetically is that your city would look that much larger if it appeared to sprawl over seven tiles (which it already does, to some extent, but the suburb graphic would be much more detailed than the bits of city that currently spill over into adjacent tiles).

 

[Chiyochan]

and they look like trading posts in the ancient world and they do evolve into something like a modern strip mall. Far better than those ugly high-rise "towns" of Civ4.

I wish the Civ4 fanatics that keep coming here take a good look at many of the really bad and ugly mechanics, elements and graphics of their game and realize they should have no place in the much improved Civ5.

I dont know how anyone could get the impression that the scattered unorganized heap of legos that civ 5 calls a city is visually superior to the base city of civ 4. Civ 5 talked about having all sorts of natural city planning, instead we got a bunch of square buildings all at various terrible angles that made no sense, at least civ 4 with its lack luster graphics the city actually looked like it was planned by by someone with a degree in civic engineering rather than a kid with legos. I agree that the "villages" look horrendous, and actual trading posts did not look like this. Every graphic, except the holy site, looks better than trading posts, Every single one. There's no reason to have something this ugly, and it looks even worse if you factor in a civ that isn't European. I'm surprised out of everything no one has a mod for this yet.

 

[iRule]

I'd also like them to rework the trading post. I don't even care if it's still called a trading post and does the exact same thing, just change the graphics to make it look like a small town (that matches the culture you're playing and upgrades with the era).

I also think it would be cool to have a "suburb" tile improvement: Unlocks at Industrialization, and can only be built adjacent to a city. Each one (a maximum of six, if the city is built in the middle of the plains and has all six adjacent tiles open) would support a specialist without causing unhappiness in the city and would also boost the effectiveness of that specialist by 50%. The tradeoff, obviously, is that you'd be destroying the farms/mines in the immediate vicinity of the city, so it would only be a viable tile improvement for the largest, most developed cities that could afford to lose those tiles. This would be justified in the sense that only the largest, most developed cities in real life develop urban sprawl and "bedroom communities," usually by eating up land that used to be rural.

The added benefit aesthetically is that your city would look that much larger if it appeared to sprawl over seven tiles (which it already does, to some extent, but the suburb graphic would be much more detailed than the bits of city that currently spill over into adjacent tiles).

That would be very, very cool and smart.

 

[pilot00]

I wish the Civ4 fanatics that keep coming here take a good look at many of the really bad and ugly mechanics, elements and graphics of their game and realize they should have no place in the much improved Civ5.

I honestly didn't expect to see this from you to be honest.
Consider one thing though: The very fact that some might not like certain elements of 5 and agree that 4 might have something superior doesn't mean that they are 4 die hards.
If anything if something gets worse in a sequel it needs to be a dressed and criticism be taken into context to improve the game. Its not bruising because of hate.

We all can compare the mechanics and see what worked better and what it did not. You would agree that there are people from both sides that are wearing the mantle of "Been there done that'' and have absolutely no idea what they are talking about.

So dont be hasty to throw people in the same bag. Not all of us criticize with "OMG 4 was the BEST GAME EVAA!1!1!'' in our minds.

I consider it sub optimal myself as a game but it got right a lot of things 5 did not (and vice versa).

 

[Inhalaattori]

D) They dont have cottages