Gods and kings community verdict

[Bisqit]

So everyone has had a chance to play gods and kings. Im curious what you guys think if civilization 5 as a whole with the expansion. I would say that gods and kings ultimately made civ five much better. It fixed or at least improved on most of the games issues. Even after the additions and improvements it still doesnt capture me like civ 4 did. I still play a full game of civ five but after i finish a game i dont play another one for weeks. I have fun with it this way. If i play mpre than one game in a week i always get bored very quickly even with the expansion. I never did that with civ 4. For me civ 5 is good in small doses its not for the hardcore crowd. Thats not the type of game it is or ever will be. It is good in doses. What do u guys think?

 

[Jimbo30]

Yep pretty much. It'll never be Civ 4, or 3 or 2 or 1 for that matter. But it's not bad for a few wasted hours or days every so often.

 

[Bisqit]

Yup thats exactly how i feel too. Its no civ 4 but its good in its own way.

 

[RoadReaction]

Honestly i was never impressed with 4, 3 will always be the game I most enjoyed but Civ 5 has much better combat and i believe more concrete gameplay. Religion and espionage are pretty shallow in G&K however.

 

[PreLynMax]

If you want to play a weaker version of Civ 4, that's mostly a war game than a civ game then this, Civ V G&K is the game for you. The only major advantage 5 has over its predecessors are the 1upt, IMO.

 

[OmniPotent42]

I actually got civ4 bts 1.5 years ago, and I liked it until I got civ5 a couple months ago. I can barely play it now. I just like civ5's simplistic (and in my opinion better) play style. Small civilizations stand more of a chance, reducing the emphasis on expanding. However, the downside of that is that if you aren't expanding, there isn't really much to do. The reintroduction of religion and espionage helped, but its still not as addicting. Granted, it isn't perfect, and I am so glad I didn't get it right when it came out.

 

[Bisqit]

I often have that internal debate of civ 4 vs civ 5. Civ 4, if your the civfanatic like most of us, is the better game. I though gods and kings would cater to the hardcore crowd but itd ultimately the same. Which isnt bad. I dont wana make this a lets flame civ five thread. It will just never capture me like four did. Religion in five is fun but its jst mpre or less a series of bonuses that spreads itself around. Espionage is cool but extremely limited. Civ fours espiojage does way more minus intrigue which is a cool feature. I jst found it disappointing how little religion reallly effects anything. Diplomacy is hardly effected at all religion is really just another set of bonuses. Which works for this i spose but i was just hoping for it to hve more impact on diplomacy like it did historically.

 

[Bisqit]

The ai still holds ridiculous grudges for long periods of time. I had long time friends for a long time in a game but of course in the late game they turned there back on me. Sweden asked if i wanted to join in a war i said give me ten turns. I declared war earlier than ten turns and sweden denounces me and says im a warmongering menace......wtf

 

[Billy Rubin]

It improved it - I like the way religions were added with all the customization, however, the spying feature could have been much better - it's way too passive for my taste.

In general, I think Civ V is one of the better Civs. They were all great in their time (started playing Civ I on the Amiga) and I like a lot of the more fundamental changes, like the lack of tech-trading, which I ended up exploiting vs the AI all the time or the boring 'stack of doom' tactics. Hexes are an overall improvement as well.

If I should rank them, I would put Civ 1+2 out of the competition because they were unique and awesome during their respective time, but can't really be compared to todays games.

I would definitely rank it about Civ IV, which I never liked for various reasons but slightly below Civ III, but that is mostly due to the awesome mods that game had.

 

[OmniPotent42]

The ai still holds ridiculous grudges for long periods of time. I had long time friends for a long time in a game but of course in the late game they turned there back on me. Sweden asked if i wanted to join in a war i said give me ten turns. I declared war earlier than ten turns and sweden denounces me and says im a warmongering menace......wtf

Yeah, the main problem is diplomacy. In 4 it was predictable, but now I suppose it's more...realistic?

 

[trooth]

I like it. It isn't civ4 BTS, but it is good and I love no longer needing stacked units of death and transports.

Sent from my Galaxy Nexus using Tapatalk 2

 

[Tapewormlondon]

Interestingly enough I created a thread many months ago stating how I wished this expansion would fail, hoping it would show 2k and fireaxis that the casual gamer market (which i believe this game is aimed at to a degree - much more so than any of its kin) is not the type that will continue supporting a product for expansions as much as the hard (er) core.

So its fair to say, CiV is not my fave game in the world. Its ok, thats it, it mediocre. Anyway, thanks to the fact im a hypocrite and thanks to a little gambling bet that paid off (thanks Germany vs Italy Euro 2012!) i picked up G&K.

My verdict? this is the game that should have been released 2 years ago, its alot more engrossing and I have that "1 more turn feeling" back to a degree. However it still lacks that umph that 3 & 4 had. Same as OP, i can see myself playing a game and forgeting about it for weeks/ months. The same can not be said for its competitors such as CK2 etc.

Even with another expansion I dont think this game will even come within a country mile of how good 4 CIVBTS was. its still just mediocre. Fairly good fun for a bit, but nothing special, and thats a shame. Well done 2kfireaxis for not havng it stuffed with bugs like vanilla though i suppose.......although stonehenge still spawns in the sea if your on the coast - LOL

TLDR: Vanilla is mediocre, expansion improves it, but still mediocre

 

[GenjiKhan]

There are some balance issues with this game,like the fact that religion spreads too slowly to non-founders and some balance issues with espionage,like the fact that the most out-teched civs don't steal technology faster . But I approve most of the changes brought by G&K,specially the changes about religion and combat,that were 2 of the things I most hated in Civ4 . And I liked some of these new 9 civilizations,like Sweden,Netherlands and Ethiopia .

 

[Glassmage]

Civ5 > Civ4 for me. And I play civ4 a lot.

 

[Nyanko]

I actually got civ4 bts 1.5 years ago, and I liked it until I got civ5 a couple months ago. I can barely play it now. I just like civ5's simplistic (and in my opinion better) play style. Small civilizations stand more of a chance, reducing the emphasis on expanding.

I agree with this. I just cannot play Civ IV anymore. Sure the AI may be better, but thats the only real advantage I feel IV has over V

 

[Drawmeus]

I think Civ 5 + G&K is superior to Civ 4 + Warlords. We'll see whether it ever catches up to BTS or not (now, I can't play Civ 4 anymore, I can't go back from certain things in Civ 5, but I do think Civ 4 with BTS was a superior overall product to Civ 5 vanilla and probably a bit better for its time than Civ 5 + G&K)

 

[PhilBowles]

I often have that internal debate of civ 4 vs civ 5. Civ 4, if your the civfanatic like most of us, is the better game. I though gods and kings would cater to the hardcore crowd but itd ultimately the same. Which isnt bad. I dont wana make this a lets flame civ five thread. It will just never capture me like four did. Religion in five is fun but its jst mpre or less a series of bonuses that spreads itself around.

Which is surely what it was in Civ IV... Indeed you can essentially replicate the Civ IV system by using the beliefs that give happiness from temples and from each converted city in your empire. Civ V still doesn't surpass the level of detail in many aspects of Civ IV, but religion is an area where Civ V is unequivocally the more developed game.

Espionage is cool but extremely limited.

I'm not even sure this is fair. You can't poison water supplies or foment rebellion, but most of the rest is there - all I'd really like to see return is the ability to sabotage production. But in Civ V espionage is more than just a set of abilities on a spy unit - what you do isn't as varied, but when/what you do it to is a more complex set of decisions forced by the limitations on spy numbers, particularly in the Renaissance and Industrial eras - and not only do you have to choose between targeting different civs, and which ones to target, you usually have upwards of a dozen city-states that are relevant concerns - and yes, there's intrigue, which adds a whole new dimension since you no longer want to focus just on civs that are immediate rivals or technological superiors, if there's a chance that you can obtain information you can use diplomatically by choosing less obvious targets. Espionage, unlike religion, works too differently from Civ IV espionage to be able to state that it's simplified in comparison.

I jst found it disappointing how little religion reallly effects anything. Diplomacy is hardly effected at all religion is really just another set of bonuses. Which works for this i spose but i was just hoping for it to hve more impact on diplomacy like it did historically.

Historically many things affected diplomacy - to Elizabethan England, for example, Mauritania and the Ottoman Empire were key allies against Catholic powers, as powerful states with valuable trade interests (and yes, certainly who could be bargained with on the basis that both Protestants and Muslims considered Catholics heretics, but this is a level of detail that can't really be incorporated into Civ games - "our religion has more similar tenets to yours than to theirs"). Civ V diplomacy reflects this better than Civ IV, where you could immediately trace the effect that any given modifier was having on your relations.

Religion is a key modifier in Civ V - it's one of the few ways of getting a strong positive that remains strong through most of the game (since the modifier persists for as long as two civs share a majority religion) - and positive modifiers are still relatively hard to come by (except for the minor "we have an embassy" and "no contested borders" effects) and negative ones are frequently strong. It's just harder to say "This civ declared war because it doesn't like our religion" or "this civ is my most loyal ally because we are defenders of the faith". Though it happens: in my first full G&K game Mongolia was the only civ to share my religion, and was a completely dependable ally throughout the game (though in vanilla too Genghis is usually trustworthy if he's on your side), and my first major rift with eventual major rival Siam came when I spread my religion to one of their cities while they were trying to spread their own.

Another modifier or two wouldn't hurt - say, a negative with other civs that share your religion if you go to war with or denounce another civ with the same religion, and a corresponding positive if you do the same to a civ that has a rival religion - but religion certainly has more than a trivial effect on diplomacy.

I think Civ 5 + G&K is superior to Civ 4 + Warlords. We'll see whether it ever catches up to BTS or not (now, I can't play Civ 4 anymore, I can't go back from certain things in Civ 5, but I do think Civ 4 with BTS was a superior overall product to Civ 5 vanilla and probably a bit better for its time than Civ 5 + G&K)

I think "better for its time" is a key qualifier. I see a lot of comparisons from Civ V naysayers with games like the Total War series, Distant Worlds, Europa Imperialis... Games which all have far more detail and to a large extent more depth than any incarnation of Civ, not just Civ V (and, come to that, if you want to complain about Civ V turn times or lousy combat AI, you clearly haven't played Shogun 2). It needs to be borne in mind that any incarnation of the Civ series is ultimately based on a 1990 game engine, and it has never attempted to add a level of detail that would make it feel less like Civ and more like one of these games.

 

[OmniPotent42]

I agree with this. I just cannot play Civ IV anymore. Sure the AI may be better, but thats the only real advantage I feel IV has over V

I think you have to give the devs credit - I'm no programmer, but I'm pretty sure that it's easier to program an AI that understands the simple military strategy of IV than all of the rules of V. Getting an AI to understand range and the fact that you can't stack units is no easy task.

 

[Miravlix]

Diplomacy was predictable in vanilla.

Diplomacy is EVEN EASIER to predict in G & K.

I had problems with vanilla too, but it was possible to use diplomacy as a strategy tool, but with G&K they made diplomacy easy mode so if your still not sure why the AI acts as it does, you need to read up on diplomacy.

1: You need a significant army for Diplomacy to work. Or they will hate your for simply being weak.
2: Taking Cities makes the AI hate you.

Thats all you need to know beyond the tooltip to play G&K diplomacy.

 

[nokmirt]

IDK at this point. I really have a blast playing it. However, I'd rather evaluate CiV after all the rest has been added to it. After the second XP comes out, after all DLCs, and patches. Then I'll judge it at that point.

I will say this, GnK is far more fun to play now than it was with vanilla. The additions are awesome, WWI units and MARINES! Espionage needs to be expanded on I suspect it will.