Some unrealistic things I hope they got rid of

[PrettyRevenge]

There were some things in civ 5 that really bothered me and were unrealistic imo.

first off early build times, it takes like 12 turns at the beginning of the game to build one, thats like 100 years in-game. Now I dont see the point of that, because your population is too little to work many tiles, and your gpt is little, thuis workers can cripple you early on and are sometimes even unnecessary.

The other thing is coastal and mountain cities, why do I have be next to a coast to build boasts and other naval infrastucture? This is especially wierd in late game. humans built canals before eletricity, and somehow if your not next to a coast your city loses the ability to make ships (even though irl you can just build a ship next to the shore and store it on a port. Now observatories, I dont think cities with observatories are even next to a mountain irl.

Shared production, why cant two cities if connected by road/rail work together? Yes I know production TRs and railroad production bonues, but look at the irl manhatten project, america had like 5 cities to weaponize uranium and complete the project, no city had it's own individual manhatten project.

Please excuse my mistakes and grammar, english is not make first langauge and im too tired to care.

 

[Smith of Lie]

So, you can stomach immortal leaders; Japanese building their inland empire between their closest neighbours - Aztecs and Russians; machine guns having lower range than shortbows; units magically creating transport boats and possible existance of multiple Oxford Universities at once, but naval production only in coastal cities and observatory only on a mountain are too much for you?

Those things are acceptable breaks from reality. They derive from simple concept of gameplay trumping absolute realism.

 

[Louis XXIV]

first off early build times, it takes like 12 turns at the beginning of the game to build one, thats like 100 years in-game.

No reason to think the clock ticks at the same pace in CivBE. 12 turns early in the game could conceivably be the same as 12 turns later in the game.

 

[Fabio1701]

So, you can stomach immortal leaders; Japanese building their inland empire between their closest neighbours - Aztecs and Russians; machine guns having lower range than shortbows; units magically creating transport boats and possible existance of multiple Oxford Universities at once, but naval production only in coastal cities and observatory only on a mountain are too much for you?

Those things are acceptable breaks from reality. They derive from simple concept of gameplay trumping absolute realism.

While I agree that some unrealistic things have to just be accepted, like gameplay turns, there is a point to some things which are so unrealistic as to make for bad gameplay, like the fact that social policies can't be changed through revolution. And really there is no excuse not to not be able to build canals or shallow ocean bridges.

As for CBE, I dont know enough to see what is or is not realisitc. I am assuming a turn in CBE is the same length of time throughout the game (that was the case in smac).

 

[GoodSarmatian]

The year counter is an acceptable break from reality, but I really wish there were canals or tile improvements to make a city coastal. I think the best solution would be to turn harbors into tile improvements that can only be built on coast and enable ship building and sea trade route for non-coastal cities.

 

[Smith of Lie]

While I agree that some unrealistic things have to just be accepted, like gameplay turns, there is a point to some things which are so unrealistic as to make for bad gameplay, like the fact that social policies can't be changed through revolution. And really there is no excuse not to not be able to build canals or shallow ocean bridges.

As for CBE, I dont know enough to see what is or is not realisitc. I am assuming a turn in CBE is the same length of time throughout the game (that was the case in smac).

I had no idea that canals were such a point of contention. I guess I personally consider it minor enough issue to ignore.

Still, I find it strange that with so many different bits of silliness those two things are what irks OP.

 

[3of5]

The year counter is an acceptable break from reality, but I really wish there were canals or tile improvements to make a city coastal. I think the best solution would be to turn harbors into tile improvements that can only be built on coast and enable ship building and sea trade route for non-coastal cities.

that would be in line with history, both Rome and Athens not being situated on the coast like Carthage, but through Piraeus and Ostia perfectly capable of fielding very sizeable navies, built by the production capabilities of their parent cities (neither Piraeus nor Ostia would have been cities in any Civ Scale).

 

[PrettyRevenge]

I had no idea that canals were such a point of contention. I guess I personally consider it minor enough issue to ignore.

Still, I find it strange that with so many different bits of silliness those two things are what irks OP.

they irk me because like someone said, point of unrealism that makes for bad gameplay. Things like immortal leader and the wierd time scale dont annoy me is because if they were improved they wont affect game play. If these things are small like you implied, they shouldnt have any diffucluties implenting it. It would be hard for me to believe my future colonies cant build ships simply because my city is next to water.

 

[PrettyRevenge]

No reason to think the clock ticks at the same pace in CivBE. 12 turns early in the game could conceivably be the same as 12 turns later in the game.

Youre missing the point here, having workers take so long to build is unnecessary as, like I said youre city is too small to work many tiles and your gpt is really small, thus this will make up for the short build times. Also I hate its almost necessary to steal workers on high level play simply because they take way to long to build.

 

[SamBC]

that would be in line with history, both Rome and Athens not being situated on the coast like Carthage, but through Piraeus and Ostia perfectly capable of fielding very sizeable navies, built by the production capabilities of their parent cities (neither Piraeus nor Ostia would have been cities in any Civ Scale).

Piraeus and Ostia are close enough to Rome and Athens that they would be seen as part of the city, on the Civ scale.

 

[PrettyRevenge]

Piraeus and Ostia are close enough to Rome and Athens that they would be seen as part of the city, on the Civ scale.

Yeah they acted as ports for the landlocked cities, hence why im complaining.

 

[SamBC]

I'm saying that the cities aren't landlocked, at the Civ scale. So no problem.

 

[poom3619]

Youre missing the point here, having workers take so long to build is unnecessary as, like I said youre city is too small to work many tiles and your gpt is really small, thus this will make up for the short build times. Also I hate its almost necessary to steal workers on high level play simply because they take way to long to build.

Then you are on wrong subforum then if you are coming to complain about this. At least you are likely to be able to port a worker unit or build one easily in CivBE

Also, Your and You're are not interchangable.

I had no idea that canals were such a point of contention. I guess I personally consider it minor enough issue to ignore.

Still, I find it strange that with so many different bits of silliness those two things are what irks OP.

They are actually a topic for that here, in CivBE subforum

Spoiler : Which people end up have various reason they can't be implemented due to "communication problem"

 

[PrettyRevenge]

Then you are on wrong subforum then if you are coming to complain about this. At least you are likely to be able to port a worker unit or build one easily in CivBE

Also, Your and You're are not interchangable.

Im complaining because i dont want Civ BE to make the smae small "mistakes" (imo).

Also i know theyre not interchangeable, ones for possession, i dont need to be correct in my grammar because people will know or extrapolate what im saying regardless if i use your or youre. Youre just coming off as a pretentious grammar nazi

 

[bouncymischa]

Im complaining because i dont want Civ BE to make the smae small "mistakes" (imo).

One person's 'mistake' is another person's 'feature', though. Personally, I like the terrain-dependent elements of Civilization, as it forces me to make more hard choices. With regards to being able to build coastal buildings and naval units in landlocked cities, in my most recent game I ended up with a landlocked start in a continents game. Despite reaching Astronomy first (and wanting to build Caravels to go find the other continents and their civs), I had no port city. There was a coast nearby (around ten hexes away), but extending to build a port city there would mean expanding beyond the cities I already had, and provoking conflict with my southern neighbour, who considered that coast to be part of his lands. In the end, I chose to build my port city, sending a bunch of caravans in their direction to support my shipbuilding efforts and help the city grow, while worsening diplomacy with my neighbour. If instead I'd been able to just build ships anywhere and send them to the coast with magical "canals", I wouldn't have had the challenge of making that choice and its consequences.

I'd much rather play a game that gave me choices to make with consequences to deal with, rather than have everything handed to me on a silver platter.

 

[PrettyRevenge]

One person's 'mistake' is another person's 'feature', though. Personally, I like the terrain-dependent elements of Civilization, as it forces me to make more hard choices. With regards to being able to build coastal buildings and naval units in landlocked cities, in my most recent game I ended up with a landlocked start in a continents game. Despite reaching Astronomy first (and wanting to build Caravels to go find the other continents and their civs), I had no port city. There was a coast nearby (around ten hexes away), but extending to build a port city there would mean expanding beyond the cities I already had, and provoking conflict with my southern neighbour, who considered that coast to be part of his lands. In the end, I chose to build my port city, sending a bunch of caravans in their direction to support my shipbuilding efforts and help the city grow, while worsening diplomacy with my neighbour. If instead I'd been able to just build ships anywhere and send them to the coast with magical "canals", I wouldn't have had the challenge of making that choice and its consequences.

I'd much rather play a game that gave me choices to make with consequences to deal with, rather than have everything handed to me on a silver platter.

So we should sacrifice some realistic things like canals in the next game for some artificial difficulty or "some choices with consequences". Its very stupid that a civilization 200 years in the future cant solve the problem of the inability of landlocked cities to make ships when civilizations 3000 years ago could. . If you want difficulty and choices that matter go play diety, no idea why anyone want more butchered realism and logic (esp in a game like civ) just to make the game harder ( esp how you have to cheese the harder difficulties already)

 

[poom3619]

One person's 'mistake' is another person's 'feature', though. Personally, I like the terrain-dependent elements of Civilization, as it forces me to make more hard choices. With regards to being able to build coastal buildings and naval units in landlocked cities, in my most recent game I ended up with a landlocked start in a continents game. Despite reaching Astronomy first (and wanting to build Caravels to go find the other continents and their civs), I had no port city. There was a coast nearby (around ten hexes away), but extending to build a port city there would mean expanding beyond the cities I already had, and provoking conflict with my southern neighbour, who considered that coast to be part of his lands. In the end, I chose to build my port city, sending a bunch of caravans in their direction to support my shipbuilding efforts and help the city grow, while worsening diplomacy with my neighbour. If instead I'd been able to just build ships anywhere and send them to the coast with magical "canals", I wouldn't have had the challenge of making that choice and its consequences.

I'd much rather play a game that gave me choices to make with consequences to deal with, rather than have everything handed to me on a silver platter.

Gameplay-wise, Some would like their navy to be able to cross 2-hex wide land that happen to divide the ocean with canal and make cities with 1-hex to coast able to build ship, according to real canal thread.

No one sane would ask for 10 hexes long magical canal.

 

[KrikkitTwo]

So we should sacrifice some realistic things like canals in the next game for some artificial difficulty or "some choices with consequences". Its very stupid that a civilization 200 years in the future cant solve the problem of the inability of landlocked cities to make ships when civilizations 3000 years ago could. . If you want difficulty and choices that matter go play diety, no idea why anyone want more butchered realism and logic (esp in a game like civ) just to make the game harder ( esp how you have to cheese the harder difficulties already)

The problem is, Rome and Athens are not landlocked in a civ game.
Any city within ~100 miles of the coast in real life would be considered a coastal city in Civ.

The lack of realism comes from the fact that the game is simplified

Canals would be something worth adding, however they should be difficult and expensive and limited (say for 1000 hammers you build a canal that can Only be on a tile adjacent to water).. after all the real world only has 2 canals, Panama and Suez... the rest are too small to bother with in Civ.
However,
2 tiles wide is a few hundred miles (depending on map size... that is a bit ridiculous for a canal)

Decent Observatories honestly aren't in cities at all... but then they really don't boost science production except for astronomical science either.


The reason cities don't work together (except on World Congress projects) is for balance.

Really if you wanted 'realism' you should be complaining about the fact that your civilization doesn't collapse in popular revolution every couple hundred years.

"Winning" wouldn't be reaching the 'finish line' first, it would be reaching the finish line at ALL
(perhaps have a game that plays by Era... You successfully maintained your civilization through 6 of the 8 eras... you only collapsed and had to restart with a new civ in the middle ages and the industrial era) Very impressive for Warlord level. (at Deity only the best players can survive even 1 era)

 

[Karl0413]

No reason to think the clock ticks at the same pace in CivBE. 12 turns early in the game could conceivably be the same as 12 turns later in the game.

Judging from the gameplay videos we have seen they seem to be following in the footsteps of SMAC where one turn equals one year and it stays that way all the way through.

 

[reddishrecue]

Who knows how much time each turn will take in be.