Discussion in 'Civ5 - General Discussions' started by NobleJms, Sep 30, 2010.
Final Verdict: Never mind.
I NEVER ever want to play another Civilization game that DOES have the old stack system. 1UPT rocks!
Hexed are nice, too, because squares make for a less tactical game.
The only thing I miss is things like(!) religion, espionage, vassalage, corporations. Some depth, even if it means micro managing more (which IS a part of Civ, after all ). If they reintroduce something along this line that works well in CiV and improve the game with regular patches I'm completely happy.
^ Similar name, and in total agreement.
I like 1UPT and hexes. I think the battle/combat system/AI just needs a little polish and designers need to avoid diety insanity of congestion.
A human player would never build that many units. Diety bonuses may need a rethink.
Simply scalring up production/unit support is not the right solution for 1UPT games.
I would have voted for religion, but you said that was what made Civ IV the best in the series and I just don't agree with that. Civ V is far better, so I just said I like it how it is.
You obviously didn't read any of the posts I've made recently. Your interpretation of numbers is flawed (objectively false, not an opinion). You still don't understand what it means that this is single choice poll. Read my explanation, or if you've already read it consider yourself beyond hope when it comes to mathematics and logic.
I'm ok with doing away with the stack of doom. What I don't like is how expensive roads are in this game.
It's too expensive to build a road from your city to the farm next door? Really? Really, Sid? Is the production from farms, woodcutters and trading posts being carried to the cities by woodland creatures?
Also, roads in your territory were a strong bonus when defending your cities. Now, with a much smaller army, I'm expected to spread them more thinly and have more trouble moving them into position.
Bring back the roads!
Well, the majority of the players spoke...
The game is fine, apart from maybe the AI...
and maybe the part that Alexander is Greek and not Macedonian
It is a step forward from CiV IV IMHO
I've played something like 15 hours the past few days (since I posted my other thread) and I have to say that, although Civ 5 it is a nice and enjoyable game, it is not an accomplishment such as Civ4. In that sense, it is a step back. Of course, it's only my opinion, but I don't care what whatever majority thinks. Paris Hilton is quite a popular character.
Global happiness definitely forces you to adopt a different mindset. Unlike in previous Civs, winning via warfare requires a stable, functioning economy - not just a massive shield or hammer output to sustain military unit production. It's definitely doable (I've done it a number of times already) but a very different mindset. That kind of more in-depth empire management appeals to me quite a bit, but I can see how someone might want their warmonger games of Civ to just be about the military units.
RE: The original Post
1. No. Stacking was awful. It was easily the worst part of IV. The AI doesn't deal well with the warmongering in V, which detracts from the experience, but it's still by far better than it was in IV.
2. No. The new Strategic Resource model is a small step forward. They do need a more robust commerce model in general (the difficulty of making that accessible and fun rather than spreadsheet grinding is obvious, but if it's possible, it's important) but having Strategic Resources matter more than "I have Iron, I win; you lack Iron, you lose" is an improvement.
3. No, I don't want the Science Slider back. Science is more important than everything else, so the slider management in almost every case boiled down to "Adjust Science up as much as possible without going bankrupt", while also making other uses of Gold never come up, since you almost never have any. The current Science management is a little bare-bones, but the slider is no better.
4. Empire-wide happiness took a while to grow on me, but it really has in the last couple days. City-specific happiness is just putting out fires as they occur in various cities. That's fine; it's something to do and it's a limiter on cities that has to be accounted for, but empire-wide happiness makes the whole system require serious planning and investment.
5. No, I like Gold mattering. I can actually do useful stuff as a commercial civ in V. Did it never strike you as odd that having tons of money in previous versions of civilization wasn't a valid path to having a mighty empire? In any case, buying buildings and units has existed for pretty much the entire duration of the franchise, so I don't see why this is even on your list.
6. Religion would be an interesting thing to model and I hope they bring it back. Religion in the Civ IV sense is less interesting. It's basically just a way to set the teams in the game once the game has already started, in Civ IV. Granted the way Civ IV diplomacy works that actually makes for a better game, but diplomacy in V is quite different (starting with but not ending at the city-states), and putting various major powers on a single team wouldn't be a win, imo. I'd be all for a Religion system in V, but it needs to work quite differently than it did in IV.
7. ...well played?
8. Hexes are just better. I don't think anyone could seriously prefer tiles.
Look at the poll results now.
Which, if you look at the OP's other posts in these forums, appears to have been his objective.
I'm almost certain that this poll was an elaborate troll-ish. If you were to implement every change the poll asks for, you would be left - literally - with Civilization IV BTS. There wouldn't even be an update to pay for.
I think the vocal minority on this board are peeved because they didn't get "Civ IV but with better graphics and with the changes I was looking for."
I want my end-of-game replays and intricate information back. Lazy as hell not to include that.
I just voted in the poll. As of right now, there are 926 votes, with 411 (44%, and by far the plurality of votes in the poll) saying that they like Civ V just fine. I think that perhaps your concerns are quite as wide-spread as you believe.
I agree completely. I tried a game of BTS last night just to see how it would stack up, and I simply can't stand the old stack system. Sure, there are a number of features from BTS that I miss, and hope will be incorporated in Civ V in the future (and balance issues that need to be addressed) via mods, expansions, or DLC, but for now, the combat system alone is enough to make Civ V my preference over all previous iterations of the franchise.
If you dislike Civ 5, please just go back to playing Civ 4. Civilization Revolution brought in many console gamers including myself. It is financially more practical in 2010 to make a game that appeals to a broader audience. This isnt like 2005 when they made Civ 4 a niche game. Just go back to playing Civ 4 if you are disappointed. Get a refund
I dont have time for listenin your cries. You obviously dont know how elections work so there seems to be no point of continuing this pointless argument.
EDIT: Ok i try once again. So there are 9 choices to change something, if one of these 9 choices gets the majority of votes, then that thing gets changed. However, there is ONE option that doesnt change anything from the game and if it gets the most amount of votes we wouldnt change a thing. That is how democracy works! It isnt so hard to understand! Nobody cannot be that stupid!
Voted for "fine as is," since my problem is with the bugs and the AI, not changes to features.
But shouldn't the thread title be changed? "We want our stacks back" doesn't seem to describe the thread at all, since almost half of respondents ATM said they've fine with every change listed.
The one without a clue here is you. This is no election - the poll was made to find out what Civ4 feature most of the people wanted back. Even for that poll single choice was wrong way to go but it still could have given somewhat correct result. What really broke the poll was the last option that was added later by a moderator combined with people's inability to understand the logic behind the numbers (this lack of comprehension is primarily demonstrated by the people who like Civ5 as it is... and surprisingly that flawed logic makes their beloved game look better on the poll).
Nothing's changed because of this but otherwise you're more or less correct this far.
Now here's the error in logic. All voters have either YES or NO opinion for each feature's return. So to make poll fair it needs 18 options - stack/no stack, local happiness/no local happiness, etc. (it also needs to be multiple choice poll). Instead of that all nine NO options have been combined to one meaning that people who are content with the game have a chance to vote NO for all features while people with any level of discontent only have a chance to vote for one YES option.
Basically this means that unless (almost) all discontent people agree about the most important missing feature the NOTHING option will always be the one with most votes. In other words YES voters are limited to one vote per person while NO voters get 9 votes each.
In democracy all people should have equal amount of votes. Here some have 9 while others have just 1. Only moderately fair way to interpret the numbers here is to compare NOTHING votes to combined amount of YES votes. Of course that doesn't mean that majority wants all the Civ4 features back but it means that minority wants none of them.
You stole my line
Separate names with a comma.