Final Verdict: We want our stack back and other great cIV features!

[ruskyandrei]

...

I believe I can speak for the majority of the Civ players here ...

No, you can't.

 

[Fabien]

Oh, the irony. Local Happiness and Health are strategically deep, while a global modifier is shallow .

 

[AlpsStranger]

This is moronic. Civ4 already exists. Why on earth do I need an icon that says "Civ5" but boots up Civ4?

I've actually been PLAYING Civ4 today because of some of the unfixed bugs in the current patch. It sill works just fine, trust me. If you're in the mood for Civ4.5 try Legends of Revolution or any of the other fine community mods.

This is not a thought-out post, this is either a troll or a knee-jerk reaction. Nobody, not even those who hate Civ5, hates each feature down the line. Virtually everyone with a (thoughtful) opinion likes at least SOME aspect of Civ5. This is about as nuanced as an American political discussion.

 

[BjoernLars]

Where is the "none of the above" voting button?

All of these changes has evolved Civ V into something new and which I think is something better.

There was a segment of the Civ III community that didn't move onto to Civ IV because they didn't like the changes. No one is forcing to play Civ V. If you like the Civ IV style better, then continue to play that and see what happens when Civ VI comes out.

 

[KAuss]

I shook my head...

Civ 5 despite all the problems have a great foundation for a great game... I have no doubt when the AI gets tweaked, the game will flourish... It's not hard to see the potential of something like this, but the current state leaves a lot to be desired...

The things you list are the reasons why I stopped playing Civ... I wished Civ 4 was more like 5, and this game is right between it... Stacks of doom was the WORST THING EVER! Not to mention the lack of Zone of Control! The war game in 4 was non-existent for me... By time my riflemen reached their target, I have mech-inf... And that was on Marathon! Every 3 turns on marathon I have a new tech... WTH is that?

I unno, Civ 4 has a better overall polish, but the game was broken from the ground up... Civ 5 rebuilt that ground, now they just gotta fix the curb appeal...

 

[AlpsStranger]

Maybe I'm posting in anger, but I have a few more things I need to add...

Many of the systems present in Civ4 are not sacrosanct "features" of the Civ series as a whole. They are Civ4 features. Civ5 has just as much in common with original Civ as Civ4 does, maybe more on some levels. Does this make Civ5 better automatically? Certainly not. On the other hand, the Civ series is not just Civ4. Civ5 is *very* true to the general themes and style of the Civ series, it is just a radical departure... from Civ4.

I know most fans want every sequel to be a purely additive affair, but this is impractical for literally thousands of reasons. Civ4 boiled over to a level of complexity where it was completely inevitable that the sequel would be less, or at least no more, complex.

The goal of Civ5, I imagine, was to retain as much depth as possible while removing as much complexity as possible. Did they succeed? We'll have to see how we all feel about that as things go on. There goal was not to ruin, sell out, or dumb down the series. I'm sure they love it at *least* as much as any of us.

 

[ainwood]

Maybe I'm posting in anger, but I have a few more things I need to add...

Moderator Action: Well, the rest of this post here was well thought out. Hopefully people will respond to the actual points like you did, and we'll have a decent discussion!

 

[Asterix Rage]

I'd like stacks back ...just a bit !

Probably 2 or 3 maximum after a nationnal wonder built maybe... (Just a quick idea)
Also, no stack limit when an unit need to use a road when an other sleep on it.

Spying is THE feature I'd like back.

 

[beholder2]

4. We want local happiness back: CiV's global happiness system makes the game MUCH shallower, it's like playing a game for 10-year-olds.

8. We want the old map grid back: sure, hexes are interesting at first glance and seems to make the game look complicated (reminds me of a boardgame), but after several games they begin to get on our nerves.

So you claim that global system is the contrary of "complex" and you prefer the previous system because you think it was more complex to just move a slide bar from one point when your income for example was just below 0 , than having a whole empire system? And you claim hex should be remove because it complexes the game too much ?? lol

 

[KAuss]

The honest truth is that the move from Civ 1 to 2 was pretty bad, Civ 2 to 3 was great, and Civ 3 to 4 was WOW-mazing...

Civ 4 to 5 seems like a few steps back but that's only if you dig skin deep... As said, Civ 4 has quirks about itself where I can't agree with and main example was the tech every 3 turns on marathon in modern era... I know I've read too many posts here about the end game in 4 and how short it is...

Civ 4 falls apart after Medieval Era... The empire is pretty much set, you're on your way to winning, you have that ONE huge fight for your life or for your victory... Once you're past that, it's a click-fest to the end...

I HATED the micro of the million man army in all the previous Civ games... How every turn I have to move these units to form a stack... Then by time that stack gets to where it's going, it is meeting with far superior teched units... That has always left a foul taste in my mouth...

I hated the inflation system, I hated how econ meant so much in that game... There are a lot of things I hated about Civ 4, but the AI was never one of them so at least the game was playable...

I wish Civ 4 -> 5 was so wow-mazing as 3 -> 4... In some ways it is, but replay value is lacking by quite a huge margin...

 

[ChaplainDMK]

So you wan't a carbon copy of Civ 4? Why don't you just play that? It costs like 15$ for the game + all the expansions if you don't have it already...

 

[lietkynes]

This thread made me laugh

 

[TaylorFlame]

This thread is a prime example of why you never assume your view is the view of the majority.

 

[Teodosio]

I didn't vote because I don't want back any of those!

Stack (no more 1UPT): much easier to move armies around.

SoD was terrible in previous Civs, it was the only thing I really hated in Civilization. I'm glad we have 1upt at last.

Local happiness instead of the shallow global happiness.

I like a lot more global happiness. Global happiness is forcing me to be very careful with expansion instead of just conquering everything.

Multiple units for each strategic resource: makes more sense historically

Actually finite resources are much better since it is meaningful now to make war for acquire some more resources. In Civ 4 once you had a copy of a resource you didn't need more. In Civ 5 when you reach modern age and you find 1 uranium in your land you have to start moving!

The old slider system: makes for more dynamic gameplay.

With the slider system gold was basically useless. You just wanted to maximize science and get as much gold to pay expenses and nothing more. Now gold becomes a factor and you have to carefully plan in advance if you want plenty of it, is it not enough any more to just change a slider.

No more purchasing units with gold.

This has been available in every Civ game, in Civ IV you just needed the civic. Unit was available for moving next turn, as it is in Civ 5.

Religion: what makes cIV the best in the series!

I never found religion really interesting. For me it was just a mad rush to get the tech first, then get the great person, then build the shrine and spread. There was really no variation in the "religion game", it was not really fun.

cIV's great graphics: current graphics in ciV is a joke.

There are some thing worst in Civ V (rivers!!) but some things rocks. I love how the skyscrapers reflect light as you move your gamera!

The old map grid: hexes does NOT make CiV look deep!

Hexes are so much better for movement, I hated the diagonal-movement exploit we had with squares.

By the way I am a player since Civ 2.

 

[JohnRM]

I'd settle for being able to trade world maps.

 

[tinstaafl]

At the OP.

I haven't had a lot of fun with ciV up to now (a good part of that is probably my machine though, really). And i'm a big fan of civ4. But since civ4, to me, is a very polished game, why would i want to have everything from civ4 back in civ5? Civ4 already exists. It is GOOD that they experimented, because just an upgrade to civ4 would probably not have made anything better.
Especially since mods can already do that for civ4, if you really need more than base BTS has to offer.

If i had to choose from your list i might choose religion, just because ciV seems to be a bit devoid of features, but i don't miss religion in particular and don't know how it could be made to make sense in ciV. I didn't click on anything though because i feel the poll is broken, and also because there is no banana option.

 

[aziantuntija]

This poll is like some commist countrys elections! There is only one party option to vote for and that is the communist party.

 

[craig123]

Like most people here, I have been an avid Civ player since Civ I, and I have to say Civ V is such an abomination compared to cIV BtS expansions, not to mention the worst of the series by far.

That's your opinion; I happen to disagree.

I believe I can speak for the majority of the Civ players here...

What makes you think that? Have you asked people if you speak for them? You certainly don't speak for me. I assume that's why your poll doesn't have the option "I like the changes in Civ5." Now you can claim that 100% of people agree with one of your options. Why set up a poll in the first place if you think you speak for most people?

Do you have a dictionary to hand? Here's a list of words for you to look up: Unbiased, Impartial, Balance, Fair, Objective, Open-minded, Unprejudiced, Neutral.

...regarding features that absolutely must be brought back to Civ V, hopefully in future patches or expansions. These features are so essential to the whole Civ experience that I am not sure why Firaxis removed them in this generation.

In short, because they were making a new game. Do you honestly expect a patch to bring back squares and stacks?

1. We want our stack back: 1UPT makes moving units around so tedious and it's hard to get into formations in battle.

You mad? Getting rid of stacks was the best move they made. Whatever Civ5's flaws, 1UpT was a fantastic move. (Now the AI just needs to be improved.)

2. We want the old strategic resource system back: who came up with the idea that one iron mine can only generate one swordman? If I have an iron mine, I should be able to put it to use and build as many iron units as I want.

Again, this was a great change that was almost universally commended on these forums when it was announced. Why should someone with one oil resource be able to build as many oil-based units and buildings that someone with ten resources? (Why do you think, IRL, that countries that already have oil go to war with other oil-producing nations?) What incentive was there in Civ4 to claim a second/third/fourth oil resource when you already had one (other than, occasionally, stopping someone else from claiming it when they didn't have oil already)? Why would you care if a resource was pillaged if you had plenty of others? I can't believe you're unable to see to benefit of this change.

3. We want our slider back: the ability to shift the macro focus of your empire to either wealth/science/happiness is more dynamic than the current system.

The slider was more "dumbed down" (a popular phrase atm) than the new system, which now requires more long-term planning and strategy. Saying "I want 100% of my GDP(?) to be spent on science...no, wait, change that to 60% science, 40% gold...no, change that to 80% science, 20% culture" is not realistic or clever. "It's like playing a game for 10-year-olds" to quote yourself. In the vast majority of games, the slider was just kept on maximum affordable science anyway. If the new system is too difficult for you to understand, just admit it.

4. We want local happiness back: CiV's global happiness system makes the game MUCH shallower, it's like playing a game for 10-year-olds.

Not really. You can't just ignore cities now until they hit their health/happy cap. You have to decide which cities are allowed to grow. Do you want to save happiness for the golden age counter? Should I improve my happiness before going to war? There is certainly depth there. Again, maybe you just don't see it.

5. No more purchasing units/buildings plz: it makes no sense to buy a building and it's suddenly there the next turn. Firaxis please remove this feature. Realistically, gold should haste the production process, but not producing things out of thin air.

Maybe. I see where you're coming from here. But in Civ4 you could rush-buy a building you had just started constructing. And it's not really out of thin air - each turn is 1-50 years.

6. We want religion back: religion is what makes cIV a much deeper game than all others in the series, including ciV. Why did they remove religion?

They removed it because it had far too strong an effect on diplomacy: the AI would either love you or hate you based on your religion, whereas human players wouldn't care less what religion another player was. I'd like it return in an expansion pack though (see my sig).

7. Bring back the graphics of cIV: as many players have noted since the game's release, ciV's graphics is absolutely terrible. Rivers and trading posts are just plain ugly. It's just about on par with Civ III if you ask me.

I agree that rivers and trading posts could look better but overall I think the graphics are great. (It's funny though that in one thread people will say that graphics don't matter in Civ games, then in the next thread will complain that things look ugly.) Why would you ask for Civ4's graphics though? I can understand asking for graphics to be improved but why ask for old graphics from an old game?

8. We want the old map grid back: sure, hexes are interesting at first glance and seems to make the game look complicated (reminds me of a boardgame), but after several games they begin to get on our nerves.

"Our" nerves? How many people are you? (Oh, that's right...you speak for the majority! Silly me!) Hexes are a great addition. What's complicated? Why is your brain offended by six-sided polygons? Btw, I've seen more boardgames that use squares than use hexes.

Firaxis, please pay more attention to what we the core Civ players really want.

"Core Civ players"? Read: "Me and the vocal minority that are so blinded by our hatred for Civ5 that we cannot view gameplay changes objectively; those of us that think Civ4 was so perfect that any change from Civ4 must be bad; those of us that act like we want Firaxis to fail." You do realise that, after spending $millions on making the game, Firaxis has to appeal to more than just uber-hardcore fans. As an earlier poster said, the ultimate aim is to make a game that easy for a first-time player to jump into and understand the basics, while being deep enough to take years to master. I don't think we'll know whether they've achieved that until several months down the line.

Until these problems have been fixed, I'll stick to my cIV.

You'll be waiting a long time . To be honest, it's probably best you do stick to Civ4. It sounds like the only way Firaxis could have pleased you was to put a Civ4 disk in the Civ5 box.

 

[craig123]

This poll is like some commist countrys elections! There is only one party option to vote for and that is the communist party.

I LOLed! Reminds me of this: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/2331951.stm

 

[beholder2]

The truth is that cIV was way way too much complicated, with too many mechanics ands thing you had to care about if you wanted to rule the game.
You needed hundred and hundred our hour gaming to fully really enjoy the game and be able to say 'I understand now all mechanical of this game, how it works and I'm able to take the right decision in all my cities at turn X after an event occured'.

Ok it was a deep and excellent strategy game, but honestly it was way too much complicated for normal gamers who won't spend so much time in a game.

ciV is less complicated with less things that you can micro-manage, and is still an very good strategy game with lots of mechanics.

Actually, its lack of AI and an inbalanced gameplay are the main problem. We have to wait for these 2 points to be corrected to be really able to say if ciV is better than cIV, or is just another game which has been released for most common players instead of hardcore civilization's players.