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

Discussion in 'Civ5 - General Discussions' started by NobleJms, Sep 30, 2010.

?

Vote for which feature you'd like to see back in Civ V!

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

    76 vote(s)
    6.7%
  2. Local happiness instead of the shallow global happiness.

    117 vote(s)
    10.3%
  3. Multiple units for each strategic resource: makes more sense historically

    36 vote(s)
    3.2%
  4. The old slider system: makes for more dynamic gameplay.

    92 vote(s)
    8.1%
  5. No more purchasing units with gold.

    19 vote(s)
    1.7%
  6. Religion: what makes cIV the best in the series!

    169 vote(s)
    14.9%
  7. cIV's great graphics: current graphics in ciV is a joke.

    30 vote(s)
    2.6%
  8. The old map grid: hexes does NOT make CiV look deep!

    2 vote(s)
    0.2%
  9. Something else

    103 vote(s)
    9.1%
  10. Nothing, i like Civ5 how it is :).

    490 vote(s)
    43.2%
  1. VGT

    VGT Chieftain

    Joined:
    Sep 29, 2010
    Messages:
    67
    Location:
    Poland, Gdansk
    At start i missed that too, but then i think that this one makes games more interesting (like most of options in this weird poll that i won't vote). At my last game i'm almost at the end, only 2 civs to conquer, but i still don't know where is one of them ;) so it's important to explore through whole game, not just the beginning.
     
  2. generalwar

    generalwar Philosopher

    Joined:
    Jul 2, 2009
    Messages:
    407
    Location:
    Croatia
    Agree. All you have on your poll are bad things. And many people like new features in civ 5, like me. And you know that they didn't have enough time to finish it(money and that stuff :p) doesn't mean they won't improve it. This is the first civ release that I have ever been expacting, but I heard that there was lot of bugs in civ 4 too, but civ 3 was too bad so you all got the feeling that civ 4 was better. The same is here. There's enough threads of this type and this is becoming stupid. Critisise it on normal way and put an honest poll where I can say that I like civ 5. And I'm so happy with religion gone, you can't imagine.
     
  3. Stanislaw

    Stanislaw Chieftain

    Joined:
    Aug 18, 2010
    Messages:
    32
    I'll indulge.

    I noticed here that you mentioned Civilization V is an abomination compared to Civilization IV expansions. So I'm assuming that at the very least you're willing to give Civilization V expansions a chance because you obviously don't want to compare Civilization V to Civilization IV vanilla, which means you're already contradicting yourself with your thread's title of 'Final Verdict'. Final means final. You're not giving any second chances. To give this assumption some proof, you then go on and say:

    Thanks for proving my point. See, the way you say it gives us the impression you only wanted to use the words 'Final Verdict' in the thread's title for shock value/grab attention. If you've been around playing the Civilization series since the original title's release like you claim, surely you must be old and mature enough to realize that such posts will not be taken seriously?

    The 'majority' you speak of seems to be disproved already by the lack of general support I see thus far in the thread, so I won't get into that. The word 'many', or possibly 'some' would've been probably be more accurate. We have no way of determining the exact statistics of the happy vs the disgruntled, but like how the daily news reports more bad news than good, the amount of opinions offered here doesn't necessarily reflect the opinion of the majority.

    I'll get to the bold part later.

    I'm getting the impression you have no qualms about the unit's battle system itself, and only want 1UPT removed for the sake of convenience between unit movement. On the other hand, if 1UPT is removed, it will destroy the current battle system as it stands, not to mention the AI right now can't handle it (as if it isn't bad enough, as many people say it is, already). To be fair, one can of course could argue my point only reinforces how bad Civilization V is designed, but then again many people can argue that stacks of doom in Civilization IV was equally ridiculous and an example of bad design.

    However, since the 1UPT battle system gives terrain, promotions, and unit positions more importance over Civilization IV (Terrain? Who cares? Promotions? Combat I~V all the way! Unit Positions? I have my stacks of doom!), Civilization V's battle system I find has a higher potential for actual planning and strategy, especially so once the AI is improved to the point that it fully understands how it works.

    This quote confuses me because you mention realism in point 5. When it comes to strategic resource realism, the current system is highly more realistic than that of Civilization IV in which one resource provided the whole empire limitless amounts of that said resource to build whatever you needed. One coal mine providing power to an entire continent via Factories and enough materials to lay down an entire railroad network is pretty funny when you think about it. Not to mention unrealistic. Then again, it's just a game.

    Or perhaps are you referring to the ridiculousness of how one whole iron resource can only support one swordsman - one person? If so you are quite wrong, because that iron resource is supporting one swordsman unit. On the map you only see only so many people, but in fact the unit represents a whole army representing much more than that. Don't believe me? Check Demographics and compare. It's been like that in Civilization IV too.

    Also, don't forget one mine (or improvement) usually generates more than one strategic resource.

    While it is true that it is much harder to focus one's empire to concentrate on wealth, science, or happiness (culture) in this game due to the lack of slider, doesn't that also mean it makes a player actually think about the direction they want to take their empire, thus making it more 'dynamic'? If you add a slider system to this game, it'll just make things easier, and I don't think making things easier turns a game into something more 'dynamic'. As if we don't have enough people complaining how easy this game is already...

    I'm going have to question your reasons in thinking why Global Happiness makes the game shallower. Global Happiness, in my opinion, is a change that made the happiness issue easier to understand, so, to put it in your context, it would be easier for a 10-year-old to understand happiness better than understanding happiness in Civilization IV because it's glaring at you right on top of the screen. But when it comes to managing happiness? Much, much harder. It is so much easier to slip into unhappiness in Civilization IV than it was in Civilization V, and the consequences of slipping into unhappiness is profoundly harsher in Civilization V because it was turned into a empire-wide concern instead of a local one.

    If Civilization IV from the start implemented a happiness system similar to the one introduced in the "Revolutions" modpack, I'd probably be more inclined to side with your opinion because that system was extremely complex.

    Now you've really confused me because... correct me if I'm wrong... but hasn't the purchasing units/buildings option been in place since the original Civilization? In fact, Civilization IV had by far the easiest system to rush build units/buildings (Slavery, Universal Suffrage, Nationhood) and you were even able to rush Wonders of the World if one so chooses to (which in this incarnation of Civilization, one cannot). It could be strongly argued that this feature is essential to the whole Civilization experience. So why do you want have another essential feature removed when you said you weren't sure why Firaxis removed others? (refer to earlier bolded part)

    This is a matter of personal opinion because others have expressed similar concerns, but I didn't find I missed religion so much when I played through my Civilization V experience.

    Religion in Civilization IV, in my opinion, added transparent diplomacy because it made it incredibly easy to 'suck up' to an AI by switching to the correct religion, be it by request or by impulse. You basically knew who was going to be your enemy and who was going to be your ally depending on who had what religion. And, typically, religious diplomatic bonuses heavily favored other positive bonuses. I could easily create a new best friend by switching to their religion, and they instantly like me better than my next door neighbor who I've shared open borders with a thousand years only because they have different religions. I'm not saying Religion = Diplomacy in Civilization IV, but it was certainly a large chunk of it. I also didn't like the fact that when I wanted to be aggressive and take land from the AI, I typically had to declare war on a nation of the same religion because of the way religions spread. Not to mention the fact that the later religions hardly played a role in the game. Typically the first three or four did the job.

    Again, I will stress this is only my personal opinion. I'm sure many others will disagree with my points and argue how religion made the Civilization IV experience unique and more in-depth, but I won't disagree nor deny the many positive aspects religion brought to the overall Civilization IV experience. So I'm rather neutral on the matter.

    And heck, there might be hope for you yet. Some people found evidence of religion in Civilization V's XML code (I think), giving rise to rumors that religion might be released through further content.

    First, bringing back the graphics of a previous generation game is typically a bad idea. Each successive incarnation of Civilization brought in different, and often better graphics, and this rule typically applies to all serialized games so I don't see any reason why any game would do such a thing. If they did bring the graphics of Civilization IV into Civilization V, even with all the new features, people would complain and argue that this is Civilization 4.5 and not V. Changes and improvements to graphics in a game is an important step to differentiate itself from its previous generation.

    As for the argument that Civilization V's graphics are terrible, I think in the end this comes down to personal taste. Some people say Pablo Picasso art is fantastic, other will say it's garbage. My definition of 'good graphics' is: 'is it pleasing to the eye?', 'can I do that?' and 'can I do better than that'? When I apply that to Civilization V, yes, I think it's pleasing to the eye (while I sort of understand the fuss about rivers, I don't think the huts look that bad) and given my degree of artistic skills, that answer to the last two questions is no. So I will have to disagree with your opinion.

    Personally, I don't think anyone has the right to criticize graphics unless one can match and outperform the criticized one's quality. But again, that's just me. Like they say, everyone's a critic.

    I can't comment much on this issue because you didn't give us the exact reason why it gets on yours nerves - although if I had to guess it'd be because of something like 1UPT or you're simply not used to the idea and therefore don't like it (kind of like how some people like 2D fighting games but don't like 3D fighting games even though 3D is more 'realistic'). However, just because hexes gets on your nerves doesn't translate to you speaking for the 'rest of us'. Giving us your opinion is one thing, but forcing us your opinion is another thing entirely.

    Looking over at all the previously mentioned 'problems' you've brought us attention to, what you want is Civilization IV and not Civilization V at all. If one were to fully 'implement back' all the features you listed (except point 5), you'll pretty much end up with the exact same thing as Civilization IV, except with better graphics. You could have just installed something like the "Blue Marble" mod pack in Civilization IV and you would've had exactly what you wanted.

    Civilization V is not Civilization IV's newest expansion. Civilization V is a Civilization game that takes the basic elements of a 4X game (Explore, Expand, Exploit, and Exterminate) and mold it into the 'Civilization' flavor - an entirely new game built from the ground up, just as it had done four times (plus spinoffs) before. There has never been any Civilization game which had all the same features as its predecessor. What it attempted to do every time was to keep the basic premise the same and instead add entirely new features to give us, the players, an entirely new experience. If they succeed in doing that, well, that's up to the individuals to find out. And while there are people like you out there who are disgruntled with the game, you will have to also realize there are plenty of people who like the game as is as well. And things can only improve from here on end. And that, as strange as it sounds coming from me who had criticized your post as I did, is thanks to people like you. Ultimately it is criticism - feedback - that makes a game better. And given enough time, I'm sure Civilization V will turn into a game many players will agree its fantastic.

    But until then, there's always Civilization IV. ;)
     
  4. generalwar

    generalwar Philosopher

    Joined:
    Jul 2, 2009
    Messages:
    407
    Location:
    Croatia
    Sorry if I'm posting twice in a row, but I haven't seen this answer and civ 4 was a good game, I liked it, but I think that, when they fix this AI stupidities, you'll see how great this game is! It's going to be a real challenging game, because you'll have to think about formations for real, not like now, when the AI is stupid. Just give 'em little time, you'll get your real civ 5 ;). And yes, stacks of doom(SOD's) were really terrible idea compared to 1UPT in civ 5 but it worked pretty well with square tiles, you gotta admit that:goodjob:.
     
  5. Superluminal

    Superluminal Warlord

    Joined:
    Aug 5, 2010
    Messages:
    103
    Location:
    USA
    This whole thread and it's poll are invalid. All options are stacked against Civ V. Accept the fact that Civ V has propelled us into a new epoch, the likes of which we have seen before. War has changed, for the better. Adapt your tactics on the battlefield or face extinction like a dinosaur.
     
  6. Swayde

    Swayde Chieftain

    Joined:
    Nov 22, 2005
    Messages:
    26
    Location:
    Florida
    Totally agree with you. My vote would be 9, None of the Above
     
  7. Dorkhan

    Dorkhan Chieftain

    Joined:
    Sep 25, 2010
    Messages:
    26
    Where is the option for ''something else'' and for map trading and the end video which shows how the game was played (like wonders, culture expansions etc.)?
    I think this is rigged! :o

    P.S Play the game before these, as you don't need 4 nodes of iron for 4 nodes of horsemen? You get random supply of iron from a single mine. At leasts that's the case with oil? (or am I having some invisible oil wells and iron mines in my empire...=
    Global happiness is way more important to keep up than the city-wide happiness was in CivIV. I could just conquer my enemy and let his cities be unhappy and on the verge of revolt, but I couldn't care less as long as my specialist cities were OK. Now, you need to take care of the whole empire, which makes happiness more important, and luxury resources needed rather than having some for lols.
    AND now you really NEED strategic resources you buy from your neighbour, in Civ4 you just ''loaned'' them for a turn and made a stack of horsemen to capture his city that has the horses, for example.

    Voted religion though, as even though I don't miss it at all, I loved the idea to play like a religious fanatic, declaring wars according to religion. Don't need it in Civ5 though, it's good as it is ^^
     
  8. generalwar

    generalwar Philosopher

    Joined:
    Jul 2, 2009
    Messages:
    407
    Location:
    Croatia
    This thread should be closed. There is many threads that criticize civ 5 but have good arguments for that. And as Stanislaw mentioned, it's only your opinion. I can't believe that you have played civ since civ 1, I can't believe that.
     
  9. King of Spades

    King of Spades Chieftain

    Joined:
    Sep 20, 2010
    Messages:
    66
    Location:
    Parts Unknown
    Where is the "we don't want any of the above back"-option?
     
  10. Niptium

    Niptium Warlord

    Joined:
    Oct 18, 2005
    Messages:
    272
    Location:
    Montréal, Québec
    As I went down the list, I couldn't help but notice that I wanted none of this back (especially the graphics, who in their sane mind would like something 6 years old?)

    All I really want is the multiplayer experience we had in Civ4 which isn't quite there yet with Civ5.
     
  11. wilebill

    wilebill Warlord

    Joined:
    Oct 27, 2005
    Messages:
    160
    Location:
    Ohio
    "Why on earth do I need an icon that says "Civ5" but boots up Civ4?" -- AlpsStranger

    Actually, this is a good idea. This simple modification solves all of the bug problems and technical issues!

    I had to say religion on this poll. Having seen how things turned out, Civ IV was best left untouched. The "improvements" in Civ V are now a matter of choice; as they should be.
     
  12. Akaoz

    Akaoz Warlord

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2001
    Messages:
    121
    Location:
    Europe
    I vote "Banana".

    You could have had an option for "I like the new features"...
     
  13. mamuz

    mamuz Chieftain

    Joined:
    Sep 21, 2010
    Messages:
    44
    Personnaly, i don't want to see back all of this points.
     
  14. Taygeta

    Taygeta Chieftain

    Joined:
    Sep 30, 2010
    Messages:
    11
    Location:
    Finland
    To add some gunpowder to the fire..
    Many hex turn-based games have stacking limits, so why not in CIV too?

    I used to play Steel Panthers, and certainly there was a stacking limit/hex.
    I like new hexes in CIV V, but only one unit/hex is too limited. How about only 2-3 units per hex?

    If one hex is around 10-20 km size, there should be enough space for 2-3 units.
    Of course, this makes bombardments from city very funny, because you are using archers that fire arrows across 20km when bows and arrows are not even invented.. :eek:

    I only miss religions, and some other more complex features that were in IV.. :goodjob: Some aspects in V are just too simplified.. :rolleyes:
     
  15. The Grolar Bear

    The Grolar Bear Chieftain

    Joined:
    Sep 22, 2010
    Messages:
    2
    The OP does not speak for this bear!
     
  16. remconius

    remconius Deity

    Joined:
    Jun 22, 2003
    Messages:
    2,470
    Location:
    Amstelveen, NL
    I did not pick any one. I like all the things that have changed.

    They need to fix performance, improve AI, improve UI and balance things a bit.

    If I wanted any of the things in the poll I would go and play civ IV.
     
  17. Styg

    Styg Chieftain

    Joined:
    Sep 30, 2010
    Messages:
    8
    i dont agree with any option selected.
     
  18. Öjevind Lång

    Öjevind Lång Deity

    Joined:
    Aug 22, 2005
    Messages:
    2,371
    I like everything you''ve included in your list. Above all, I emphatically do not wish the stack of doom back. Now, the battles actually feel like real battles.

    Once they have removed the bugs, it will be a splendid game. Making the cost for roads and railways just a little less punitive would also be a good deed.
     
  19. craig123

    craig123 Prince

    Joined:
    May 13, 2010
    Messages:
    314
    Location:
    UK
    Civilization is in no way realistic when it comes to time and distance - it never has been and it doesn't try to be. It is abstact. For example, is it realistic than on Earth maps you can only fit one city in the British Isles? Is it realistic that a Warrior takes 1000 years to produce and then it takes 200 years for it to walk to a neighbouring city?

    I don't see how having 2 or 3 UpT would make things any more "realistic".
     
  20. Eejit

    Eejit Chieftain

    Joined:
    Jun 4, 2002
    Messages:
    82
    Location:
    Northern Ireland
    You believe wrongly.

    Hell no, 1UPT + Hexes is a massive improvement in combat. It means you have to use some tactics as well as strategy. Stacks of Doom were the essence of tedium.
    Disagree. It introduces more conflict over strategic resources if they are limited. Also I don't recall ever seeing one with an abundance of less than two. The highest I've found was an 8 Aluminium, so it's hardly "1 iron mine 1 swordsman". Strawman?

    The old system was shallower. The ease of rapidly switching the focus of your entire economy removed much long-term strategic planning. All you needed was good overall "economy", now you need several separate economies to be healthy.

    I don't see it making anything shallower really, it's simply a flavour difference. Neither more or less complex, just a shift in focus.

    Kinda agree. But at least all the whipping exploits are gone. Talk about gamebreaking...

    Bull. Religion was chock-a-block with exploits and simplification. It dumbed down diplomacy significantly and removed choice because the only really smart decision was to try and found and spread a religion.

    Rivers need some work. Trading posts perhaps too. The rest is at least as good imo. Though Your Mileage May Vary that just sounds like hyperbole.

    Nope, they make the maps look better, especially coastlines. Work quite well with 1UPT too.

    If they make those changes it will be Civ4. :rolleyes:
     

Share This Page