1. We have added a Gift Upgrades feature that allows you to gift an account upgrade to another member, just in time for the holiday season. You can see the gift option when going to the Account Upgrades screen, or on any user profile screen.
    Dismiss Notice

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. the_lor

    the_lor Chieftain

    Joined:
    Sep 21, 2010
    Messages:
    43
    I would like to see a few features from 4 brought back into 5, but I can’t support many of those statements.

    1. The stacks were an abomination that made war entirely uninteresting.
    2. I disagree on principle, and it wouldn’t work with 1upt, which I happen to like.
    3. I disagree here as well. I thought that was a fairly shallow way to manage your empire. The current way requires a lot more long range planning and decision making to manage your economy, science, etc.
    4. I more or less agree here. It makes little sense to me that conquering a city on another continent can make my capital unhappy.
    5. This isn’t a new feature.
    6. I would like some form of religion reintroduced. It was done horribly in 4, but that doesn’t mean it can’t be done well. In Civ 4 it was auto-alliance or auto-hate, and it eventually became a pointless tech rush to found religions and get the GP buildings.
    7. I honestly don’t care about graphics.
    8. I vastly prefer hexes. Movement is a lot more fair/even now.
     
  2. JP1

    JP1 Warlord

    Joined:
    Nov 11, 2009
    Messages:
    185
    Location:
    Atlanta, GA
    All of the changes listed in the poll are prefectly fine to me. The only issue I have with Civ5 other than obviously unintentional bugs and balance issues is the diplomacy. You make trades, beg, and make demands, and other than that, you essentially have a button which says, "Would you like do be more unfriendly with this guy over here?" and one which says, "Would you like to be more friendly with me?" Feels very ham-handed.
     
  3. CandleJack

    CandleJack Chieftain

    Joined:
    Sep 20, 2010
    Messages:
    34
    Civ 5 just needs some patches.
     
  4. jtwood

    jtwood Warlord

    Joined:
    Feb 23, 2004
    Messages:
    128
    It gets people's attention.

    I'd venture a guess that he works in marketing or is the editor of a newspaper/magazine/blog, where headlines often sensationalize the drab content within.
     
  5. JP1

    JP1 Warlord

    Joined:
    Nov 11, 2009
    Messages:
    185
    Location:
    Atlanta, GA
    All of the changes listed in the poll are prefectly fine to me. In fact, a vast majority of the changes in the poll make me very happy. (Hexes are great, one unit per tile is great, religion really boiled down to a very forced, unnatural way to push conflict which only worked because the AI enforced it, and so on.)

    The only issue I have with Civ5 other than obviously unintentional bugs and balance issues is the diplomacy. You make trades, beg, and make demands, and other than that, you essentially have a button which says, "Would you like to be more unfriendly with this guy over here?" and one which says, "Would you like to be more friendly with me?" Feels very ham-handed.
     
  6. Mrdarklight

    Mrdarklight Warlord

    Joined:
    Mar 27, 2002
    Messages:
    255
    Location:
    Sacramento, CA
    Folks, this post has encouraged me to come forward and air my complaints too. Specifically, I think we need to change some of these things:

    1. Why such high resolution? Civ 1 had very low resolution and was still fun.
    2. Why such rich colors and smooth graphics? I prefer the blocky, low-color graphics of the original Civilization.
    3. Whats with all the talking and music? In the classic days of gaming we just had beeps, and we were darn happy to hear those beeps too.
     
  7. jtwood

    jtwood Warlord

    Joined:
    Feb 23, 2004
    Messages:
    128
    I know you're being snarky, but I would seriously rather play a game with a functioning backbone and poor graphics than the opposite.

    If I had to choose. ;)
     
  8. damahala

    damahala Chieftain

    Joined:
    Sep 30, 2010
    Messages:
    1
    I think limited stack should be a better idea then no stack at all. What I mean is the number of the unit one tile can hold should depend on its capacity. For example, the plains should be able to hold more units than mountain. That way, it doesn't actually defeat the original purpose of removing the giant huge monster stack, and also add more strategy factor back to the game.
     
  9. Hacksaaw

    Hacksaaw Chieftain

    Joined:
    Sep 21, 2010
    Messages:
    9
    Graphics could still be exceptional without going the 3d route, which was not necessary for Civ IV or V. The way graphics was implemented, rendered massively unnecessary loads upon the system.

    im just amazed at the people who love 1 unit per hex. its utterly idiotic for anything before the modern era. where you can think of the units as whole armies covering fronts of many miles, were as any unit before that covers about 100 yards at most with a range of 100 yards at most.

    Your whole army fits into one hex. if they wanted to give a tactical feel, they could have made battle boards an option for when armies fought.

    If the stack of doom was so horrific, then perhaps some sort of supply limit could have been placed upon the units, especially as the game gets towards the modern era where limits on stacking and forcing armies to spread out makes some sort of sense.
     
  10. timtofly

    timtofly One Day

    Joined:
    Sep 28, 2009
    Messages:
    9,429
    You can change all of the graphic settings to low and swap out the sound files for those with beeps.

    This thread would probably get wanted results if it was moved to the Civ4 forum.

    About the AI. It is in it's infancy. In creating an AI that is more human thinking, it is going to take awhile. If any thing it needs to have a learning curve and every time you play the game, it plays differently to match your game strategy. If the developers did not allow for this, then I would call them dumb, not the AI.

    This itteration has great potential, just give it time.
     
  11. Blitz66

    Blitz66 Chieftain

    Joined:
    Sep 24, 2010
    Messages:
    67
    I've had my share of disappointments with Civ 5, but the OP does not speak for me.

    I've been a Sid fan since Microprose too btw.
     
  12. timtofly

    timtofly One Day

    Joined:
    Sep 28, 2009
    Messages:
    9,429
    If I understand you correcly, you want a supply cap to limit the amount of units? That is what they did in 5. They capped the limit.

    If it is the graphics of what an army looks like on a map, 5 did that also. If your army fights or gets attacked, you have fewer "representatives". If you keep going without waiting for "re-inforcments" you may end up with only one soldier left. The only thing different is you do not have "wait" for a new unit to be created to join up with the existing one. The reality is there, just not the spamming.
     
  13. tpg0007

    tpg0007 Chieftain

    Joined:
    Sep 24, 2010
    Messages:
    17
    Seems OP should just play IV then...what's the problem?
     
  14. WeneedmoreCivs

    WeneedmoreCivs Warlord

    Joined:
    Sep 22, 2010
    Messages:
    125
    Actually, the polls show otherwise, most people really like Civ V, it's just that the whiners and complainers are more vocal than those of us who actually like this version.

    Says who? Who made you the authority on the Civ Community?

    Really? I find combat to be easier now, it takes a good strategy to take down a city instead of a stack of 20 swordsmen to face off against their stack of longbowmen with +75% city defense.

    ??? One iron mine can provide iron for as many as 12 units (if you use Russia), doesn't it seem MORE realistic to have limited resources rather than these magical spots that can provide a source of Iron for 4000 years?

    Everything is based on production now, which makes more sense. Science comes from population and improvements, not from taxes. Simply by changing my production focus in my cities I can shift from an empire that promotes happiness, science, commerce, production or growth quite easily.

    Really? I think Global happiness makes more sense. An individual city can have negative happiness and still be upset, but now the happiness actually plays a role in your civilization, providing golden ages in a way that is more than just "use great person to start golden age" and "build Taj Majal to enter golden age".
    HAVE YOU EVER PLAYED CIVILIZATION BEFORE? This happens in every version of the game. :hammer2:

    Wow. You could even buy WONDERS in previous games. Clearly you're not very experienced at playing Civ.

    Religion was okay, but it was not really that realistic. I simply played every game in a race to found as many religions as possible to build their super building that would generate TONS of gold for me. Tell me, is Mecca an economic powerhouse? How about the Dai Miao? Has that made its region crazy rich? Clearly not, but that was generally the main point of religion. That and the religious wars.

    The graphics are basically the same as Civ IV, not exactly terrible.

    Again, "it's too hard for me!" Waaa! I really don't see much of a difference between hexes and squares and it doesn't make it any more difficult.

    They did. Core CIV players wanted modability and a game that could stack mods without becoming unstable. If you want stacks back, there's a mod for that. If you want religions, there's gonna be a mod for that. If you want unlimited resources, there's a mod for that. Stop whining and complaining, especially when some of your complaints show a MASSIVE amount of ignorance. Just play Civ IV or V and stop whining about it on these boards which are meant for constructive discussion.
     
  15. cembandit

    cembandit Warlord

    Joined:
    Sep 8, 2010
    Messages:
    144
    Poll is a fallacy.

    //Edit

    Much better poll now, sorry.
     
  16. Gath

    Gath Warlord

    Joined:
    Feb 26, 2008
    Messages:
    221
    I think local happiness was functional better and more fun.
     
  17. AlpsStranger

    AlpsStranger Jump jump on the tiger!

    Joined:
    Feb 8, 2009
    Messages:
    5,820
    I think other issues with the game have prevented most players from giving global happiness a fair shake.
     
  18. badbonez

    badbonez Chieftain

    Joined:
    Feb 11, 2008
    Messages:
    14
    I voted something else, but it doesn't have to be an import from cIV. What I miss is espionage, there must be a way to figure out what your opponent is building in his cities or what direction his strategy is.

    I also miss:
    The animations when a wonder was completed
    The animation after achieving a victory
    The ability to resign
    More map choices
    ...probably a few other things I can't recall off the top of my head.

    But as you can see, these are minor things and will probably get patched in. Just remember what cIV was like BEFORE BTS. BTS was a great addition to the game, I expect they'll do similar things to ciV.
     
  19. ZenithSD

    ZenithSD Chieftain

    Joined:
    Feb 15, 2010
    Messages:
    5
    1. 1upt is fine. Ranged combat is not, it looks out of place and unless you view the game as skirmishes between groups of villages it makes no sense. What the hell they were thinking when they said "Hey...lets make archers having longer range than tanks"

    2. Strategic resources are also fine. It's happiness and bonus resources that i feel were badly implemented. It makes perfect sense that with a single resource of oil you should be able to sustain a smaller army than an empire who has three.

    3. I have to agree that the slider did provide depth to Civ4. However the old system was not that great either, as science was basically the only way to go unless you were late in the game and went for a cultural victory.

    4. Global happiness looks fine. The old system was about the same anyway. Plus turning extra happiness into golden ages is a great improvement and it also makes sense.

    5. I totally agree about buying stuff with gold. It's crap. Total crap. A neat idea i can think of is to bring back the old slider, and have science, culture and production as options. A slider for each city would be even better. That would leave maintenance, unit upgrades and diplomacy as the main uses of wealth.
    Not only the way this works currently ingame is unrealistic, but it's also frustrating. Say you want to buy a worker. It doesn't matter if you got one in queue half completed. It still costs the same. It doesn't matter if you got the public policy to increase production of workers by 25%. It still costs the same. If they really wanted this system at least make it work like Universal Suffrage civic in Civ4.
    The same thing can be said about buying tiles. It has "lazy" and "dumb" written all over it. Expanding tile by tile is a good change, however instead of being able to buy the tile, you should be able to chose the tile or tiles you want to focus your culture on. Each tile should have simple modifiers to the culture required to get it, based on the type of terrain, it's features and natural barriers.

    6. Religion. It was far from perfect in civ4, but removing it from a game that's trying to simulate an alternate history of human civilization is just shallow. On the other hand, the bonuses for founding or even having a religion were far too great in the previous civ, especially the religious shrine. The huge economic boost it gave was both imbalanced and unrealistic.

    7. More eye candy is always better. Well...not always but in this case it is. It's actually sad that the world map feels more real than ever yet the game feels artificial and abstract. Like someone said in some other thread on these forums, it's "chess with funny rules", it's no longer trying to be a simulator.

    8. Nothing wrong with hexes in my opinion. This change is definitely for the better.

    Overall, i think Civ5 has great potential. In the hands of a skilled modder.
     
  20. NCC81701

    NCC81701 Chieftain

    Joined:
    Nov 3, 2005
    Messages:
    47
    Something else: Working Diplomacy
     

Share This Page