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

[klokwerk]

@TLF : Civ 5 is not realistic, it's a game. Fun > realism.

Who cares what is hapiness in real life. Fact is it's less tedious to manage it on the empire level than city per city.

Civ 5 tried removing everything tedious from Civ 4, and they did a great job at it in my opinion. I couldn't see me going back to Civ 4 now.

 

[MkLh]

This is what I would like to see. I'd want to combine a unit like swords with spears so the spears could defend against horses, etc.

I don't want unlimited stacks brought back.

Limited stacks would mean you must organize all your troops in multiple small stacks (since there isn't any reason to not use the maximum stack allowed always). I'm afraid that would make managing units much more tedious that it's now or than it was with an unlimited stack. No thanks. Stacks are gone for good, just leave them behind.

 

[Humakty]

@ all : civ 4 is not realistic at all, and tedious/uninteresting on some points. civ 5 is more realistic/less tedious.

unrealistic tedious fun < more realistic less tedious fun

 

[LegioCorvus]

I believe I can speak for the majority of the Civ players here regarding features that absolutely must be brought back to Civ V...

No. You really don't.

So far, most people like 1UPT & Hexes. The issues most of us are having have to do with bugs, a weak AI, and other errors.

You completely missed the forest for the trees. In fact, I think you mistook it for an ocean.

 

[duxup]

Religion is the only feature I'd like added back. I'm sure it will be back as word has it, it was originally going to be in Civ V.

Aside from that I LIKE most of those changes you noted.

 

[TLF]

@TLF : Civ 5 is not realistic, it's a game. Fun > realism.

Who cares what is hapiness in real life. Fact is it's less tedious to manage it on the empire level than city per city.

Civ 5 tried removing everything tedious from Civ 4, and they did a great job at it in my opinion. I couldn't see me going back to Civ 4 now.

Yes, I know.

I was responding to this;

"As for happiness, I could have a city with very low happiness (for whatever reason), and it had no impact on the nation as a whole. At least now we have the impression of playing an empire, not a bunch of city states sharing apparently nothing with their neighbours."

 

[Celevin]

Did people even play Civ4? Do people realize how bad that game would be if it came out today, even with BTS? The AI would be mocked.

Yes it was a good game when it came out. Sorry, but in the game industry things change drastically every year.

 

[keweedsmo]

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

No. Why would we want the stack back. It was the opposite of strategy...

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.

First off. 1 iron mine builds 2 iron units. You clearly don't understand the purpose of this system. it's to make resources more valuable and to make each of your units more valuable. I guess since you don't understand the purpose of removing stacks, you also don't understand the purpose of this.

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.

This system was unrealistic and pretty much watered down the strategy of the game. Need some gold? Just sacrifice some science, culture, or espionage for a few turns....It made no sense. The sliders weren't a great system and I can't for the life of me understand why people would want them back...other than because they wish Civ 5 was a glorified Civ 4 expansion pack.

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.

The things you say are beginning to irritate me. You either don't understand that they are fairly similar or you don't understand how the system is actually more complicated than a 10-year-olds game...Happiness ties into almost every other system in the game. It is a huge balancing act with happiness, maintenance, city-state relations, diplomacy and trading, and wasting build time on happiness structures.

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.

lol...first of all. there is ultimately no difference between rushing and purchasing. Also, if I'm not mistaken, you CAN just purchase arms from corporations and other nations in real life...

I will say this though, I wouldn't be opposed to making purchases only available to units and not buildings.

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?

While I really enjoyed religion in Civ 4, it was a clusterf%$k when it came to diplomacy. If you read anything about Civ 5 6 months prior to it's release you would know this is why they removed it. I'd love to see it re-implemented into the game in an expansion. Maybe call it...Civilization 5: Mysticism

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.

Maybe you don't have a good computer or graphics card. Maybe you're on DX9. Maybe you need a new prescription for your glasses...but these graphics are beautiful on my computer.

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.

You clearly don't like change...You complain that happiness is "too simple" but you also complain about a rather simplistic hex grid system because it's "too complicated"...that's absurd. For the record, the hex grid system is in place mostly to cater to a more seamless environment as far as graphics are concerned. Most seem to think it's some bad attempt to make gameplay different, but that's not really the primary reason they switched to a hex grid.


All-in-all, I think you're a crybaby who should just go back and play Civ 4 if you liked it so much. You clearly don't like the changed that Civ 5 has brought to the table and that's fine, but stop complaining about it. They aren't just going to remove the hex system, or add the stack back just because you are crying about it. Just go play Civ 4 if it was that superior.

 

[Jaroth]

@NobleJms

Final Verdict?

Who are you and why do you think you can speak on my behalf as well as others?

Your poll also seems to disagree with you.

 

[Hacksaaw]

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.

sorry civ 5 broke the feel of a wargame, they overlaid an idiotic tactical game where archers have a range of 500 miles or whatever a hex is.

your whole army in the ancient era should be able to fit into a single hex, because hey it would have. instead of this just silly simplistic tactical game they have laid over a strategic game. the units a 1 per hex, just doesnt work at the scale of Civ. well at least at any time before the modern era.

what they should have done is made you form armies from the units built. with supply limiting how many units you can combine.

and those people who <snip> about people wanting an empire game, well sorry guys that is EXACTLY what many of us want. we want to build a globe spanning empire, that goes on to some sort of win. i dont want to win with 4 cities and a bunch of happiness. i want to win with 40 cities on a huge map after playing a great many hours, and usually after overcoming a different civ in each epoch as im growing stronger.

the biggest problem i had with Civ IV, was when a city would flip back to another civ the turn after i conquered it and ended the war with them. There should have been 2 limitations, one garrisons should have been able to put down the revolution, there should have been a free turn to attack the city and put the cause upon the receiving empire if they wanted to defend it for starting a war. You should always been able to attack a country that stole your city, even when playing as a democracy.

Moderator Action: Swearing is not allowed on these forums.
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889

 

[drachasor]

sorry civ 5 broke the feel of a wargame, they overlaid an idiotic tactical game where archers have a range of 500 miles or whatever a hex is.

your whole army in the ancient era should be able to fit into a single hex, because hey it would have. instead of this just silly simplistic tactical game they have laid over a strategic game. the units a 1 per hex, just doesnt work at the scale of Civ. well at least at any time before the modern era.

what they should have done is made you form armies from the units built. with supply limiting how many units you can combine.

and those people who <snip> about people wanting an empire game, well sorry guys that is EXACTLY what many of us want. we want to build a globe spanning empire, that goes on to some sort of win. i dont want to win with 4 cities and a bunch of happiness. i want to win with 40 cities on a huge map after playing a great many hours, and usually after overcoming a different civ in each epoch as im growing stronger.

It's far more like a wargame now than before. Yes, there ARE oddities. Riflemen can't attack from a distance, but archers can...odd. There are probably ways they can improve the system, but overall it does a tremendous job. You can actually simulate some of the logistical and geographic nightmares of something like the battle of Thermopylae.

The game is a bit rough around the edges, but some patching should fix the vast majority of that.

 

[andrewlt]

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

Yeah, that's the first thing that came to mind as well after reading the OP's poll. It's like a Saddam election.

 

[Zhahz]

I believe I can speak for the majority of the Civ players here regarding features that absolutely must be brought back to Civ V

I'd disgree, you can only speak for yourself.

 

[falconne]

@ all : civ 4 is not realistic at all, and tedious/uninteresting on some points. civ 5 is more realistic/less tedious.

unrealistic tedious fun < more realistic less tedious fun

Care to back that up with a breakdown of how the changes in mechanics have been made more realistic?

It seems to me every "streamlining" decision has ignored realistic simulation for the sake of less decision making.

 

[SillyGoat]

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.

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

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

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.


Firaxis, please pay more attention to what we the core Civ players really want. Until these problems have been fixed, I'll stick to my cIV.

Awesome troll.

Moderator Action: Calling others a troll is not allowed, please use the report post button if you have a problem with a particular post, thanks.
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889

 

[Humakty]

Care to back that up with a breakdown of how the changes in mechanics have been made more realistic?

It seems to me every "streamlining" decision has ignored realistic simulation for the sake of less decision making.

Read the thread, not just the last page ?

 

[wilmer007]

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.

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

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

Stacking does make the game run much better than 1UPT. However stacking also made the game essentially broken. I prefer balanced 1UPT than broken SoD.

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.

Right so u saying that if i have a farm in real life and i start with 2 horses, a male and a female; i'm suppose to skip breeding them to have more horses in the future because god is suppose to give me unlimited horses so i don't have to do the hard work. That makes no sense. Which is why Civ 5 is with strategic resources.

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.

Slider does not work well with this engne. if you really want to use sliders either use a leader who has the slider as an ability like the ability that gives you culture per turn; or go back to playing Civ IV.

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.

Lets see one city is happy and the other is unhappy. gee i'm suppose to take this as being balanced? so just because president obama gets criticized by one city and not the other cities they are suppose to impeach him because one city is unhappy with the way he runs the country? Yeah that is so fair/balanced...

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.

Ok so gold makes the world go round yet your saying that i should not be allowed to use the most important resource to improve my civilization? so in other words if a third world country in real life like say pakistan wants to buy nuclear weapons and have them shipped overnight with money or gold they can't do it? Who is gonna stop them from doing it? And what your also saying is that if i want to create the 8th wonder of the world in the U.S. and i have all the gold/money in the world to hire more workers to complete my wonder overnight or at a 90% production increase i am not allowed to? who are you to stop me and why would you stop me anyway? also if you try to stop me i can just pay you off and get you out of my way. see how money and gold make the world go round? Yet your telling me i can't use it for certain things? please tell me what i can use it on because your basically leaving me with very little choices and with very little choices why don't firaxis just go ahead and eliminate gold completely from the game since it has no real uses for it.

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?

For once i agree with you as this was my vote. personally it's probably being saved for an expansion and hype. it probably also didn't fit into their style of play and/or lack of depth with diplomacy so they are probably looking for ways to introduce it to the new engine.

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 happen to think and i'm sure everyone agrees that the graphics are great. They are 2010 graphics and not 2005 graphics. If you want Civ IV graphics go and play Civ IV then.

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.

They may get in your nerves but not everyone else. Hexes balance the game out as opposed to Stack of Doom just running away by moving 1 file from an incoming army that it will lose to. That is way hexes are better than square. You can't run away as easy with hexes.


Firaxis, please pay more attention to what we the core Civ players really want. Until these problems have been fixed, I'll stick to my cIV.

This is your opinion not everyone's. you can't and are not speaking for everyone. If the "Core" players wanted Civ IV graphics and SoD Firaxis would have said to the "Core" players to stay playing Civ IV then. Seriously if they were gonna make Civ IV graphics and SoD and squares instead of hexes they would have just have made this an expansion or called it Civ IV: The 2010 Visual Remix Edition. Seriously.... stop complaining and enjoy Civ 5 or go play Civ 4 until Civ 6 comes out.

.....

 

[NobleJms]

Why doesn't anyone realize the fact that with the old map grid, we used to be able to move in 8 directions. Now the option is only down to 6 with hexes.


Yes, I might not speak for everyone, but most of these points I mentioned have been raised by many Civ gamers since the game's release, not just in this forum, but also on 2KGames, Apolyton, and Steam's forums.

The amount of unhappy posts, many coming from core Civ gamers like me, indicates that Firaxis needs to pay attention to us quick or they'll be attracting the wrong kinds of gamers.

Even my friend who used to play Halo is now addicted to Civ 5. This means something's wrong.

 

[hoojahmoolah]

Not being one to post on forums it is a measure of my complete disappointment with ciV that i have felt compelled to do so.

I am in favour of stacking limits but ciV has gone from one extreme to another. Being only able to stack one unit has made movement a frustrating chore even long before you get to the battlefield.

All in all there is not one aspect of this game that has impressed me. There are a couple of new ideas that might have improved the original game but I forget what these maybe so overwhelmed am I by the crushing sense of disappointment and horror at a much loved friend being so heartlessly butchered.

If this game was not civ it might pass for another average strategy game but as it is meant to be civilization i can only find it utterly awful in every department.

I intend to mail my copy back to Firaxis and demand my money back, which will not be compensation enough.

 

[wilmer007]

Why doesn't anyone realize the fact that with the old map grid, we used to be able to move in 8 directions. Now the option is only down to 6 with hexes.

Because like i said earlier squares allow you to run away hence why you can move 8 directions and run from a decisive loss where as hex prevents you from running away and actually battling so it is balanced. I'm sorry but anyone crying about replacing hexes for squares is a scrub and scrubs will always cry about why the game is harder instead of being easier. News Flash life is NOT Easy. Stop Running Away And Fight Like A Man!!!!

Yes, I might not speak for everyone, but most of these points I mentioned have been raised by many Civ gamers since the game's release, not just in this forum, but also on 2KGames, Apolyton, and Steam's forums.

I'm sorry to say but all these so called "Core" Players are really "Scrub" Players. No one listens to scrubs, especially the company developing the game. Scrubs don't like adapting to new stuff and want everything easy and handed to them on a silver platter. That is why they are forever a scrub.

The amount of unhappy posts, many coming from core Civ gamers like me, indicates that Firaxis needs to pay attention to us quick or they'll be attracting the wrong kinds of gamers.

Who are the wrong kinds of gamers? The ones that actually understand and don't cry. those are the real hardcore gamers. they spend time and time playing the game, getting better at it while you sit here and cry. i guarantee you this so called "wrong kind of gamer" will not only actually tear you apart in a game but because he has been learning the inside mechanics of the game while you have been crying, he can actually play an exciting game against one of the developers themselves. where as your low skills will just bore the developer to sleep because he can beat you blindfolded since he helped make the game.

Even my friend who used to play Halo is now addicted to Civ 5. This means something's wrong.

Yeah that a gamer like that is the one playing more than you while your here crying. If he's addicted to Civ5 coming from halo that means something is wrong with you and not the game because halo junkies will not abandon ship easily unless it's a good and balanced game. You know when a game is balanced when you got people like him migrating. Just take a look at the migration from MW2 to BF2, everyone left MW2 because of the camping, glitches and the stupid kill streaks while BF2 had vehicles, more game types, bigger maps, no kill streaks, and no camping. making BF2 balanced over MW2.

.....