GamesCom Impression
- Thread starter Ituralde
- Start date
Tomice
Passionate Smart-Ass
Thank you for the great info!!! 
Im reading several things I don't like. And all in the direction of simplification, like many of us feared.
Also improvements beeing less important, like resources only giving +1 hammer or +2 commerce...
Bah, it looks at the end they have really removed a lot of stats from the game. Hate that!
Of course, I still can't wait to get the game, and I'm sure I will love it. I just say it could have been better.
suuuux
Also improvements beeing less important, like resources only giving +1 hammer or +2 commerce...
Bah, it looks at the end they have really removed a lot of stats from the game. Hate that!
Of course, I still can't wait to get the game, and I'm sure I will love it. I just say it could have been better.
Lillefix
I'm serious. You can.
- Joined
- Dec 1, 2003
- Messages
- 5,699
Initially. It says initially.
Tomice
Passionate Smart-Ass
Just because advanced features are not shown by default, the game is NOT dumbed down.
Just because tile yields are different, the game is NOT dumbed down!
Your conclusions are kinda strange...
SammyKhalifa
Deity
- Joined
- Sep 18, 2003
- Messages
- 6,725
Actually, all that sounds like to me is that it gives you more options at start-up--you're not as screwed if you don't have good resources right out of the blocks, you don't HAVE to build that worker right away to get a farm on that wheatfield . . .
Honestly, probably not even intentionally, but it sounds like you were looking for reasons to think the game was "dumbed down."
Aussie_Lurker
Deity
You see, I don't see this as being inconsistent with being able to switch social policies. For example, consider the following possible in game example. You've pursued Liberty up to level 3 by the time you've reached the industrial age, & so you want to switch to Autocracy. By doing so, you lose all the benefits of being in Liberty but-if you ever decided to switch back to Liberty at a later stage-you'd do so from the point you left off. Of course, I feel there would need to be *some* penalty for switching from one SP branch to its complete opposite. Indeed, it bugs me that there may-in fact-be no revolution mechanic in the game. That seems totally antithetical to the Civ Franchise to me!
Aussie.
generalwar
Philosopher
I think that they aren't removing anything without putting anything new to replace the removed mechanics. As I see, wars are going to be much more interesting. I like that now, you have a chance to win if you're somewhere near tundra
. In civ 4 it was really tough thing to do. I feel that I will be warring more in civ 5, at least vs barbs to earn some money and troops and to get experiance. Now, I really can't wait for civ 5
sdlufkin
Warlord
- Joined
- Apr 27, 2007
- Messages
- 144
I don't agree at all - firstly I like that you have to make a choice and stick with it, and secondly some of these social policy bonuses are one shot things like triggering a golden age or spawning a Great General - how would you take something like that away if they pulled points out of a social policy to put them in a new one? What would stop you from doing that repeatedly to get multiple free reruns of abilities like that?
Seek
Deity
- Joined
- Aug 7, 2010
- Messages
- 3,773
I still hold out some hope for switching trees as well. As far as a penalty goes, this is from the "Another GamesCom Writeup" (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=376061) thread:
So I would guess that
1) SPs in the industrial age will be *very* expensive, especially if you are not focusing on culture (and if you are, why the switch to warmongering?) and
2) Giving up the benefits from the freedom and/or liberty trees would probably hurt your empire significantly.
Both of these points seem to make the switching of trees fairly prohibitive to me. But this is just my 2 cents.
Stuie
Laudir Agus Mir
I agree. Social Policies should be something you build upon. No society ever went through a revolution that completely tore away what preceded the revolution. The prior underpinnings of the society are always kept in some form. This appears to do an excellent job simulating that.
I always thought the social policy changing in IV was a bit strange.
In 1972...
..."Hey guys, I am re-introducing slavery! You, you and you, hard luck, get the shackles on!"
or...
..."You know, we tried giving women the vote, but it isn't really working out. We are going to change things up next election."
In 1972...
..."Hey guys, I am re-introducing slavery! You, you and you, hard luck, get the shackles on!"
or...
..."You know, we tried giving women the vote, but it isn't really working out. We are going to change things up next election."
r_rolo1
King of myself
You know, I live in a country where that exactly happened in the first part of the XX century
You know, I live in a country where that exactly happened in the first part of the XX century
In his best Dr. Phil voice...
"So, how did that work out for you?"
r_rolo1
King of myself
Not good, but that wasn't the point either . I was just saying that, if it happened in RL, it is not that strange to see it in a game
Thanks Ituralde for the great report.
So I think having to keep along the lines you chose is not realistic, but it may be good gameplay-wise.
Slavery was abolished by the French revolution and reintroduced by Napoleon a few years afterwards too, so that's not absurd. Said revolution was a major change in all social policies, so 'sticking' with what you did before doesn't fit this event at all.
So I think having to keep along the lines you chose is not realistic, but it may be good gameplay-wise.
Tomice
Passionate Smart-Ass
You know it would be very easy to find examples that revolutions - back and forth - did happen?
And the fate of the Jews in Germany around 1940 is an example of reintroduced slavery (and worse). I'm pretty sure it wasn't much better in Russia and China for "public enemies". Not to mention the early american history and the African slaves.
Txurce
Deity
On the one hand, it's unarguably good in terms of game play. But how unrealistic is it from a simulation/test of time perspective?
The French revolution was basically a few years of chaos in terms of social policy. The continuation from the Ancien Regime to Napoleon and on into the 19th and 20th centuries followed the building-block approach Stuie alludes to. The same could be said of Russia replacing the Czar with equally repressive Communism after a flirtation with democratic socialism. Even today's China has a smooth transition from monarchy to communism to authoritarianism, always keeping an ancient Confucian element in their outlook.
There is rarely a complete left turn that leaves everything behind and lasts longer than a figurative blip in time.
What Civ5 doesn't seem to do is allow you to do whatever you want, just because you feel like it and you're the near-immortal leader of your civ. I can see someone missing that, although I won't. But I wouldn't critique it from a realism perspective.
Zhahz
PC Gamer
Civics swapping as a gameplay mechanic worked for Civ IV, even though in many ways you could argue it was a little over the top, just as you could cite examples in support of it. Either way, it was a gameplay mechanic and these tend to change between versions.
There has always been changes between versions of Civ, and I guess there has always been some resistance to change, just like in life in general.
The social policy system is a different gameplay mechanic that sounds equally or more enjoyable to me. I like the thought of bulding up a custom set of bonuses per game more than hopping between a much more limited set of choices.
There are many civics in civ IV that I never used and would never use without really forcing myself to play a certain way. I'd imagine there will be some SPs I'll never use, but the fact that you build up more incrementally means I might experiment more or try different combos since it'll be easier to hold onto or grab those pet SPs I latch onto.
Either way you make choices. Social policies look to have the potential for way more customization over the long haul, and the potential for more power if you invest more into culture, which seems cool, so there's the additional decision of how much you pour into culture.
In Civ IV you're pretty much guaranteed access to all civics unless you're doing some kind of radical research cutoff strategy for early military victory.
I think social policies will add a lot to replay value since you could play the same leader repeatedly with different SPs and have a different feeling game, far more than you ever could with civics swapping.
More than anything, I look forward to getting my hands on Civ 5 and finding out personally.
There has always been changes between versions of Civ, and I guess there has always been some resistance to change, just like in life in general.
The social policy system is a different gameplay mechanic that sounds equally or more enjoyable to me. I like the thought of bulding up a custom set of bonuses per game more than hopping between a much more limited set of choices.
There are many civics in civ IV that I never used and would never use without really forcing myself to play a certain way. I'd imagine there will be some SPs I'll never use, but the fact that you build up more incrementally means I might experiment more or try different combos since it'll be easier to hold onto or grab those pet SPs I latch onto.
Either way you make choices. Social policies look to have the potential for way more customization over the long haul, and the potential for more power if you invest more into culture, which seems cool, so there's the additional decision of how much you pour into culture.
In Civ IV you're pretty much guaranteed access to all civics unless you're doing some kind of radical research cutoff strategy for early military victory.
I think social policies will add a lot to replay value since you could play the same leader repeatedly with different SPs and have a different feeling game, far more than you ever could with civics swapping.
More than anything, I look forward to getting my hands on Civ 5 and finding out personally.
Txurce
Deity
This is interesting. It doesn't seem to jibe with the conventional wisdom that no unit can end a turn atop another, even if the second unit has yet to move. If so, I like it, since it obviously offers a lot more flexibility in tactics.
