Hello!
[please don't take offense below at my sloppy summarizing of my own statements that you replied to; you're welcome to laugh at me for being lazy though - but only if you also laugh at yourself
]
First off, you should recognize, and we should all keep in mind, that this all purely a parlor discussion - your hope of influencing such fundamental design decisions in Civ V is unrealistic. That's simply not how game development cycles work. At this point, the game is being fine-tuned -- the fundamental decisions were already made.
You can certainly hope to influence the expansions or influencing Civ VI... on the condition that someone who will be involved in their design actually visits the thread.
hclass, you have been posting to this thread extremely quickly. At the time when I began writing my post, your post regarding modding had not been added yet.
I suppose the core of your statement on the matter is this:
"I think it is stupid to play with modding kits or something alike if you really want to enjoy the game."
That's not a good reason, hclass, because it's bad from the ground up.
If you wipe the "I think so so it must be right" dust out of your eyes, you will see that -- yes, I'm repeating myself -- yours is a *minority* *request*. That if so many people in this thread on a *Civ-lovers* website are disagreeing with you (and explaining in many different wordings the many reasons why they disagree), then the simpler, and thus generally more likely to be right conclusion is not that a bunch of people with unusual opinions among Civ-lovers are responding, but rather, that your assumptions about what every Civ-lover likes are -- I'm sorry to crush your soul here, but --
-- they're wrong.
It's OK. It happens. Assumptions are wrong sometimes. Worse is getting stuck on wrong assumptions due to getting attached to them, because it makes you unable to move on.
But please do move on.
So, if you open your eyes, swallow your pride, and accept the high likelihood of most people not having the same set of desires as you, then we move on to the game's ability to serve minority desires like yours.
The base game is made to serve majority desires. That simply makes sense. Leaving no route to serve minority desires would be bad, but there's a solution -- modding.
So, when you say "I think it is stupid to play with modding kits or something alike if you really want to enjoy the game."
...I can only disagree. It's not stupid; it would be stupid to force the majority to mod the game to have an enjoyable game, but to have it as a tool available to the various minorities is cool and awesome, not stupid.
So here's something cool and awesome, and you're brushing it away with "I think it's stupid to have to mod?"
Not cool.
Modding isn't programming. It's easier, and I'll bet you can do it.
While few things are impossible, since none of these many others have appeared in this thread I'll take the liberty of calling that possibility highly improbable.
Anyway, the point of the statement is: ultimately, the problem is *not* that you're in a minority feel passionately about certain things being unfun for you. The problem is that it seems like you don't understand - in spite it explained to you repeatedly, in many different wordings - how people could dare to place you in a minority by not believing your "obvious truths." 
hclass, Civ is a game intended for and played by intelligent people, and an even harder hard core of the intelligent are fanatic enough to go to fansites. Here's an alternate theory: maybe people here are disagreeing with you not because they misunderstand your ideas or the impact that they would have if implemented, but rather, because they *do* understand and they *are* intuiting the impact well, and they don't like that impact.
This is halfway awesome. People wanting to give something good to Civ is awesome. Making some assertions about what "everybody" wants, seeing a page and a half of evidence that maybe your assertions weren't as true as you thought they were, and still stating that you are not in the minority group *without providing new, undisputed arguments for that or convincingly overturning the counterarguments for your existing arguments*, isn't awesome. But more importantly, doesn't make your statement suddenly right. It just makes you look like someone who tries to win an argument by bullheadedly repeating the same thing. In other words, with that statement, you made yourself look bad. And that's a shame.
hclass, I'm sorry, but you have written a *lot* here, and some of the side points kind of get buried in the sheer volume of writing. When you mention it, yes, I do recall you mentioning something about fortune as a factor; unfortunately it was muddied a bit by English - which is absolutely nothing against you; languages are *hard* and it's no shame to be imperfect - but OK. I'm not sure, however, if you actually said that non-laziness was *only* important if people were "getting rich off" a product (though I doubt most Firaxians are actually getting rich, but OK). I guess I'll give you the benefit of the doubt, because damned if I'm going to dig the exact quote of yours that you're referring to!
The thing is, though, I personally actually *do* think that not being lazy is important for more people than just those "getting rich off" something. Sometimes, not being lazy is important when you want something done and it's not feasible to force or convince someone else to do it. And - going back to the fundamental fact that Civ 5's basic design is already in place and is probably not what you're demanding - that is precisely the reality here. If you want infinite-move railroads, etc. in your copy of Civ 5, you're either going to overcome laziness and mod them in, or you're not going to have them at all. So when the game comes out you'll either avoid it, play it like it is, or mod - that's the reality, and you might be happier if you face it right now.
Oh, absolutely! One of my favorite improvements is the way railroads don't give infinite movement anymore, since it doesn't make the Railroads tech a win button. I might infer - though it's admittedly a bit of a leap - that a lot of other people liked the change too, since it survived the leap from Civ 3 to Civ 4, unlike many of the other differences between Civ 2 and Civ 3.
...but OK, now I'm just being mean.
(That said, if you really want an in-depth discussion of just how god-awful a design gaffe infinite-movement railroads (that could take you right up next to an enemy city, no less) were in the context of *Civ being a game -- in Sid Meier's words which many repeat because they are so golden -- about *interesting choices** -- I am sure that many will be happy to oblige. I probably won't even be able to get a word in edgewise before everything interesting on the topic has been said, so let me just say in advance that it's a testament to the greatness of Civ I/II that they were still great *despite* several broken decisions of that caliber.)
hclass, close your eyes, take a deep breath, open your mind, and read people's explanations on those matters again.
But more generally, certainly you're *not* wrong to want the best of Civ IV plus the greatest of the things removed when moving on from previous versions, though I'm not sure many would agree that lots of great things were removed in the shifts -- and even fewer people would agree on what those things are.
[please don't take offense below at my sloppy summarizing of my own statements that you replied to; you're welcome to laugh at me for being lazy though - but only if you also laugh at yourself
]First off, you should recognize, and we should all keep in mind, that this all purely a parlor discussion - your hope of influencing such fundamental design decisions in Civ V is unrealistic. That's simply not how game development cycles work. At this point, the game is being fine-tuned -- the fundamental decisions were already made.
You can certainly hope to influence the expansions or influencing Civ VI... on the condition that someone who will be involved in their design actually visits the thread.
ni ye hao Bostock,
[modding]
I have good reason not to. (See my previous post)
hclass, you have been posting to this thread extremely quickly. At the time when I began writing my post, your post regarding modding had not been added yet.
I suppose the core of your statement on the matter is this:
"I think it is stupid to play with modding kits or something alike if you really want to enjoy the game."
That's not a good reason, hclass, because it's bad from the ground up.
If you wipe the "I think so so it must be right" dust out of your eyes, you will see that -- yes, I'm repeating myself -- yours is a *minority* *request*. That if so many people in this thread on a *Civ-lovers* website are disagreeing with you (and explaining in many different wordings the many reasons why they disagree), then the simpler, and thus generally more likely to be right conclusion is not that a bunch of people with unusual opinions among Civ-lovers are responding, but rather, that your assumptions about what every Civ-lover likes are -- I'm sorry to crush your soul here, but --
-- they're wrong.
It's OK. It happens. Assumptions are wrong sometimes. Worse is getting stuck on wrong assumptions due to getting attached to them, because it makes you unable to move on.
But please do move on.
So, if you open your eyes, swallow your pride, and accept the high likelihood of most people not having the same set of desires as you, then we move on to the game's ability to serve minority desires like yours.
The base game is made to serve majority desires. That simply makes sense. Leaving no route to serve minority desires would be bad, but there's a solution -- modding.
So, when you say "I think it is stupid to play with modding kits or something alike if you really want to enjoy the game."
...I can only disagree. It's not stupid; it would be stupid to force the majority to mod the game to have an enjoyable game, but to have it as a tool available to the various minorities is cool and awesome, not stupid.
So here's something cool and awesome, and you're brushing it away with "I think it's stupid to have to mod?"
Not cool.
Modding isn't programming. It's easier, and I'll bet you can do it.
While few things are impossible, since none of these many others have appeared in this thread I'll take the liberty of calling that possibility highly improbable.
Anyway, the point of the statement is: ultimately, the problem is *not* that you're in a minority feel passionately about certain things being unfun for you. The problem is that it seems like you don't understand - in spite it explained to you repeatedly, in many different wordings - how people could dare to place you in a minority
by not believing your "obvious truths." hclass, Civ is a game intended for and played by intelligent people, and an even harder hard core of the intelligent are fanatic enough to go to fansites. Here's an alternate theory: maybe people here are disagreeing with you not because they misunderstand your ideas or the impact that they would have if implemented, but rather, because they *do* understand and they *are* intuiting the impact well, and they don't like that impact.
This is halfway awesome. People wanting to give something good to Civ is awesome. Making some assertions about what "everybody" wants, seeing a page and a half of evidence that maybe your assertions weren't as true as you thought they were, and still stating that you are not in the minority group *without providing new, undisputed arguments for that or convincingly overturning the counterarguments for your existing arguments*, isn't awesome. But more importantly, doesn't make your statement suddenly right. It just makes you look like someone who tries to win an argument by bullheadedly repeating the same thing. In other words, with that statement, you made yourself look bad. And that's a shame.
hclass, I'm sorry, but you have written a *lot* here, and some of the side points kind of get buried in the sheer volume of writing. When you mention it, yes, I do recall you mentioning something about fortune as a factor; unfortunately it was muddied a bit by English - which is absolutely nothing against you; languages are *hard* and it's no shame to be imperfect - but OK. I'm not sure, however, if you actually said that non-laziness was *only* important if people were "getting rich off" a product (though I doubt most Firaxians are actually getting rich, but OK). I guess I'll give you the benefit of the doubt, because damned if I'm going to dig the exact quote of yours that you're referring to!
The thing is, though, I personally actually *do* think that not being lazy is important for more people than just those "getting rich off" something. Sometimes, not being lazy is important when you want something done and it's not feasible to force or convince someone else to do it. And - going back to the fundamental fact that Civ 5's basic design is already in place and is probably not what you're demanding - that is precisely the reality here. If you want infinite-move railroads, etc. in your copy of Civ 5, you're either going to overcome laziness and mod them in, or you're not going to have them at all. So when the game comes out you'll either avoid it, play it like it is, or mod - that's the reality, and you might be happier if you face it right now.
Oh, absolutely! One of my favorite improvements is the way railroads don't give infinite movement anymore, since it doesn't make the Railroads tech a win button. I might infer - though it's admittedly a bit of a leap - that a lot of other people liked the change too, since it survived the leap from Civ 3 to Civ 4, unlike many of the other differences between Civ 2 and Civ 3.
...but OK, now I'm just being mean.
(That said, if you really want an in-depth discussion of just how god-awful a design gaffe infinite-movement railroads (that could take you right up next to an enemy city, no less) were in the context of *Civ being a game -- in Sid Meier's words which many repeat because they are so golden -- about *interesting choices** -- I am sure that many will be happy to oblige. I probably won't even be able to get a word in edgewise before everything interesting on the topic has been said, so let me just say in advance that it's a testament to the greatness of Civ I/II that they were still great *despite* several broken decisions of that caliber.)
I only want good things from all of them back in CIV5 + anything new which are also good. Why am I so wrong?
hclass, close your eyes, take a deep breath, open your mind, and read people's explanations on those matters again.
But more generally, certainly you're *not* wrong to want the best of Civ IV plus the greatest of the things removed when moving on from previous versions, though I'm not sure many would agree that lots of great things were removed in the shifts -- and even fewer people would agree on what those things are.
)
)
Taste is subjective. If you do not wish to mod, don't. Most players will have something they will not like about CIV 5, and each has a decisions; to mod, to not play, or to play a imperfect CIV 5. Each is a reasonable choice, and CIV should not be perfect for everyone or you because taste differ. 
:
