Is Civ5 really more simple than Civ4?

[Mallipeep]

-removal of technology trading
-removal of religion
-removal of espionage
-removal of civics (related to diplomacy, as far as we know social policies won't really affect this)

bjbrains partially said what i was going to reply to this in page 4 but i'll go ahead why i think diplomacy has a chance to be even more exciting and deep.

First lets take these two aspects:
in civ4 there are: religion, civics which give flat bonuses to like/dislike to various nations. You choose your religions/civics based on civs you want to like/dislike you. (and the bonuses you get from civics yourself)

in civ5 those two are replaced by :
policies which seem to give flat bonuses to like/dislike citystates which in turn most likely will modify your relationships with other civs and probably in much less predictably. You will choose your civics based on the citystates you want to like - but what happens if this citystate gets in conflict with the nation you like - decisions decisions.
In multiplayer citystates can actually change diplomacy between players - no player (except maybe a roleplayer) will care what civic or religion you have - but what if a citystate gives you some sort of fat reward to attack the player you planned to be friendly with for time being.


civ 4's technology trading will be replaced by more indepth strategic resource trading - now when you have 4 iron, giving one iron away means more then it did in civ4. Its not the same thing but might open up as much depth as tech-trade without the exploitable setbacks.

removal of espionage im 95% sure that espionage or some other strategic layer will be added in an expansion - for most people its no loss, and for people who will miss it - well you just might to wanna play something else until expansion gives your depth layer back

---

After finally reading up all the details we have on it, the only two simple things about Civ5 for me seems the excellence of everything i have seen/read so far - and the unparallelled anticipation i have for it.

 

[Commander Bello]

civ 4's technology trading will be replaced by more indepth strategic resource trading - now when you have 4 iron, giving one iron away means more then it did in civ4. Its not the same thing but might open up as much depth as tech-trade without the exploitable setbacks.

In which way would it mean more now?

If an AI civilization wants to get iron (to stay with this example) from you, they either need it for producing units or later on for corporations?

So, where would be the big difference?

 

[Aramel]

In which way would it mean more now?

If an AI civilization wants to get iron (to stay with this example) from you, they either need it for producing units or later on for corporations?

So, where would be the big difference?

Meaning that if you have one iron, you'll probably still want more, and if you have four iron, you might not want to trade it away, even to your friends.

 

[tom2050]

I hated tech trading in Civ4, and I hated that diplomacy felt empty without it. It's an abomination that leads to too quick of changes in tech levels between players. It dominates all forms of trade. Half the time I had it turned off. Don't lump people together with this argument, it looks bad on you and derails threads.

Trade should be about things over time, resources, science over time, and such. Not raw techs as currency.


I don't like research agreements though. It sounds clunky in that I will want to keep it active 24/7, but I have to constantly be re-activating it. No "cooldown" or "timed" ability in any game should be this way. If they act in this manner, they should just be passive, which brings me to my main point

I explained how I think techs should just "bleed" over time. That is, everyone who you have open borders with gets 2% of your research towards the exact same tech you're researching (even if they're unable to currently research it). It's a better system than these research agreements, and actually represents reality more as people using the open borders to travel between different countries benefit from each other more. It would solve the "exploration dilemma" that Earthling brought up, and it would really STING to lose open borders with a high-science country, like it should. Finally, and almost most importantly, is it helps bring the underdogs closer at a controlled rate with the further someone is behind, the faster they catch up.

And with no gold->science conversion, there should also be a science threat in the same manner as there is a gold threat. You give x% of your science to the person who's threatening you. It would give something more to give to a country that you want to make peace with. It would also help production war-like civs keep up in the science war if they have wussy neighbours.

Maybe I'll get back into programming through Civ modding.

I didn't realize that the economy of Civ 5 was changed so that citizens output for science and gold is completely 100% seperate (until this thread). If that is the case, then that is the reason why sliders no longer exist, because there is nothing to 'slide'.

I also have no idea where it was stated that this is the case with citizens working tiles, or if it is an assumption; because 'no sliders' doesn't necessarily mean this is the case, although something like it would be expected.

If it is the situation, then having sliders would make no sense, since they wouldn't be able to do anything. But you make a great point there Celevin, with the open borders and steady 'bleeding' techs. Perhaps civ's that are 'closer' could bleed a little more than civ's that are far away (for obvious reasons) until later in the game.

Definitely a well thought out system that would not only give a sense of realism, but have actual major impacts on open/closed borders. I like .