Civ 5 really lacks role playing an empire as the game has gotten to easy to manage, no long term global effects, no long term diplomacy with AI civs, a generic city state happyness with your empire system, policy tree with no ramifications for choosing one. I could keep going but rants thread, and a few others can explain the big differences between the earlier version and this one, would like how is sim societies different from sim city. But if you don't see the difference between the too, don't let me change your mind
No long term global effects? What long term global effects? if anything, one of vanilla CiV's faults was that that
all decisions had long term global effects, too few had short-term or instant ramifications.
Diplo and CSs have been improved. Check out the introductory thread.
TWO civics had any trade-offs. TWO. That's 8% of them. I am sick of people talking about the civics as if they were incredibly complex and each came with its pluses and minuses. They all gave ONLY positives, with the exception of Pacifism (which otherwise would have been completely OP) and Mercantilism (for the same reason). The rest 23 give bonuses.
I have checked out the rants thread, mostly people talking about how PC gaming is dying
, how there is no place for them in modern gaming
, and whether or not the new CiV patch makes the game run smoother
. Also a lot of talking about PI games (which are awesome). So please, do tell.
I actually managed to get a copy of G+K (I r having cunekshuns
) and so far it seems to be easier to role-play. AI Civs are more reliable, and religion is fairly customizable. You can make a religion that benefits from spreading (say you want Chrstianity), you can turn it into a tool in your war conquests with the ability to buy holy warriors, or you can just pick some passive bonuses and never worry about it. Espionage also can be a nice tool for roleplaying, and its influence on diplomacy is significant enough. Still is limited, but I am positive this is just a stepping stone.
The fundamental things I still would change in CiV are, off the top of my head:
1. Local happiness, no maintenance for buildings, instead cities have a maintenance. It was one of the best features of CIV, the system was just perfect. Don't really need health much though.
2. Gold must have some influence on teching. In previous civ games I was constantly presented with small scale challenges that came from gold being associated with beakers, not growth - should I cottage the grasslands around that river, or first let my city grow and
then turn those farms into money-makers? Now that challenge is gone, it's all about growth and nothing else.
3. You shouldn't be able to buy units right off the bat. It should come with a tech. This would also give the game a much needed sense of progression. Same goes for the current Espionage system. No initial investment to get a spy=no gratification for getting one.
Otherwise I am fine with it as it is. So please, explain what made role-playing easier for you in CIV, otherwise I can't give a straight answer.
EDIT: A way to enhance roleplaying would be to tweak the way CSs present quests. A CS shouting out "We are going to be friends with whoever builds that wonder" is very silly, are CSs in any position to make such demands? Should they even know such a wonder exists?! Makes little sense to me. But others, like "Bully that CS" or "Denounce Napoleon/Monty" (lets face it, it's always those two) really enhances role playing in my experience, and makes CSs feel like actual tiny nations and not like static NPC questgivers.
