IS G&K something for the "simulation-player" type?

[bhavv]

I thought the reason why people didnt like 5 was because it simply wasnt as good as 2 + 4, not because of any civ role playing reasons.

IMO Civ V is better for roleplaying because each Civ is so much more unique than in earlier games.

I agree that if you didnt like Civ V, you wont like the expansion. If you liked Civ V, you will like the expansion, simple.

 

[Putmalk]

It will depend what happens in a patch or 2. Buildings are almost not worth it - library, shrine, uh... done. i MIGHT build walls but i hate doing that and i just wont build crap maintenance 2 buildings that offer minimum benefit.

Idk where this is coming from. Buildings are incredible tools. The shrine is great for getting early faith, and the library has always been good for increasing science.

 

[kgoodrid]

The Paradox games seem to be more in line with what you are looking for, as far as a 'simulation' where you can role-play. Especialy Crusader Kings II. Civ has always been more of an abstraction, especially in things like warfare. I would kill for a Civ game that focused on actual armies instead of individual specialty units.

That said, much of the 'role-play' in a game like this is in the player's head. As good as most Paradox games are, they are basically complicated Excel spreadsheets with a GUI. That isn't a criticism, mind. I love those games. It isn't like you have a fusion of Baldur's Gate and Europa Universalis or anything.

You can 'role-play' any Civ game (including V G&K). The main things that Civ V bring to table are the personality and flavor. Playing most Paradox games, I often felt like things were a bit stale and I really had to work hard to imagine some personality. This is never a problem with Civ V, where other Civs and leaders really project individual personalities.

G&K really helps with this because of things like Religion. Each religion can be thoroughly customized, down to the icon and name, plus of course all the abilities. This really helps. It would be better if this information was presented a bit more readily. So for example, if Monty would declare holy war on me and yell about spreading Christianity against my heathen Islam, or something. Or if Dido would brag to me about the superior faith healers of her Buddhist Pantheon.

But at the end of the day, you need to enjoy the basic game mechanics to enjoy the game. Otherwise you won't care enough to want to role-play.

 

[Andulias]

One more thing I would like to add about role-playing.

CIV in that regard was honestly pathetic. I rarely viewed other civs as anything more than trading partners with the occasional bribe to attack another civ. I just took the religion that was most wide-spread, that's it. With G+K there are more role-playing options available and now I actually click on the Discuss button more than before. You can make and break promises, you can choose how to directly react to spies getting caught in your cities etc. In fact I like it more than CIV.

 

[Invalice]

If you like to roleplay I would suggest playing the Europa Universalis line of games. Many have user-created mods to add additional historical or RPG elements.

 

[Bisqit]

In my opinion, Gods and Kings takes it from that board game "go for victory" feel into a simulation. I am currently playing without an victory condition in mind and i have the highest score. It doesnt seem like the ai is playing to win anymore either. Id say if you want the simulation style make sure you get Gods and Kings.

 

[Randall_Flagg]

If you like to roleplay I would suggest playing the Europa Universalis line of games. Many have user-created mods to add additional historical or RPG elements.

You buy EU 3 because it is one of the greatest games ever made. I am still not happy with how they are letting modders make new version, I am dougbtful that I will buy another paradox game because of this, sad as they were the last company who I never bought a dud from. To damn cheap to make new game, so they let people redo a few things and call it new version, for shame!!

 

[Andulias]

You buy EU 3 because it is one of the greatest games ever made. I am still not happy with how they are letting modders make new version, I am dougbtful that I will buy another paradox game because of this, sad as they were the last company who I never bought a dud from. To damn cheap to make new game, so they let people redo a few things and call it new version, for shame!!

Sword of the Stars 2, Lead and Gold: Gangs of the Wild West and King Arthur 2 were very bad, with SotS being the worst unfinished mess of a game I've seen in years. CiV launch looks perfectly balanced compared to that monstrosity.

 

[jjkrause84]

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.

The civics had different costs, don't forget. Some were more expensive, and players had to decide if they were worth the cost. Also, there is an opportunity cost of selecting one, not some other one. That still exists in many ways with SPs, but the fact that you cannot CHANGE SPs (you cannot change your government or society at all) means that Ss, while the most fun part of the game for me, are far less dynamic and livign than civis were (to me).

 

[Andulias]

The civics had different costs, don't forget. Some were more expensive, and players had to decide if they were worth the cost. Also, there is an opportunity cost of selecting one, not some other one. That still exists in many ways with SPs, but the fact that you cannot CHANGE SPs (you cannot change your government or society at all) means that Ss, while the most fun part of the game for me, are far less dynamic and livign than civis were (to me).

Oh wow, 3 gold, what a huuuuuuge difference. I am not a Deity player, I play mostly on Emperor with the very occasional Immortal game, and I have quite possibly never payed that much attention to civics upkeep. I maintain my statement, civics had pretty much no downsides.

I can see where you are going with SPs not being changeable, but consider this:
1. They aren't really types of government, they define the overal cultura of your civ. And even if a civ changes its mind, the choices it has made don't go away. Today Japan is one of the most peaceful countries in the world, but their previous love for the Honor SP (if you get what I mean) still has an influence over their country.

2. They are designed so that they present choices relative to the point in the game when they come into play. The first SP trees are basically making you decide if you want to rapidly expand, grow a tall empire or be a warmonger. Then, when you know where you stand on the map, you have to choose between culture, city states or money-making, and so forth. The old Trees also aren't as important by the end - yey, you got a free settler and a free worked, it was great back then, but right now your last several SPs have a much bigger influence on your game.

I get why you don't like them, personally I like both. And since the thread was about role-playing, I think both systems present enough choices for avid role-players.

 

[Esoteric Arcane]

I agree civics and polcies are decent ideas, but both fall short. I was hoping civ 5 would improve civics, but they threw the baby out with the bath water. Civ 4, atleast civs got mad over civics, id prefer to have just made it more generic, such as isabelle would just like the religeous line, so whatever civic she had at the time, she wanted you to have or get mad over it as opposed to a specific civic. The better civics did cost more money, but again a better balance i was hoping would be improved. I for one always raced to get theocracy as in my opinion was the most OP in that game early on. Civ 2, if you wanted a great economic government, it was hard to fight a war since the senate stopped you every time (except with UN you had a chance) Fundementalism was great for war, but it slowed your research down. Changing governments in 1-4 caused anarchy, you would feel the problems in your civ for a few turns.

As for global ramifications, I mean if you start hammaring out too much, you caused pollution, dont take care of it, global warming occured, Civil unrest in a city can leave your empire by joining a neighbor or becoming independent, etc, just things that i enjoyed in the game, that instead of making a better version of it, it just all disappeared.

 

[Andulias]

Hmmm, sorry but your edit still doesn't help me much. Technically a game like the Endless War (btw link is dead) are impossible in CIV as well, but you don't seem to mind that game.

Global happiness is still around, working just like pre-G+K. If you don't like it, the XP won't change your mind. With the current AI I wouldn't imagine it being possible here either.

they have no big effects on your gameworld/history/empire like in previous games.
They scream in your face "I am a game rule, use me to win this game".

I don't get this, what do you mean? Negative happiness brings you some pretty ugly negatives, like no growth and combat penalties. Seems like a big effect on me.

The immersion of leading a nation through the tides of history is gone. now its just about using certain mechanics to reach a victory condition.

This isn't helping at all, you are just repeating yourself. What don't you like about the systems in V, be concrete. The victory conditions haven't changed that much since 4. The Diplo VC has been changed, now no civ can vote for itself.

You can name units and cities, I dunno, that's enough for me. The expansion doesn't bring back the option to rename your civ though.

so, i hoped that at last with religions there is maybe a small step into that direction...
but if no other steps are taken to open up the paths of this game....hmm..

What paths, be more precise about this.

From my perspective the expansion brings some needed customizability and immersion back. Civs don't hate you for "winning the game", stupid immersion breaking feature, and City States don't feel like money sinkers the way they did before. The technology tree has been revised for the better, it's possible now to be friends with civs and it seems they aren't pursuing a VC as actively as before, which also helps. But with your extremely vague comments about "streamlined game-mechanisms" (which exactly?) and "paths" I just don't quite understand what you are looking for.

CIV for me already wasn't much of a "simulation" (love the game, just sayin') by getting rid of the palace/throne room, and focusing the game more on the leaders and not the nations - I don't have the Aztec for a neighbour, I have Monty. I have Open Borders with someone, I DOW him and all my units get magically transported aback to the border. Which btw is indicated with bright and shiny colours. So I've never quite played a Civ game as a simulation in close to a decade.

 

[Esoteric Arcane]

Hmmm, sorry but your edit still doesn't help me much. Technically a game like the Endless War (btw link is dead) are impossible in CIV as well, but you don't seem to mind that game.

Global happiness is still around, working just like pre-G+K. If you don't like it, the XP won't change your mind. With the current AI I wouldn't imagine it being possible here either.


I don't get this, what do you mean? Negative happiness brings you some pretty ugly negatives, like no growth and combat penalties. Seems like a big effect on me.

This isn't helping at all, you are just repeating yourself. What don't you like about the systems in V, be concrete. The victory conditions haven't changed that much since 4. The Diplo VC has been changed, now no civ can vote for itself.

You can name units and cities, I dunno, that's enough for me. The expansion doesn't bring back the option to rename your civ though.


What paths, be more precise about this.

From my perspective the expansion brings some needed customizability and immersion back. Civs don't hate you for "winning the game", stupid immersion breaking feature, and City States don't feel like money sinkers the way they did before. The technology tree has been revised for the better, it's possible now to be friends with civs and it seems they aren't pursuing a VC as actively as before, which also helps. But with your extremely vague comments about "streamlined game-mechanisms" (which exactly?) and "paths" I just don't quite understand what you are looking for.

CIV for me already wasn't much of a "simulation" (love the game, just sayin') by getting rid of the palace/throne room, and focusing the game more on the leaders and not the nations - I don't have the Aztec for a neighbour, I have Monty. I have Open Borders with someone, I DOW him and all my units get magically transported aback to the border. Which btw is indicated with bright and shiny colours. So I've never quite played a Civ game as a simulation in close to a decade.

Just out of curiosity, who were you quoting?

 

[selectron]

From my perspective the expansion brings some needed customizability and immersion back. Civs don't hate you for "winning the game", stupid immersion breaking feature, and City States don't feel like money sinkers the way they did before. The technology tree has been revised for the better, it's possible now to be friends with civs and it seems they aren't pursuing a VC as actively as before, which also helps. But with your extremely vague comments about "streamlined game-mechanisms" (which exactly?) and "paths" I just don't quite understand what you are looking for.

All that suggests something more like a living, breathing world in which your civ has escapades. The problem before was that everything seemed a little bland, like there was a racetrack to each victory condition and you just took the steps to win whichever one you chose.

The stories people are telling demonstrate that it's a much richer experience now and you could actually enjoy playing it simply to take part in an evolving world.

I think that's the basic point. At least the op could probably now tolerate any particular game mechanics he finds disagreeable.

 

[nokmirt]

To the OP, just play for VPs. You can play to a certain era for so many turns, just to have fun. Just build or do whatever interests you and have fun. I do this, because sometimes you want to spend more time in one era. Many times in the regular game, eras go by so fast, you don't have time to use many of the units your interested in. One example for me, is the Dutch Sea Beggar. So, I am going to play a game to the Renaissance and play on say a large map for 300-400 turns. Just to have fun and see how things develop in that time period. Well that is my suggestion. Just have fun! Everything in life does not have to be a contest, especially when life is contest enough.

IMO Civ V is better for roleplaying because each Civ is so much more unique than in earlier games.

I agree that if you didnt like Civ V, you wont like the expansion. If you liked Civ V, you will like the expansion, simple.

I think vanilla was not much good for role playing all the AI civs acted the same generally. Although, some were more more peaceful , or aggressive than others. Now it is not hugely different, but surely a step in the right direction. There is more fo the AI civs to consider, besides just basic cut and dry generalized issues. Now effects from religion spreading and espionage come into play, that delve more into diplomacy. This makes the game more interesting. If you folks did not like CiV, try GnK. You may be surprised how much better it makes CiV.

 

[Andulias]

Just out of curiosity, who were you quoting?

The OP

All that suggests something more like a living, breathing world in which your civ has escapades. The problem before was that everything seemed a little bland, like there was a racetrack to each victory condition and you just took the steps to win whichever one you chose.

The stories people are telling demonstrate that it's a much richer experience now and you could actually enjoy playing it simply to take part in an evolving world.

I think that's the basic point. At least the op could probably now tolerate any particular game mechanics he finds disagreeable.

I think religion certainly helps out, but like I said, I stopped looking for that in CIv years ago. If you really want to role-play, to rule a civilization without any clear goal in mind, well, Civ isn't the right game. These two are.

 

[cccv]

Not sure how this hasn't been pointed out yet, but...

Also: I miss the "uniqueness" of my empire. I can no longer give my nation and my people an own name.
I expected Civ V to have even more customization options for your own empire, but sadly it got less.

I just don't like to take on the FIXED roles of "germany" or "france" or whatever.

You can do this, you always could. Go to advanced set-up and click edit. It lets you name your leader, civ, civ short name, and civ adjective. You can name them anything you want. you could from day one.

You can also rename your cities if you don't know. There's an edit button on the lower right of the city name on the city screen.

 

[rastak]

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

I'm actually quite familiar with them all. I was 29 when the first one came out and played the hell out of it. Same with civ 2 & 3. They all had their issues. Crippling distance penalties in III. Etc etc.....it always had role played fine unless perhaps one's mind has narrowed....