List of good and bad changes to Civ5

[Roxlimn]

taillesskangaru:

If the system isn't accurate, then it just skews our view of what history is like. Indeed, Civ IV's religion mechanics were just downright silly. In many ways, I find it preferable simply not to have religion at all.

Religious conflicts have often been quoted as being important reasons for conflict in history, but in all of these conflicts, the participants were also remarkably close to each other. China and India had different state religions, but did they wage war constantly throughout the millenia? Nope. Chinese kingdoms and states did have the same religion, and that without even schisms and such. Did they wage constant wars of fracture, rebellion, and reunification? Yup.

To me, fighting wars for religious reasons just seems like another by-product of being in each other's face all the time. England and China didn't have the same religion whatsoever, and that didn't make England hostile from the get-go. In fact, the major conflicts between England and China were driven by reasons of trade.

 

[Tee Kay]

If the system isn't accurate, then it just skews our view of what history is like. Indeed, Civ IV's religion mechanics were just downright silly. In many ways, I find it preferable simply not to have religion at all.

If you play Civ to learn about history, then you need help.

Did I say religion was the only reason, or even the most important reason for war? I didn't. But religion and religious difference do play a role in history, and like in everything else that Civ tries to model you got to balance gameplay and historical accuracy.

Also, you seem to be forgetting different leaders have different views on religion. Stalin doesn't mind too much if you have a different religion than him, but to Isabella it's a very big deal.

 

[JLoZeppeli]

As always, someone to make an excuse for the loss of religion feature use silly reasons...

You could pick some examples of war were religion was not involved, i can pick some were it is involved as a major reason...

The Jihad encuraged by Muhammad and the Qu’ran against non-Muslims, the crusades, as the first was moved mostly for religious reasons, although some adventurers were in hope of take over some land for their own gain.

The Catar crusade, the war of Teutocincs against pagan Lithuany, The Vandean genocyde, The buddhishes vs christians in Japan (and we have an example of Oda as one who used instead religion as an interesting tool) and we can go on...

And if some jewish is here, i can use a word to explain that: Milkhemet Mitzvah.


Cheers

 

[Roxlimn]

JLoZeppeli:

You're misrepresenting the Jihad. Muhammad and the Qu'ran do not explicitly promote a physical war. Some would interpret that more as a spiritual war against wickedness, rather than a call to kill every non-Muslim on the planet.

The Crusades were a royal mess of all kinds of crap. All of them were. They were supposedly inspired by religion, but they were all curiously directed directed at the rich lands to the south that could be plundered for booty and taken for profit. None of the Crusades were directed against the tribes of the Central Asian steppes, even though they were not less Christian than anyone else.

In all of these cases, the people were in direct proximate contact, and had something tangible to gain from warring. They use religion as a reason, but there are more obvious benefits.

 

[troytheface]

Fact- Music- better

Fact- Narration- Above average

Fact- Water- better /Tiles better- Road cost -better

Fact- Gold- better (purchasing) Qualities- better - 1 leader- better

Questions- there is an ease to units turning into boats that is actually game play wise better
but here i think the unease and awkward " load a transport you built" may be more inspiring

Questions- Where are the footprints when a unit walks around. I mean you got new tiles and crap - exaggerate them more for christ's sake

Questions- Where is Ice Station Zebra or whatever. Again - like above- u have tiles so use them - civ3/4 didn't either, hire a eskimo or something - you could have snow sled units and ice stations and ice breakers and explorers and a whole new front

Questions- This is worse. Like Civ3, and Civ4 - no bi planes or World War I stuff. A bi plane is a pretty strong graphic because it has two wings which is one more then one wing which makes it the superior choice for a "look of the past" (i would like to see lumbering wwI tanks but they are not as known so i can see skipping them)

the evidence is clear

 

[Sporally]

I don't say religion in Civ4 was without flaws and just the perfect system. All i'm saying is that IMO it generally was a great thing. However, from the discussion above and my thoughts when playing Civ4 was that religion might have had too much to say, but that doesn't change the fact that i liked it better than a total removal of 'the 7 religion-system'.

They could have made minor changes for a better game - IMO that is... Iran and Iraq, yes, two different religions within the same MAIN RELIGION. Maybe the game would be too complex if we were to have each religion and sub-religion in the game. However, this is where land borders come into play, again i must say i think this has been undermined, typically giving you -4 in relations when talking religion and -1 when talking close borders, that's probably not how things work IRL. But then again, that's exactly why we have Alexander the Great to mess everything up +10 in relations and same religion, but if you're the next civilization in line, stay tuned for a war declaration

Regarding the earlier mentioned that city states has substituted religion giving you the gold and culture that religion used to. That's not a usable argument in my eyes - religion and the need for spreading it and the diplomacy in it, that's what i miss from Civ4. We could have both - yes we could, don't argue you could get too rich / too cultural from having good relations with city states while having religious holy cities, that is just a question on balancing it out so that you won't get too dominant using city states and religious holy cities, not a gameplay problem

But then again, fair enough if you in general didn't like religion in Civ4, i'm not talking every small aspect like it had too much to say in diplomacy, just that IMO it is lacked in terms of spreading, income, diplomatic relations, ASO.