1. We have added a Gift Upgrades feature that allows you to gift an account upgrade to another member, just in time for the holiday season. You can see the gift option when going to the Account Upgrades screen, or on any user profile screen.
    Dismiss Notice

Not dumbed down, just missing an awful lot of stuff

Discussion in 'Civ5 - General Discussions' started by EmpireOfCats, Sep 22, 2010.

  1. Aegis

    Aegis Deity

    Joined:
    Jan 27, 2005
    Messages:
    3,970
    Requiring dwindling resources and having your friendly City States being attacked by the AI are not good enough reasons to fight the them?

    I never liked Religion because it made diplomacy too black & white. If they shared the same religion, they loved you forever. If they were of a different religion, you could go DIAF as far as they were concerned.
     
  2. ElephantRider

    ElephantRider Chieftain

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2008
    Messages:
    90
    Location:
    Texas
    The problem with Religion was that the game mechanic sucked. You could go for religion and then easily bombard culture. It was just too easy. The concept of including Religion wasn't bad at all, but it needs to be implemented in a different way.
     
  3. Ricci

    Ricci Prince

    Joined:
    Jun 17, 2007
    Messages:
    531
    Don't mean to sound rude but.. No, they simply weren't.
     
  4. vonSharma

    vonSharma Chieftain

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2010
    Messages:
    29
    Excellent comment. I loved religion in cIV, especially as an atheist. I felt it was such a great model for how actual human religions spread on a macro level... your beliefs in life basically came down to your proximity to some prophet in a holy city.
    I especially loved the Apostolic palace and the idea of holy wars. It was a great opportunity to have broad alliances and a common goal. I felt every major religion should have had an Apostolic palace as a way to unite their ideology.
    I have a feeling religion will be added in an expansion or hopefully the modding community will add it back.
     
  5. Kharum

    Kharum Chieftain

    Joined:
    Sep 21, 2010
    Messages:
    27
    Without having any kind of opinion on how V how compares to IV, I want to say that I think there's some truth in what you say. I find that a lot of people treat Civ as kind of realistic empire management simulation, while I personally think it's only a chess-like strategy game with more complex rules. I think it was designed to be that way. I don't exactly know how much religion exactly affects strategic planning in IV, as I haven't played it enough, but I've understood it requires just the kind of planning as you explained. There was a bunch of people arguing, that religion is "pointless and different religions lack personality" and it's just good that it's removed. I don't know what they wanted to religion to be then, but in my opinion it does just what I expect from a strategy game, it's kind of diplomatic feature, your choice of religion affects a lot how other Civ's treat you.

    Thus I think it's bit of a bummer they took this feature off among others. Streamlining isn't necessarily bad, but it doesn't usually make a game more interesting to play. Also, as mentioned, V's main point of interest seems to be the improved warfare, it seems to overshadow everything else. While it's probably pretty good, I rather play Panzer General along side with previous Civ game. Personally, though, I'm just getting in to Civ IV so I'm not in hurry to play V, it'll mature into a deeper and fuller game, no doubt.
     
  6. Ricci

    Ricci Prince

    Joined:
    Jun 17, 2007
    Messages:
    531
    I almost never find this to be the case in my games, civs with same state religion came to be in bad terms with me, and even being in good terms and having the same religion DoWed on me, so on so forth. There are many many diplomatic aspects to fall upon religion alone necessarily determining the game. Some leader zealots were much prone to be influenced by religion, etc. True is, it was a strong diplo factor.
     
  7. digitalcraft

    digitalcraft Warlord

    Joined:
    Jul 21, 2010
    Messages:
    291
    Location:
    Oklahoma
    I didn't either. Sure, they'd like you a lot less (realistic) but if you had good trade relations with them and helped them against other enemies, you could be plenty friendly with them. And of course, with Montezuma, even if he was your religion, he'd probably hate you anyways. :p I got attacked plenty of times of people of my own religion though if they through they could do a quick grab and not piss off too many others, like if the religion was in the minority, they'd often attack just to please my rivals.
     
  8. Olleus

    Olleus Deity

    Joined:
    Oct 30, 2005
    Messages:
    6,478
    Location:
    England
    Unhealthiness was an exact replication of the food system, only it could only ever take away food, never give you extra food. As the Civ5 design philosophy is for nothing to ever be wasted (extra happiness goes towards golden ages), it just got absorbed into the food system - because its effects where identical.
     
  9. Penwa

    Penwa Warlord

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2005
    Messages:
    114
    I still think there should be an empire food system, much like the happiness system in civ 5. Only, a city could only grow if it produced surplus food. It would solve the annoying problem where your capital would have oodles of food and a city next to it would be starving. Not very realistic in modern civilized society.
     
  10. ElephantRider

    ElephantRider Chieftain

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2008
    Messages:
    90
    Location:
    Texas
    So you're telling me that vanilla Civ IV was not like a stripped down version of the complete Civ III? Vanilla Civ IV had everything in it that the complete Civ III did? Nothing was taken away or made easier or streamlined?

    Right...
     
  11. bernlin2000

    bernlin2000 Prince

    Joined:
    Aug 25, 2010
    Messages:
    305
    Location:
    Florida
    Same deal in CivIV: you can do that, but your cities will take 30 turns to build everything. The only difference being this time that you can compensate (somewhat) by buying everything with gold: you would have to have universal suffrage to do that before.

    It wasn't particularly realistic: people of the same religion are just as often at each other's throats as they are fighting against other religions: in CivIV it was like they were best friends forever, nothing could change that. I'd still like to see it added back in some form (also atheist :p), but with some more diplomatic variables, to make it more interesting. I especially enjoyed how it could grow and become a dominant contributor to your empires happiness and financial stability.

    Definitely not as complete as Civ III complete, but certainly the features that were implemented were implemented quite well: future expansions added new features and tweaked AI, but a lot of the basics didn't change. CiV is in need of more serious tweaking, and it needs features to be completely fleshed out: resources, trading, diplomacy feel really empty.
     
  12. D!CK_VII

    D!CK_VII Prince

    Joined:
    May 9, 2010
    Messages:
    485
    HMMM Civ4 PBEM anyone?
     
  13. EmpireOfCats

    EmpireOfCats Death to Giant Robots

    Joined:
    Feb 20, 2010
    Messages:
    522
    Location:
    Europe
    As a meditator myself, I know that :). But I quoted it because, as you probably know, it was the Buddha quote that Civ IV produced when you researched meditation. At the time it seemed funny ...
     
  14. Earthling

    Earthling Deity

    Joined:
    Nov 9, 2008
    Messages:
    8,518
    Playing at low levels, and probably never playing any mods that succeeded incredibly well with religion, could lend this perspective. I could understand a player having that perspective, in other words, and wouldn't criticize just that. But if they got around to either playing higher level civ4 or saw the reasons/differences in religion implementation (ie. go play a mod that makes each religion "different" and you might understand that isn't really a valid complaint for the vanilla game that it wasn't that way)

    It pretty much was not. Nothing in civ3 except needless micromanagement and "flavor" things were lost. A couple things were changed, maybe for the worse (siege units) but not removed or lost. (As for "flavor" - that would be things like the total number of civs was less, sure, but that didn't mean gameplay suffered, it just meant folks had to wait a while to officially play as the Dutch or whatever. And I do miss some of the flavor stuff still like city views)
     
  15. Brawndo

    Brawndo Warlord

    Joined:
    Jul 30, 2010
    Messages:
    255
    Do you stop and carefully weave elitism into your posts, or does it simply come out naturally?
     
  16. Pangaea

    Pangaea Rock N Roller

    Joined:
    Sep 17, 2010
    Messages:
    5,107
    I'd rather say if this wasn't a Civ game, it would be torn apart.
     
  17. Zhahz

    Zhahz PC Gamer

    Joined:
    Oct 18, 2005
    Messages:
    1,615
    Location:
    Phoenix, AZ
    I don't miss health/pollution at all. I got into the chop chop of the amazon in IV but I really haven't thought of it once. I definitely don't miss religion.

    My only real beefs with the game are the tactical AI - I really expected better and I know it can be done. They should've had a team of people JUST working on the tactical combat AI incessantly.

    I'm also a little miffed with diplomacy since it reminds me of Civ III or GalCiv 1. AIs are generally violent, have zero loyalty to anything but themselves, fight constantly, and only respect a good spanking. They don't play like players - they play like bratty children.
     
  18. Dark_MadMax

    Dark_MadMax Chieftain

    Joined:
    Oct 24, 2005
    Messages:
    35

    2nd that. Lackluster diplo is biggest disappointment so far. Feels like a huge step back


    I didnt like religions/corps in civ4 ,but I really miss espionage. One of the thing I always did in civs since civ1 :/
     
  19. Bjarka

    Bjarka Chieftain

    Joined:
    Aug 7, 2006
    Messages:
    9
    Location:
    Uppsala, Sweden
    I think CivV has benn been improved on some points and a bit simplyfied on other, while as you said some aspects are removed alltogether. This, with the somewhat consoley feeling makes it feel less "adult", less PC, and less complex.

    Though, after CivIV and the great mods such as Total Realism I nowadays regard the official Civ-games as a "core games" for the modders to perfect. :)

    I see that CivV has a nice backbone on which to build a great game such as civV Total Realism. So in the end I think all will be find!
     
  20. Gath

    Gath Warlord

    Joined:
    Feb 26, 2008
    Messages:
    221
    No, I think if this wasn't a Civ game, it'd be off the charts. but we'd all be waiting for Firaxis to come along with the *real* civ.
     

Share This Page