One of the best changes in civ5 from civ4

[Xen]

Is that fully fleshed Civs are once more the true focus of the game, rather then leaders.

 

[Schuesseled]

Having multiple leaders wasn't a bad thing.

 

[stealth_nsk]

Having multiple leaders wasn't a bad thing.

By itself it wasn't. But small civilization difference caused by civilization-leader separation was.

 

[kaltorak]

By itself it wasn't. But small civilization difference caused by civilization-leader separation was.

I don't feel that using 1 movement instead of 2 when you enter a forest does difference a civ more than having 3 commerce in tiles where you have 2 + generating 2 bonus culture in each city. For example.

 

[jagdtigerciv]

I agree. Multiple leaders was something I didn't particularly enjoy. It really took away from individual civs. However, it was interesting to see a variety of leaders who wouldn't have otherwise been implemented. Ahh... Peter the Great.

 

[stealth_nsk]

I don't feel that using 1 movement instead of 2 when you enter a forest does difference a civ more than having 3 commerce in tiles where you have 2 + generating 2 bonus culture in each city. For example.

The problem is what in Civ 4 civilizations are more generic. No funny specializations like Iroquois foresters, British navy or Songhai burn as it will be in Civ 5.

 

[kaltorak]

The problem is what in Civ 4 civilizations are more generic. No funny specializations like Iroquois foresters, British navy or Songhai burn as it will be in Civ 5.

That's true. But I still think the specializations of civ5 have less impact than the traits.

 

[stealth_nsk]

That's true. But I still think the specializations of civ5 have less impact than the traits.

They have strategical impact. For example Russians and Arabs favor large empires, while India and Siam - small. England and Ottomans are quite focused on navy, while Iroquois tend to conquer forest areas.

There are little like this in Civ 4. For example, spirituals could play around switching civics and financiers build more cottages, but these traits are shared between a lot of leaders and strategic difference isn't that much.

 

[Haig]

I miss the multiple leaders for the variety, to see who would be against me and choosing a civ and a leader to suit my next strategy(If a nation had several. I never mixed leaders with "wrong" civilizations).

 

[krunsh]

I like it better in Civ 5 to. Having leader sharing the same trait was not as fun as full different civ. I could not even remember who was better at what, while now, even before the game is released, it's pretty easy to match each civ with a personality and playstyle.

Civ rev was already a big step from Civ 4. Civ 5 look even better.

 

[kaltorak]

Civ rev was already a big step from Civ 4.

With that sentence you nullified your entire first paragraph.

I don't want civ5 to be a game civRev players are proud of.

I love civRev... for my iphone. Like I liked tetris for my gameboy. But civ is not a pocket game.

 

[krunsh]

ok, your opinion... And to some extent I agree with you, I want a more complexe game than civ rev. But I do think that each civilization and it's leader had a lot more personality and differance between each other than in Civ 4, and that's what I was talking about.

Civ rev had some good idea and like firaxis have already said multiple time, they've learned a lot from it. So no reason to get all upset when someone say Civilization revolution .

 

[kaltorak]

But I do think that each civilization and it's leader had a lot more personality

Really? In my experience the civrev leaders were just like achmed the dead terrorist. They just said: I kill you!

 

[krunsh]

AI was a total mess, but I'm talking about the Civ special ability and style. I've never been a fan of % and +0.05. I like to have abilities that have more style to them, like gengis khan who turned barbarian camp into level 1 city.

 

[Twahn]

Krunsh is talking about "personality" as in markedly different play styles. The leader abilities in Civrev were more numerous and more powerful than in any proper Civ game, which gave them more "personality" (i.e. greater variation in playing experience).

 

[kaltorak]

I understand what he meant now. I just wouldnt call that "personalities". Personality is in civ4 when monty attacks like crazy, isabel is a religion fanatic, mansa musa loves to tech, or gandhi is the peaceful wonderbuilder.
Like I said, civrev is more like "I kill you". You don't call that personalities?

The bonuses were greater on civrev, ok Ill grant you that.

 

[krunsh]

I call that AI, but I get your point... And I totaly agree. This is the one reason why I can't enjoy a game of Civ rev anymore.

 

[Ranbir]

I particularly don't like being suggested to play a certain way by picking a certain civilization/leader due to their traits/bonuses. What I enjoyed from older Civs was that it didn't matter what I really picked because they were just a flavour and so everything felt far more 'balanced' in that sense.

Having Civs/leaders play a special way seems to make it far more predictable in how they will behave and surely that takes away some element of the challenge?

 

[stealth_nsk]

Having Civs/leaders play a special way seems to make it far more predictable in how they will behave and surely that takes away some element of the challenge?

Using bonuses doesn't limit your choices. For example Greeks have very obvious strategy of playing for diplomatic victory. But you still could use its advantage in other ways - cheaply maintaining relationships with several city-states nearby you could go for scientific or cultural victory. You could even make a switch in progress. No limitations.

 

[jagdtigerciv]

Gross, did somebody say CivRev?