Regarding the Civilopedia: Errors, omissions, and brevity...

[Zen Blade]

Does anyone know if we have a thread up regarding the errors/omissions present in the civilopedia?

Better question: Is anyone else shocked at how bad the civilopedia is? It almost seems like someone realized (at 6 AM in the morning) that they needed to quickly write one. Historically, the civilopedia has always been quite impressive in the Civ series, since it was first included.

The whole thing is very clunky and gives almost no information to the point that it is useless. This involves both the individual entries as well as the "ease" in navigation.

I would much prefer a civilopedia that was EXACTLY the same as Civ IV... lots of information, both historical and in-game.

Anyway, if there is a collection of errors, I stand ready to give some of the ones I have noticed, as well as the many omissions. The omissions are almost worse since I usually read the civilopedia before researching/building thing "X", only to discover that I have misunderstood what thing "X" does or does not do.

thanks,

-Zen Blade

 

[ageddyn]

Zen Blade, I totally agree. My first experience with the Civlopedia was trying to look up WTH a "cooperation pact" was since the AI just offered it. Yeah, not there.

 

[The_J]

If you find real mistakes, or have a concrete suggestion, please post in the bug reports forum.

Edit: Please search first, if a topic like the one you want to mention has already been created.
e.g. the pacts have already been mentioned.

 

[deanej]

Another thing: the civ5 civilopedia pulls a lot less information from the XML than the civ4 one did, requiring the strategy text to be on to find out what everything does.

 

[Ktulu]

Another huge problem is that there are no hyperlinks.

It tells you to "see the section on X" yet it is pain in the ass to find that section on X.

 

[Zen Blade]

I think there just needs to be a "civilopedia" thread... and there wasn't anything that fit that description when I posted (I did a search and got nothing).

I agree with the hyperlinks.

 

[abj9562]

I must agree the civopedia is not up to previous standards.