Small Pet Peeves

[Depravo]

Of course I'm not meaning Historical Accuracy like Paradox games.

Historical Accuracy? In Paradox games?

Sorry, it's just that HoIIV was just released and... well...

 

[Aheadatime]

1. The 'undiscovered land' fog conflicts visually with the 'discovered but no current vision' fog imo. Would much prefer the old white cloud look of undiscovered land.

2. The 'discovered but no current vision' fog makes things a touch too bland. There's no color in the resource icons making it hard to grasp the map at a glance, and it's not as obvious which land is plains/grass/desert.

 

[zwei833]

Since many people have complained about the units not lasting long enough.

Plus, I think when people complained about the units not lasting long enough, very few of them means it is a good idea to remove some unit to make the remaining units lasting longer.

 

[skyclad]

Smaller number of unit tiers mean they last longer, which I consider good thing for speeds from standard and faster. For slower game speeds more unit tiers are better. Something like this. The game is balanced around standard speed, so that's correct.

Around point of view is - the tech tree clearly has some space for expansions.

Civ5 maybe had one too many units between warrior, swordsman, longswordman, musketman, rifleman, infantry. Probably the longswordman.
Going straight from muskets to modern rifles is too much. But we will see in the finished game

 

[zwei833]

Civ5 maybe had one too many units between warrior, swordsman, longswordman, musketman, rifleman, infantry. Probably the longswordman.

Not agree. As this is a game cover from ancient age to future age, I don't think that is too many. And there are Longswordsman-like units exist since Civ3.

 

[Metecury]

Not agree. As this is a game cover from ancient age to future age, I don't think that is too many. And there are Longswordsman-like units exist since Civ3.

We can argue that ww1 infantry in civ 5 while nice could have been avoided as it lasted for a very short period (if you were going straight for the top of the tech tree ignoring the lower part that is because otherwise they were just fine) but to jump from renaissance muskets to semi automatic weapons and ww2 infantry is a bit too much.









More units add more variety IMHO and if you want to fully enjoy them you can always play epic speed.

 

[BornInTheLoo]

Ra-Kedet as the name of the Egyptian capital seems silly. The English name is of course Alexandria. I'm wondering whether they will be consistent on this. Will we see Roma as capital for the Romans and not Rome?
I see Lisbon and not Lisboa and Geneva, not Genève/Genf, so I don't think so.

 

[ZTZaorish]

My personal pet peeve is the battle music that comes on for 2 seconds. It's just really short and awkward. I know where they were trying to go with it, but it gets real repetitive real fast. I already feel it's repetitive and all I did was hear it about 4 or 5 times.

 

[Morningcalm]

My least favorite thing is "A UNIT NEEDS ORDERS" (wrests screen from you, zooming over land, to some random unit, then zooms all the way over to another unit as soon as you are done; how distracting and annoying).

Basically at the end of each turn, the pop up in the right will cycle through units without orders. I hated this in Civ V. I would prefer (as in Civ IV) that if units have not been given orders, they just default to rest. Alternatively there should be an option to disable the screen-wresting. I hated having the screen roll away from me just because I wasn't given the freedom to have my units idle without being given orders.

 

[ZubieMaster]

The overall look of the game is nice, I think the interface is clean, and especially love the hand-drawn parchment look to the map concept. Also really love the scout unit with dog! But my "small pet peeve" is the warrior unit, I just can't get past the arms being more elongated than normal human dimensions making it look kinda like a giant from Clash of Clans. Also the combat animations having red explosions reminds me of the campy Batman T.V. series from the '60s, all that's missing is a popup bubble with "zok!" or "pow!". Otherwise lots of good additions, a good sign when the biggest complaints are in a "small pet peeves" thread. I tend to agree with another poster's thoughts that everything points to this being "civ 5 done right".

 

[Amrunril]

This phrase "With your people enthused to try Early Empire..." breaks the fourth wall. As if a civic discovery is announced from the rooftops and all the people want it
Leader: "Folks! We got Early Empire today!"
People: "Hoorah!!"

Even putting aside the fourth wall issue, the language bugs me. It makes sense for the game to use accessible language, even if it isn't very authentic, but "enthused" just sounds like it's trying to be modern and informal for the sake of being modern and informal even though a word like "eager" would work just as well.

 

[benjamin28]

My pet peeve is that you receive a full-screen leader animation just to tell you things like "we agree on this". It was very annoying in Civ 5 (how many times can you stand the leaders announcing that they became friends with another leader? It's lovely ONLY the first time). They should follow Rising Tide system of comuniqués, which was unobtrusive and practical.

By the way, the blue, start screen and the tech/civic trees look SO empty right now. But I'm sure they'll have a different art in October.

Besides, and despite my initial concerns, the game is looking fine and will probably be very addictive.

 

[Big J Money]

Even putting aside the fourth wall issue, the language bugs me. It makes sense for the game to use accessible language, even if it isn't very authentic, but "enthused" just sounds like it's trying to be modern and informal for the sake of being modern and informal even though a word like "eager" would work just as well.

Yeah "enthused" makes me bristle too. I feel like I got an email from "upper management" trying to convince me I'm happy about some new change I hate. (Maybe that's why they chose it? *DUN DUN DUN!*)

 

[isau]

I'm worried about the Eurekas that have "Kill a unit with Unit X" requirement. Hopefully that just means injure a unit and have it die, not "land the killing blow." I can see the AI really struggling with the latter, not to mention gaming the system so you land the killing blow with a specific unit is kind of un-fun.

 

[j51]

We can argue that ww1 infantry in civ 5 while nice could have been avoided as it lasted for a very short period (if you were going straight for the top of the tech tree ignoring the lower part that is because otherwise they were just fine) but to jump from renaissance muskets to semi automatic weapons and ww2 infantry is a bit too much.

More units add more variety IMHO and if you want to fully enjoy them you can always play epic speed.

This! Slow it down if its too fast for ya.

I just can't stand seeing these giant jumps in unit technology. Even if the unit and its stats don't change maybe give Medieval swordsmen and Industrial Musketmen different skins than their earlier counterparts.

Also the jump from Roman style Great General to Patton in a jeep: no. Let's at least have Napoleon on a horse in between!

 

[treadwin]

The thing about swordsmen/axemen was that they changed very little in effectiveness or tactics from Vikings to late medieval times.

You can call them medieval swordsmen, but you can't justify a significant technology or strength boost.

 

[Depravo]

This! Slow it down if its too fast for ya.

I just can't stand seeing these giant jumps in unit technology. Even if the unit and its stats don't change maybe give Medieval swordsmen and Industrial Musketmen different skins than their earlier counterparts.

Also the jump from Roman style Great General to Patton in a jeep: no. Let's at least have Napoleon on a horse in between!

Always thought there should be some kind of floor on obsolete units so that no matter how far behind you were in tech, you'd not be more than two or so classes below what can be built at the mean tech level of the civs you have embassies with. Units below this floor would gradually be upgraded for free, or at a massive discount, or maybe at the cost of foreign influence and / or happiness.

Seeing archaic units waltzing around the map, as you often do playing against the AI, hurts immersion - at least for me. These civs would be acquiring advanced weapons whether or not they had a domestic arms industry capable of producing them. There are many historic examples of this.

 

[j51]

The thing about swordsmen/axemen was that they changed very little in effectiveness or tactics from Vikings to late medieval times.

You can call them medieval swordsmen, but you can't justify a significant technology or strength boost.

It's more the better quality in steel between the classical and early middle ages that it should represent.

 

[treadwin]

It's more the better quality in steel between the classical and early middle ages that it should represent.

Perhaps, but I don't think that overall, they represent that much of an increase in effectiveness, such as the difference between a spear and a pike, and the tactics that the change in weaponry represented.

 

[Tsuchinoko]

The style of the buildings in districts not matching the style of the buildings in city centres kind of bothers me. It's kind of weird if you're playing as, say, Japan and have Asian-style buildings in the city centre, but all your districts have western-style buildings. It's quite immersion breaking and makes the map look messy imo.