The BUY TWO COPIES of Civ 5 petition
- Thread starter lemmy101
- Start date
- Status
Oh please, spare us the histrionics.
You have absolutely no proof that these layoffs are the result of a phase out of PC games. You're operating under pure speculation alone. It seems perfectly reasonable to me that they would let some people go in fact. With the project nearing completion there will be less things to do, so why keep people around who are just going to be twiddling their thumbs all day? There's absolutely no indications that Firaxis is about to fold, it's just a very minor reorganization as their current project winds down to completion.
It's perfectly normal in that type of industry. It's not like some manufacturing plant where there's a steady stream of product to be made and people are needed on a regular basis to keep things flowing. All creative companies go through a boom and bust cycle, being extremely busy while their current project is under full swing, then not having all that much to do when it nears completion. Those people let go were probably under contract with the full knowledge that they would become redundant as the deadline approached. That's just standard procedure for that type of work. Frankly this whole thread is nothing but a non-issue and not really worth spending time on. It was obviously started out of a complete lack of understanding of how these types of industries function.
Gamemaster77
PC > Mac
Spearmen vs. Tank was something originally brought up by Civ1 and for the most part is a myth. I don't know about Civ4, but Domination Victory was in Civ3 too. They did change it to work like CivRev but still, someone didn't just say, hey this was a cool CivRev feature, lets put it in Civ5.
Removal of Tech trading was a good thing. Before your whole goal was to go down the AI's most valued and expensive tech path and trade for the rest, otherwise the'yd be a mile ahead of you. Also what strategy is it when your told exactly what they feel about you. You'd be like "Ok, Germany is mad at me because I'm trading with Egypt, now I'll stop and they'll be happy. Ok now everythings good.". Your pretty much given clear instructions, no high level thinking involved.
I must agree with you on the removal of transport ships but nowhere have I seen anything about the removal of full navies. In fact I've seen articles that have said that navies will be more important and the AI will be better at using them. Now I have no source for that but If you wish I can dig one up. Removal of city defenders just brings the fighting out of the city, instead of just piling all defense troops in your city. I've never seen any article about removal of promotions and I do admit that would be a good thing if they had them with limited units, so, source please? One unit per tile just destroys the stack of doom and forces you to strategically position your units. I've also seen nothing that suggests the "dumbing down" of the economy model.
But putting units at choke points is strategy, you need to carefully choose where to put them. Also, the AI is supposed to be smarter, you've never played the game so you have no reason to believe it is "dumb. Stacking is just putting all your units on one tile and plowing through enemy forces. In the real world the military doesn't just tell everyone, "Meet here and when all of us are here we will all go straight to this one city, skipping all other troops and attacking the city head on. Again source please for promotions being removed, and I have no idea what your talking about with army concepts.
There has never been anything that has said anything about resources being removed, there are still bonus, luxury, and strategic resources, and other than happiness being nation wide, none of your other claims have been confirmed. Even if they other stuff was nation wide it just reduces micromanagement allowing you to focus on the bigger picture. This part is just false.
Social policies are pretty much the exact same thing as civics and government types but in a revamped way. I must admit I don't know why espionage is out but they said they will most likely try it out in an expansion. Religion was a stupid concept in the first place. First of all it was one of the only major things in diplomacy. If you were the same religion as someone you would have to do something pretty bad to get them ticked. If you went to war with them being the same religion they would still get happiness points. That should make them more mad that someone of the same religion would try fighting them. If you were not the same religion, they could declare war on you at any time. You could only hope to get them happy. The removal of religion was good as it fixed bad diplomacy.
Now thats just plain ignorant. There are exactly the same amount of civilization as every vanilla Civ game released. If you count Babylon there are actually more civilizations. Removal of additional leaders is bad in my opinion but that work could be devoted to other parts of the game. Traits were not removed, they are just unique now, along with other things like the music. There are now three unique things for each Civ so that seems like not simplicity, but more complexity. Your next statement is just as ignorant as your first, you have no idea how the AI will perform. There's even been articles on how the AI's thinking is even more complex then before, with different thought levels. Suggesting that the AI may be to predictable at this point is just complaining about something because you ran out of complaints.
Like the above poster said culture in Civ4 was only for expanding borders or going for a cultural victory, which was only three cities. Also this whole time you have been saying Civ5 is getting simplified and now you admit something is more complicated but it's bad. Border growth one tile at a time is done automatically so it is not really tedious at all, and it encourages constantly producing culture, not just doing it until your borders jump to the fat X.
Here you have just avoided the point of him which is, where is this evidence? I have seen nothing that suggests Civ5 will have smaller maps however I have seen tons of things that point to the fact that Civ5 will have larger maps. Again, tile acquisition is automatic, therefore non-crippling to long gameplay. I have no idea what you are talking about with unit bottlenecks, so what are you? And the new diplomacy seems better to me and I have no idea how any type of diplomacy would affect whether someone likes long gameplay or not.
Where have you seen anything about the average size/speed people will play on, for one thats a personal preference thing.
I really have no idea what your saying here. Honestly it just looks like a mess.
[/Quote]We really should know what we're getting, civ 5 isn't another Spore at the least where so many people were so overhyped and disappointed. Again, I stress it doesn't mean the game won't be fun, particularly to those who agree with every type of change, but certainly it won't be the same as previous civ versions. And yes, everything does revolve around a few core factors - making a simpler game in most aspects that in the end they want to sell to as many folks as possible.[/QUOTE]
For one thing, i liked Spore
. Now lets be honest, no one here likes every single change that was made, but most changes were made to enhance gameplay. Also, it definitely won't be like previous Civ titles, thats why its Civ5, not Civ4.1. Also no, it doesn't resolve around those two things. For one you even admitted some parts were more complex, as were most. You said exactly: "And for someone complaining about annoying "complexity," I'm not so sure you'll be happy to hear about or perhaps be one of the players annoyed about having to individually "acquire a tile" hundreds of times per game." Yes they do want to sell it to a lot of people, thats what makes money. And to sell to a lot a game must be good. I'm also going to take a good guess and say that the people at Firaxis want to make a good game more, and sell to a lot of people. I'm guessing 2K is what really wants to rake in the money. I'm guessing people at Firaxis are ticked at 2K for some things like forcing Babylon to be bonus content. So, much of that could be 2K.Now back on topic. I do support this game a lot. I would buy two copies however I don't have a job, so...However I will recommend this game to many people, even before release. I will let them play my copy when I get it so if they like it they could go get it for themselves. I might even have them play Civ3 or Civ4 before release to get them interested in Civ. I think that companies that make a good product and aren't trying to suck the consumers dry should get rewarded. There have been instances where I have illegally downloaded songs but then paid for it later when I got an iTunes gift card. I don't thing I'd go so far as to do that with a game as those are sometimes a lot of trouble to get illegally but I'm just getting an example.
Dbob
Merchant Prince
To the OP...PC games, even if they are not exclusive to PC, will always have the mod aspect that console games do not. Games like Oblivion and Fallout 3 are very appealing on the PC for me because of the ability to expand the games beyond what the console can do. I'm sure there are others, but these 2 stick out to me. As long as games are released for the PC they will always be more versatile because consoles basic reasoning is control of the experience.
And saying all this I'm still not gonna buy 2 copies of the game.....Why?
And saying all this I'm still not gonna buy 2 copies of the game.....Why?
tl;dr, but...
yes, promotions are in the game, I don't know what he's thinking. But promotions are confirmed. When your unit is promoted you'll get to choose between the typical promotion and fully healing the unit.
yes, promotions are in the game, I don't know what he's thinking. But promotions are confirmed. When your unit is promoted you'll get to choose between the typical promotion and fully healing the unit.
Schuesseled
Deity
- Joined
- Mar 31, 2008
- Messages
- 2,081
Earthling, do you even know what your talking about, i think not.
The domination victory wasn't copied from civ rev, there been domination victories before civ rev. I admit it seems more like the victory condition in civ rev than in any other civ, but we haven't got any information yet other than it requires capitals to be captured, we don't know anymore than that, so its a bit earlier to say its been copied from civ rev.
None of those are bad things, tech trading was terrible in civ4, no brokering made it tolerable, i like that its being thrown out.
We don't know yet how much information you will get on what your AI rivals think of you.
Every civ game has brought alterations to the victory conditions in one way or another, even if its a simple as needing different techs to win a space victory.
How are the combat mechanics substanially reduced?
Transports ships are in the game, you just can't build them, your units are noe transformers. And if this was your only point of navies being reduced then I guess there's nothing more to say on that point.
Promotions are in the game, have you even watched any of the videos, seen any screenshots?
1upt doesn't mean less strategy it means more, you argue that stack compisition is strategy, so are formations, except it requires more strategy because you have to decide how you want them placed not just unit composition, and along with that you have to examine the terrain your placing them on for bonuses, and the terrain ahead of them to ascertain threats.
Micromanagement isn't going to be as much of a problem as it is in civ 4, you simply wont have that many units.
See above post, unit composition versus unit compisition and unit placement, more strategy for 1upt.
Its not reduced its just different, and how different we don't know yet.
I've seen no evidence to suggest removal of resources and resource types, with the exception of copper, that seems to have been misplaced...
Uhh lol, goverment and civics have been enchanced not removed. social policy tree ring any bells, hellooooo.
Espionage and Religion weren't in civ 4 vanilla either, they came with expansion packs, and this will likely to be true for civ v. vanilla is supposed to be clean or the junk exapansions try to shove in.
Not fewer civs, leader additionals are gone, but thier replaced with more intricate civ bonuses.
Culture is in the game....
Culture accumulation builds up like in civ 4 but except expanding every tile out one when several thousand culture is built up, it instead expands out one tile at a time using smaller build ups of culture, (and this is auto selected no manual control) and throws in the strategic choice of rushing culture accumulation by buying tiles. (this one is manual, picking tiles) (you don't have to buy every tile, hell you dont have to buy any tile if you dont want too.)
No your wrong and it should be obvious too even you.
I can't comment on whether civ 4 or civ 3 maps were bigger, i honestly dont know, waht i do know is that in civ 4, players were encouraged to have smaller empires than they were in 3, this reduced the amount of city spam throughout the game, but that doesn't imply a smaller map. As to civ 5, its far too early to tell.
"No, I'm pretty sure my predictions - some already all but verified really, are right on the spot."
No, they are not, verified as rediculous is more like it.
"but certainly it won't be the same as previous civ versions."
That is kinda the point of Civ V.
I'm afraid you know nothing, end of case, dismissed. Good Day Sir!
And have a nice day.
I'll be buying my one copy, the one ill play, and then ill spread the word of civ glory to all who will listen.
"And for he will stand upon the mountain, to bring joy and happiness to all who hear him speak." [Civ: 23]
The domination victory wasn't copied from civ rev, there been domination victories before civ rev. I admit it seems more like the victory condition in civ rev than in any other civ, but we haven't got any information yet other than it requires capitals to be captured, we don't know anymore than that, so its a bit earlier to say its been copied from civ rev.
None of those are bad things, tech trading was terrible in civ4, no brokering made it tolerable, i like that its being thrown out.
We don't know yet how much information you will get on what your AI rivals think of you.
Every civ game has brought alterations to the victory conditions in one way or another, even if its a simple as needing different techs to win a space victory.
How are the combat mechanics substanially reduced?
Transports ships are in the game, you just can't build them, your units are noe transformers. And if this was your only point of navies being reduced then I guess there's nothing more to say on that point.
Promotions are in the game, have you even watched any of the videos, seen any screenshots?
1upt doesn't mean less strategy it means more, you argue that stack compisition is strategy, so are formations, except it requires more strategy because you have to decide how you want them placed not just unit composition, and along with that you have to examine the terrain your placing them on for bonuses, and the terrain ahead of them to ascertain threats.
Micromanagement isn't going to be as much of a problem as it is in civ 4, you simply wont have that many units.
See above post, unit composition versus unit compisition and unit placement, more strategy for 1upt.
Its not reduced its just different, and how different we don't know yet.
I've seen no evidence to suggest removal of resources and resource types, with the exception of copper, that seems to have been misplaced...
Uhh lol, goverment and civics have been enchanced not removed. social policy tree ring any bells, hellooooo.
Espionage and Religion weren't in civ 4 vanilla either, they came with expansion packs, and this will likely to be true for civ v. vanilla is supposed to be clean or the junk exapansions try to shove in.
Not fewer civs, leader additionals are gone, but thier replaced with more intricate civ bonuses.
Culture is in the game....
Culture accumulation builds up like in civ 4 but except expanding every tile out one when several thousand culture is built up, it instead expands out one tile at a time using smaller build ups of culture, (and this is auto selected no manual control) and throws in the strategic choice of rushing culture accumulation by buying tiles. (this one is manual, picking tiles) (you don't have to buy every tile, hell you dont have to buy any tile if you dont want too.)
No your wrong and it should be obvious too even you.
I can't comment on whether civ 4 or civ 3 maps were bigger, i honestly dont know, waht i do know is that in civ 4, players were encouraged to have smaller empires than they were in 3, this reduced the amount of city spam throughout the game, but that doesn't imply a smaller map. As to civ 5, its far too early to tell.
"No, I'm pretty sure my predictions - some already all but verified really, are right on the spot."
No, they are not, verified as rediculous is more like it.
"but certainly it won't be the same as previous civ versions."
That is kinda the point of Civ V.
I'm afraid you know nothing, end of case, dismissed. Good Day Sir!
And have a nice day.
I'll be buying my one copy, the one ill play, and then ill spread the word of civ glory to all who will listen.
"And for he will stand upon the mountain, to bring joy and happiness to all who hear him speak." [Civ: 23]
I'm not saying Steam makes more money than a retail outlet, Ill use my local store, Game. Steam keeps 30% of sales, not sure on how much of this is profit, but hosting servers is a lot cheaper than buying buildings, keeping them warm and working, and appealing store fronts and having lots of sales employees, e.t.c all this stuff is fine, retail has existed a long time, but it does have one draw back, it has increased overheads, they can still make money and therefore still exist. But they take more like 60% of the money from sales, to give themselfs profit and cover costs. Steam only takes 30%, this I read in the steam wiki, and its a guess really, im sure it's quite variable. But it is a fact, that Steams costs are lower than a retail outlets. Thus these savings can and are passed onto Publishers/Developers. They are clearly not given to us, atleast not always
, So lower costs for the game means more profit, and 2k/Frix will get thier share of the extra profit by selling digitally.I'm not trying to argue about Steam in here, whether its good or bad, if you guys think its an evil corporation then fine (ill argue with you guys in the other thread - not you in particular Piece, I can't remember if your for or against Steam or just don't care
), but to my point, If you wish to support your game, if you wish to give frix more profits consider buying the DE Steam Edition, Sure it will give the Evil Corporation Steam some of your money, but Frix will get more money than if you go elsewhere. However with the introduction of the CE in stores, at a higher price, you may want to get this instead, it should still give reasonable profits to Frix compared to a Standard Retail Edition.
I also have to agree with anyone arguing against Earthling, he obviously is mistaken in nearly everything he says, either he has misunderstood or is wildly assuming the wrong things, I urge him to atleast get the Demo off Steam when it is released and see for himself. He brings up one point which we have had no information on, which I would like confirmed not to be true which is that "Map sizes will be restricted and smaller" I hope this is not the case, and I have no reason to assume it will be. I hope we still get the ability to choose between tiny and huge, infact I would like bigger sizes than huge as standard, mods seem to be at best unreliable. But size's & speed's will be modded by the community to more than Vanilla gives. It would be nice if these were already developed for us so we don't have to rely on unreliable mods or buggy mods or slow mods unless we have too. So at the very least I hope map sizes are still customiseable. I would hate if it restricted all games map sizes like they did in Civ Rev. But thier is no reason to think they will do this for the PC game Civ5. I would like a podcast on Mapsizes or some information on that mechanic at some point. Patience is a virtue I'm sure it will arrive eventually.
12agnar0k said:
The bold part is what I was responding to. I think you and I understood your use of the word 'take' differently. i.e. do we mean revenue (or profit) or revenue minus costs? Anyway, it's off topic enough that I don't care to argue it.
I know what you meant, and did I not discuss this very point in my post?, that I didn't know if they made more money or not than a different retail outlet, If I did not make this point clear then I hope I am doing so now, yes its not particularily on topic. And I don't know the answer, but I can conclude on a different point which is on topic, whether Steam makes more or less money than a retail outlet I don't know, but they do however pass on more profits to 2k/Frixasis, which makes buying off them a good idea if you wish to support your favourite game's developers.The bold part is what I was responding to. I think you and I understood your use of the word 'take' differently. i.e. do we mean revenue (or profit) or revenue minus costs? Anyway, it's off topic enough that I don't care to argue it.
I admit I don't know if Steam makes more profit than a normal shop, one assumes that by charging the same prices as in a normal store they either do or could do if they wanted too.
Well, we're both speculating. Agree to disagree?
I am not certain as to where I am supposed to be agreeing to disagree, are you refering to this part of your post. If thats the case then no I am afraid I CAN NOT agree to disagree...... because I infact agree with you.
If your wish to not support Steam is greater than your wish to support Frixasis, (which we can all agree is a non-issue, they aren't going out of business
,) then indeed don't buy the game on Steam. I fail to see where we would be agreeing to disagree, I'm afraid we will have to settle on "agree to agree."
And I will also agree to agree that most people will buy its where its cheapest, or whatever else motivates them, for me digital download is the easiest and I dont mind paying a little extra for a DE additional content, my brother till I demanded he brought the DE edition even if I had to pay for it, wanted to buy it for £25 off amazon. The nerve
.
I think we disagree on how much Valve profits from sales made through Steam compared with how much retailers profit from sales in stores.
If you're actually worried about the viability of Firaxis, just buy the game wherever you please and donate X dollars to Firaxis directly. This is where I also disagree with you - I think buying civ5 from steam so Firaxis profits more is a rubbish idea. Besides, is it not possible that buying the collector edition actually nets them more profit even if sold from a retail store with nasty overheads? I think I already said somewhere else earlier as well, Aussies are paying damn near double the price already. Even if you buy the game on steam, Aussies are probably passing on more profit to 2K(/Firaxis?) from retail store sales. This is pure speculation, but this is why I said in my previous post that we are speculating.
If you're actually worried about the viability of Firaxis, just buy the game wherever you please and donate X dollars to Firaxis directly. This is where I also disagree with you - I think buying civ5 from steam so Firaxis profits more is a rubbish idea. Besides, is it not possible that buying the collector edition actually nets them more profit even if sold from a retail store with nasty overheads? I think I already said somewhere else earlier as well, Aussies are paying damn near double the price already. Even if you buy the game on steam, Aussies are probably passing on more profit to 2K(/Firaxis?) from retail store sales. This is pure speculation, but this is why I said in my previous post that we are speculating.
tom2050
Deity
- Joined
- Oct 12, 2005
- Messages
- 5,516
It's somewhat of a stupid idea to buy multiple copies of Civ 5 that you do not need because Take 2 fired 20 guys for reasons unknown (EDIT: cost cutting and streamlining is what was said, I suppose we can take their word on it).
They will not re-hire them for a few people buying extra copies. And if anyone really wants to help them out that much, you are better off sending them a weekly $100 check with an explanation of your gift and why you are doing it. At least then, Firaxis gets the whole amount, and not Valve, Steam, the Store, and other entities.
They will not re-hire them for a few people buying extra copies. And if anyone really wants to help them out that much, you are better off sending them a weekly $100 check with an explanation of your gift and why you are doing it. At least then, Firaxis gets the whole amount, and not Valve, Steam, the Store, and other entities.
Aussie_Lurker
Deity
Wow Earthling, your arguments are so patently false that I'd actually feel tempted to accuse you of being a bold-faced LIAR, but instead let me break down your arguments piece-by-piece.
Sorry, but which of these represents asking for a simplification of the game? Removal of any hint of "spearman vs tank" is *good* for the game, & Domination Victory has been in the game since Civ3, with little alteration. By the sounds of it, all that's been removed from Domination Victory is the tedium of having to destroy every last piece of your opponents Empire. As to Immigration & Trade, all the discussion I've seen here is for them to be introduced as a means of *increasing* complexity-not dumbing down the game-certainly I don't recall ever hearing about either Immigration or Trade being accurately represented in CivRev,
As has been pointed out, Tech Trading was a massive human-player *exploit*, & its *replacement* with Research Pacts is a massive improvement. Transparent Diplomacy was also a massive Human Player Exploit. Diplomacy-from everything I've read-will still be both understandable & rational, just not as plain as the nose on your face. If anything, though, a switch to less transparent diplomacy system represents an *increase* in complexity, not a dumbing down.
As to altered victory conditions, I don't see how that represents a "dumbing down". The Culture Victory actually requires you to take a more active role in the fostering of your national culture-via the purchase of social policies-rather than just sitting back & letting it happen as in Civ3 & Civ4. Domination Victory is now achievable with far less tedium, but will still require active participation on the part of the player due to the improvements in the combat system. Space Race Victory are pretty much the same as before.
From everything I've read, all naval units are still in the game-minus transports. The ability of units to form their own transports, coupled with 1upt, coupled with the ranged combat ability of naval units is liable to make navies far more important than they were in previous versions of the game. Promotions haven't been removed-such a claim proves that you're basing your beliefs on your own *hatred* of Civ5, rather than actual evidence. As has been stated elsewhere, the shift to 1upt makes both army composition & army placement of far, far greater important. Before only army (stack) composition mattered, & even that could be outdone by a sufficiently large stack. The new system puts yet another nail in the coffin of "Bigger is *always* better which plagued all versions of the game (though Civ4 game it a good hard knock on the head).
Your claims that the new system allows easier exploitation of the AI is just that-a claim, without foundation. Panzer General is an older game, but the AI was supremely capable of handling 1upt. Indeed, thecombat AI in these older 1upt games often left Civ4's combat AI for dead. Yet on top of this, we have the Civ5 team bragging about how good the new AI is going to be. Maybe that won't be the case, but there is no proof to the contrary as yet!
Given what has already been said about the number of units in the game, your claims about increased Micromanagement are also without foundation.
Again, its you that seems not to understand what strategy is. The "strategy" you mention is actually really, really poor. Unless you've backed up your archers with some other good support units behind the choke-point, then a good attacker will simply overwhelm your archers (who aren't very strong in melee combat). A contest to see who has the biggest stack is the absolute antithesis of strategy-it represents combat dumbed down to the lowest common denominator-yet that's what you seem to prefer: dumbed down combat. We've already pointed out that promotions are still in the game. Units gain bonuses based on what units are in adjacent squares & siege units are more important than ever-so army concepts are actually a far bigger part of the game than they were in Civ3 or Civ4. So, again, all of your claims are utterly false, & seem to be based on a complete & total misunderstanding of how the new combat system is going to work.
[QUOTE}Yes, with removal of resources and resource types, and reduced management on city-by-city bases of happiness/health or your general citizens' well-being.[/QUOTE]
WRONG AGAIN. All 3 resource types (Food, Strategic & Luxury) are still in the game as before, & so are all the improvements used to access them. Happiness has a global component & a city-based component, & we don't know much about health at this point. Again, though, I see nothing in the change to happiness that suggests a dumbing down of the game. Streamlining things to reduce micromanagement tedium is a laudable goal, not one that should be attacked.
WRONG AGAIN. Civics have been replaced with Social Policies-which serve nearly an identical function. It sounds like espionage is out, but many would say that's a good thing (not me though). The "espionage" system in Vanilla Civ4-& Warlords-was, btw, extremely LAME, & would have been better off not being in there at all. I personally hope they do Espionage right for an XP down the track. As to religion-its true they've taken out large parts of the religion mechanism from Civ4, but again some people would say this is a good thing. I personally think the problems with religion from Civ4 (like its blandness & its overpowering effects on happiness & diplomacy) could have been fixed without removing religion from the game. That said, at least some elements of the Civ4 system are retained (& possibly expanded upon) via the Piety & Rationality Social Policies.
WRONG AGAIN. Seriously, have you actually bothered to read a SINGLE ARTICLE or watch a SINGLE PREVIEW? It sounds like you've concocted your views entirely in your own imagination, in the absence of any evidence from the real world. There are as many Civs in the game as there were in vanilla Civ4. Some of those civs had multiple leaders, but most didn't (about 2/3rd didn't IIRC). Instead of traits the Civs now have very *unique* special abilities (like Manifest Destiny which-apparently-will make it cheaper to acquire tiles). The Unique Units & Unique Buildings (UB's, btw, were *not* available in Civ4 til Warlords) are supposedly going to be truly unique-not just a "swordsman with +10% strength". The UU will now have a truly *unique* ability (like the ability of the Legion to build roads). This increased uniqueness, plus much more diverse AI flavors, will most likely add a great deal more to the game.
WRONG AGAIN. The culture mechanic is still in the game. Culture will still be built up, & culture will still impact the expansion of your borders. It will occur automatically, but will do so more incrementally & in a more asynchronous way. Your borders will expand faster along less hostile terrain, & towards resources you want. Players though now have the OPTION to purchase the tiles they want, as well as the option to purchase tiles already owned via the diplomacy screen.
I don't ever recall anyone being able to come out with the definitive answer to which game had the larger maps. What I personally recall was that I never had an empire that had fewer cities in Civ4 than on a similar sized map in Civ3. Also, unlike in Civ3 where half of my cities were utterly useless, & where you were stuck with only Mines & farms, Civ4 gave us a game in which *every* city was useful from the moment it was built (due to the removal of corruption) & where smaller empires could effectively compete with larger ones (due to the removal of Infinite City Sleaze). To date, I've seen NO PROOF that Civ5 maps will be any smaller than those of Civ4, or that any of the complexity of Civ4 maps will be lost in the transition to Civ5.
Nope, all you've really given us is YOUR OPINION-an opinion which is largely uninformed by the facts we have to hand. You've not provided so much as a single shred of evidence-from interviews or demos, of which there have now been many-to back up your ludicrous assertions about the game being dumbed down. I don't personally agree with every change they've made to the game, but I certainly have not seen any evidence that the game-changes made will make the game any more simplistic/dumbed down than Civ4. It might be more accessible, less tedious & more streamlined, but those are all GOOD THINGS.
Here endeth the lesson.
Aussie.
Sorry, but which of these represents asking for a simplification of the game? Removal of any hint of "spearman vs tank" is *good* for the game, & Domination Victory has been in the game since Civ3, with little alteration. By the sounds of it, all that's been removed from Domination Victory is the tedium of having to destroy every last piece of your opponents Empire. As to Immigration & Trade, all the discussion I've seen here is for them to be introduced as a means of *increasing* complexity-not dumbing down the game-certainly I don't recall ever hearing about either Immigration or Trade being accurately represented in CivRev,
As has been pointed out, Tech Trading was a massive human-player *exploit*, & its *replacement* with Research Pacts is a massive improvement. Transparent Diplomacy was also a massive Human Player Exploit. Diplomacy-from everything I've read-will still be both understandable & rational, just not as plain as the nose on your face. If anything, though, a switch to less transparent diplomacy system represents an *increase* in complexity, not a dumbing down.
As to altered victory conditions, I don't see how that represents a "dumbing down". The Culture Victory actually requires you to take a more active role in the fostering of your national culture-via the purchase of social policies-rather than just sitting back & letting it happen as in Civ3 & Civ4. Domination Victory is now achievable with far less tedium, but will still require active participation on the part of the player due to the improvements in the combat system. Space Race Victory are pretty much the same as before.
From everything I've read, all naval units are still in the game-minus transports. The ability of units to form their own transports, coupled with 1upt, coupled with the ranged combat ability of naval units is liable to make navies far more important than they were in previous versions of the game. Promotions haven't been removed-such a claim proves that you're basing your beliefs on your own *hatred* of Civ5, rather than actual evidence. As has been stated elsewhere, the shift to 1upt makes both army composition & army placement of far, far greater important. Before only army (stack) composition mattered, & even that could be outdone by a sufficiently large stack. The new system puts yet another nail in the coffin of "Bigger is *always* better which plagued all versions of the game (though Civ4 game it a good hard knock on the head).
Your claims that the new system allows easier exploitation of the AI is just that-a claim, without foundation. Panzer General is an older game, but the AI was supremely capable of handling 1upt. Indeed, thecombat AI in these older 1upt games often left Civ4's combat AI for dead. Yet on top of this, we have the Civ5 team bragging about how good the new AI is going to be. Maybe that won't be the case, but there is no proof to the contrary as yet!
Given what has already been said about the number of units in the game, your claims about increased Micromanagement are also without foundation.
Again, its you that seems not to understand what strategy is. The "strategy" you mention is actually really, really poor. Unless you've backed up your archers with some other good support units behind the choke-point, then a good attacker will simply overwhelm your archers (who aren't very strong in melee combat). A contest to see who has the biggest stack is the absolute antithesis of strategy-it represents combat dumbed down to the lowest common denominator-yet that's what you seem to prefer: dumbed down combat. We've already pointed out that promotions are still in the game. Units gain bonuses based on what units are in adjacent squares & siege units are more important than ever-so army concepts are actually a far bigger part of the game than they were in Civ3 or Civ4. So, again, all of your claims are utterly false, & seem to be based on a complete & total misunderstanding of how the new combat system is going to work.
[QUOTE}Yes, with removal of resources and resource types, and reduced management on city-by-city bases of happiness/health or your general citizens' well-being.[/QUOTE]
WRONG AGAIN. All 3 resource types (Food, Strategic & Luxury) are still in the game as before, & so are all the improvements used to access them. Happiness has a global component & a city-based component, & we don't know much about health at this point. Again, though, I see nothing in the change to happiness that suggests a dumbing down of the game. Streamlining things to reduce micromanagement tedium is a laudable goal, not one that should be attacked.
WRONG AGAIN. Civics have been replaced with Social Policies-which serve nearly an identical function. It sounds like espionage is out, but many would say that's a good thing (not me though). The "espionage" system in Vanilla Civ4-& Warlords-was, btw, extremely LAME, & would have been better off not being in there at all. I personally hope they do Espionage right for an XP down the track. As to religion-its true they've taken out large parts of the religion mechanism from Civ4, but again some people would say this is a good thing. I personally think the problems with religion from Civ4 (like its blandness & its overpowering effects on happiness & diplomacy) could have been fixed without removing religion from the game. That said, at least some elements of the Civ4 system are retained (& possibly expanded upon) via the Piety & Rationality Social Policies.
WRONG AGAIN. Seriously, have you actually bothered to read a SINGLE ARTICLE or watch a SINGLE PREVIEW? It sounds like you've concocted your views entirely in your own imagination, in the absence of any evidence from the real world. There are as many Civs in the game as there were in vanilla Civ4. Some of those civs had multiple leaders, but most didn't (about 2/3rd didn't IIRC). Instead of traits the Civs now have very *unique* special abilities (like Manifest Destiny which-apparently-will make it cheaper to acquire tiles). The Unique Units & Unique Buildings (UB's, btw, were *not* available in Civ4 til Warlords) are supposedly going to be truly unique-not just a "swordsman with +10% strength". The UU will now have a truly *unique* ability (like the ability of the Legion to build roads). This increased uniqueness, plus much more diverse AI flavors, will most likely add a great deal more to the game.
WRONG AGAIN. The culture mechanic is still in the game. Culture will still be built up, & culture will still impact the expansion of your borders. It will occur automatically, but will do so more incrementally & in a more asynchronous way. Your borders will expand faster along less hostile terrain, & towards resources you want. Players though now have the OPTION to purchase the tiles they want, as well as the option to purchase tiles already owned via the diplomacy screen.
I don't ever recall anyone being able to come out with the definitive answer to which game had the larger maps. What I personally recall was that I never had an empire that had fewer cities in Civ4 than on a similar sized map in Civ3. Also, unlike in Civ3 where half of my cities were utterly useless, & where you were stuck with only Mines & farms, Civ4 gave us a game in which *every* city was useful from the moment it was built (due to the removal of corruption) & where smaller empires could effectively compete with larger ones (due to the removal of Infinite City Sleaze). To date, I've seen NO PROOF that Civ5 maps will be any smaller than those of Civ4, or that any of the complexity of Civ4 maps will be lost in the transition to Civ5.
Nope, all you've really given us is YOUR OPINION-an opinion which is largely uninformed by the facts we have to hand. You've not provided so much as a single shred of evidence-from interviews or demos, of which there have now been many-to back up your ludicrous assertions about the game being dumbed down. I don't personally agree with every change they've made to the game, but I certainly have not seen any evidence that the game-changes made will make the game any more simplistic/dumbed down than Civ4. It might be more accessible, less tedious & more streamlined, but those are all GOOD THINGS.
Here endeth the lesson.
Aussie.
I agree if we really want to support Frix with extra profits we should migrate to Australia and buy a CE edition
, That will give the most profit.Steam might give more profit than normal retail outlets (in the same country as the Steam pirce) I don't know for sure, I as you say speculate they do, due to overheads on a retail outlet. But we don't actually need to buy off Steam, Frix isn't going out of business, if you dis-like steam just buy at retail.
tom2050
Deity
- Joined
- Oct 12, 2005
- Messages
- 5,516
You have to use Steam no matter where you buy the game at; even if you buy it off e-bay.
Aussie_Lurker
Deity
So what Tom? You download Steam & use it *once* to register the game, & then can choose never to use it again. Wow, you're right, how *dare* they infringe on your "democratic rights" in this way?!?!
Moderator Action: please keep the discussion civil
Moderator Action: please keep the discussion civil
tom2050
Deity
- Joined
- Oct 12, 2005
- Messages
- 5,516
Wow, you don't have to be so hateful. I was just letting the forum member know that you need to use Steam from store or any other method; because he thought you didn't. This way he knows ahead of time and can make an informed decision.
It's no big deal to me... please don't flame on me for no reason.
Tylerryan79
Emperor
At Earthling- promotions are still here, units can pass through other units as long as they have a tile to go to, so no bottlenecking, navies are going to be way better/important, with ranged bombardment, ability to attack land units, however transports are out, making a good navy all the more needed. As has been said tiles are gained automaticly, just like in IV, I've heard at the average rate of 1 tile a turn(can't find source), also we can buy them if we'd like(sounds good to me). The only thing confirmed global is happiness, everything else is still produced in cities(gold culture hammers food). With no more stacks it's no longer quantity but quality. Sure you can make well rounded stacks in IV, but there was never a need to and/or you would only move them from city to city. Now we will have to place units carefully, and from the pics it doesn't look like one guy at a choke points going to cut it. Religion as in iv is out(for reasons mentioned), but the idea is still there in the social policies. I will miss them to, but as they were it wasn't really good(I guess they couldn't or didn't want to fix it?). Social policies are now gov/civics, and you get to mix and match, seems good to me. Map sizes and game lengths have not been confirmed, so your just guessing. I'll say they are the same as Iv, but I have no proof. I just love how we know nothing really about the game, but you know everything, and it sucks.
- Status
Similar threads
