What do Civ5 opposers still like in Civ5?
- Thread starter bitula
- Start date
CivFanaticMan
Warlord
I'm going to admit, I am very disappointed with Civ5. So I guess I fit on this list. Here is my evaluation:
1. I am split on this one. Units not dying after an attack is a nice feature, but it is a problem for Civ's with higher production. In previous Civ's the Civ with the higher production would normally win, rewarding that Civ for achieving a high production rate.
However in Civ5 I think this rule fits right in with the game. In other Civ's this feature wouldn't work. Its really just a necessity for tactical combat in Civ5 to have.
2. This feature is great. It is an improvement that I hope stays with the series.
3. I really don't care for leader animations. It has no direct affect on gameplay, but it adds a degree of immersion into the game. Leader animations will always be an improving graphical feature in Civ.
4. I think turn time is about the same. I have been using the same computer for Civ5 and Civ4. Civ5 requires a lot more RAM and Processor than Civ4, and I am at minimum requirement, but the reason why turns are still the same is partly to the lack of global trade routes. Global trade routes caused long turn times in Civ4 towards the end of the game, but they were still a really good feature in Civ4. Its probably better that their out of Civ5 since turns would probably last very long if they were left in.
5. I like ranged attack, but once again it is another feature to make tactical combat work. (I am not a fan of tactical combat). Without it tactical combat would be... not very tactical.
6. I like road matenince. I personally don't think it is a good feature to have in a 1UPT game, but if Civ5 had stacks it would be a great feature to have. Of course it does need some balancing.
7. This feature I also like, but GP also need a lot of improvement.
What I could add to this list is the idea of City states. So far City states are very shallow in my opinion, and could use a lot of improvement and change. For instance, a less obvious reason would be I don't think City States should be able to decide a diplomatic victory.
Thats just my opinion about everything.
Venereus
This Is Streamlined!
- Joined
- Aug 8, 2010
- Messages
- 1,026
1) I like it, but it's there just because we use less units now because of 1UPT.
2) Agree.
3) Useless eye candy I only watched once and now always skip (like I did with Civ IV's wonder movies, wich is why I'm not so annoyed by the paintings). A waste of resources, both during development and while it's being rendered by my rig.
4) Didn't play much with big mods in Civ IV. It's awful long for me, vanilla or not.
5) Like it, needs work. I'd like it if gunpowder units and tanks had a 1 tile range ranged attack. Only real melee units should be forced to occupy the position of the units they kill.
6) I definitely don't like the road spaghetti, but I'm still not convinced about this.
7) I agree with OP.
That, and what TMIT said.
Oh, and World Peace.
2) Agree.
3) Useless eye candy I only watched once and now always skip (like I did with Civ IV's wonder movies, wich is why I'm not so annoyed by the paintings). A waste of resources, both during development and while it's being rendered by my rig.
4) Didn't play much with big mods in Civ IV. It's awful long for me, vanilla or not.
5) Like it, needs work. I'd like it if gunpowder units and tanks had a 1 tile range ranged attack. Only real melee units should be forced to occupy the position of the units they kill.
6) I definitely don't like the road spaghetti, but I'm still not convinced about this.
7) I agree with OP.
That, and what TMIT said.
Oh, and World Peace.
Eskel
Warlord
I like:
1) Increased unit HP (higher survival rate - "no death in single turn")
2) Hexes
3) Road maintenance (needs balance though)
4) Worker lock
5) Quantifiable resources
6) Ranged combat, though I'd prefer only 1 tile for ancient siege units, 2 tiles for modern artillery, and archery/gunpowder unit having just "first strike" ability - more like in Civ 3
7) Combat bonuses for allied units on adjacent tiles
8) Combat bonuses in allied territory
9) Terrain divided into "open" and "rough" category for combat purposes
10) Mod browser
Some features has potential:
- natural wonders (but no El Dorado nor FoY)
- policies - but only as addition representing continuous tradition and mentality of nations, not instead of civics/social engineering system like Civ4/SMAC
- buying tiles - not bad, but there should be as well possibility of buying tiles and demanding territory from other players. Moreover, cultural borders should grow faster, creating teritorial integrity as soon as possible
- research agreements - it should be REAL cooperation, like in SMAC or Civ 4 in permanent alliance: you have to research tech, while both civs contribute to common research pool
I am not sure about City States. Personally I played Revolutions mod for Civ 4, with barbs transgressing into civs, and new civs emerging through revolts, which resulted in many minor nations across the map. Do we really nead artificial and gamey CS for that?
Definitely I don't like 1UPT, global hapiness, no health, no civics, no religion, no corporations, no espionage, no foreign trade routes, no naval transports (embarkation), no capitulation, no vassalage, lack of diplomatic options, UN voting, buying CS, random "kill" missions, broken diplomacy, capitals sniping, city resistance, no map trading, no option for tech trading/brokering, no option for random events.
1) Increased unit HP (higher survival rate - "no death in single turn")
2) Hexes
3) Road maintenance (needs balance though)
4) Worker lock
5) Quantifiable resources
6) Ranged combat, though I'd prefer only 1 tile for ancient siege units, 2 tiles for modern artillery, and archery/gunpowder unit having just "first strike" ability - more like in Civ 3
7) Combat bonuses for allied units on adjacent tiles
8) Combat bonuses in allied territory
9) Terrain divided into "open" and "rough" category for combat purposes
10) Mod browser
Some features has potential:
- natural wonders (but no El Dorado nor FoY)
- policies - but only as addition representing continuous tradition and mentality of nations, not instead of civics/social engineering system like Civ4/SMAC
- buying tiles - not bad, but there should be as well possibility of buying tiles and demanding territory from other players. Moreover, cultural borders should grow faster, creating teritorial integrity as soon as possible
- research agreements - it should be REAL cooperation, like in SMAC or Civ 4 in permanent alliance: you have to research tech, while both civs contribute to common research pool
I am not sure about City States. Personally I played Revolutions mod for Civ 4, with barbs transgressing into civs, and new civs emerging through revolts, which resulted in many minor nations across the map. Do we really nead artificial and gamey CS for that?
Definitely I don't like 1UPT, global hapiness, no health, no civics, no religion, no corporations, no espionage, no foreign trade routes, no naval transports (embarkation), no capitulation, no vassalage, lack of diplomatic options, UN voting, buying CS, random "kill" missions, broken diplomacy, capitals sniping, city resistance, no map trading, no option for tech trading/brokering, no option for random events.
- Joined
- Mar 31, 2008
- Messages
- 14,926
Then you'll totally like Civ4: BTS
1) Hexes
2) 1upt (though it needs work. I'm NOT in the camp that 1upt means build speeds need to necessarily be slow)
3) Policies
4) No slider. I love that gold is a separate resource that has different uses than just "middle man to science". I couldn't go back to a production only system.
There's probably a few more.
2) 1upt (though it needs work. I'm NOT in the camp that 1upt means build speeds need to necessarily be slow)
3) Policies
4) No slider. I love that gold is a separate resource that has different uses than just "middle man to science". I couldn't go back to a production only system.
There's probably a few more.
Roto-Router
Chieftain
1) Map generation scripts produce much nicer maps: Civ4 was just godawful for this.
2) Hexes
3) Ranged units, though I would prefer almost all (except artillery, battleships & air/missile units) has 1 range, and to compensate you had limited stacking so the ranged units weren't defenseless.
4) The submarine torpedo graphics turn my crank. Sometimes I start wars just so I can torpedo stuff.
5) Tile improvements being pillaged rather than completely destroyed.
6) Each civilization has a unique flavor, and significant advantages and disadvantages (though there are plenty of balance issues).
7) Embarkation of units, though I think some limited stacking needs to be reintroduced so the things aren't totally defenseless. They're also way too slow.
2) Hexes
3) Ranged units, though I would prefer almost all (except artillery, battleships & air/missile units) has 1 range, and to compensate you had limited stacking so the ranged units weren't defenseless.
4) The submarine torpedo graphics turn my crank. Sometimes I start wars just so I can torpedo stuff.
5) Tile improvements being pillaged rather than completely destroyed.
6) Each civilization has a unique flavor, and significant advantages and disadvantages (though there are plenty of balance issues).
7) Embarkation of units, though I think some limited stacking needs to be reintroduced so the things aren't totally defenseless. They're also way too slow.
Yoshiegg737
Jungo Jungo
I like:
1) Diplo Graphics
2) Hex's
3) Pact of Friendship/Denouncing
And that's about it
(On a side note, I dislike the diplo music in Civ V. Really makes me miss the Civ IV diplo music)
1) Diplo Graphics
2) Hex's
3) Pact of Friendship/Denouncing
And that's about it
(On a side note, I dislike the diplo music in Civ V. Really makes me miss the Civ IV diplo music)
jprc
My dog is smarter than me
like othersefore me:
a- hexes
b- 1 unit (i like the idea, not the implementation as it should allow some flexibility)
c- small nations
d- limited resources
e- like Akka, road system with cost (needs a better implermentation)
f- strategic view (the simplified map making civ5 looking like a board game)
a- hexes
b- 1 unit (i like the idea, not the implementation as it should allow some flexibility)
c- small nations
d- limited resources
e- like Akka, road system with cost (needs a better implermentation)
f- strategic view (the simplified map making civ5 looking like a board game)
Misotu
King
- Joined
- Jan 10, 2006
- Messages
- 934
I am still trying to get to grips with Civ 5 but I am disappointed to find that it really isn't holding my attention despite its novelty value. Having said that, there are some features that I really do like:
1. Ranged combat - so much more interesting and varied than combat in IV. Included in this is shore bombardment by naval units - I always thought it was odd that IV didn't have this except for bombarding city defences.
2. The fact that units might survive combat even if they don't win.
3. I really like the way cities are able to defend themselves a little and are not a pushover even if ungarrisoned.
4. Largely because of 1, 2 and 3, I play with barbs on in V - I always turned them off in IV, they were just too irritating and required way too much military to contain in the early game.
5. I do quite like the unit per tile limit (although 1/tile across the board is too severe. Baffling not to be able to stack non-combat units with each other and/or with a military unit for protection. I haven't tried it yet, but I suspect this will be even more irritating where defenceless embarked units are concerned).
6. Citizen management - tremendous improvement with the combination of locking worked tiles and manual specialist management tick box - I got SO bored with the way IV kept changing my specialist selection and persisted in allocating spies no matter what I did.
7. Larger worked areas for individual cities.
8. No anarchy for the equivalent of civic changes - that always irritated me in Civ IV.
That's it I'm afraid. The improvements really don't make up for the deficiencies
1. Ranged combat - so much more interesting and varied than combat in IV. Included in this is shore bombardment by naval units - I always thought it was odd that IV didn't have this except for bombarding city defences.
2. The fact that units might survive combat even if they don't win.
3. I really like the way cities are able to defend themselves a little and are not a pushover even if ungarrisoned.
4. Largely because of 1, 2 and 3, I play with barbs on in V - I always turned them off in IV, they were just too irritating and required way too much military to contain in the early game.
5. I do quite like the unit per tile limit (although 1/tile across the board is too severe. Baffling not to be able to stack non-combat units with each other and/or with a military unit for protection. I haven't tried it yet, but I suspect this will be even more irritating where defenceless embarked units are concerned).
6. Citizen management - tremendous improvement with the combination of locking worked tiles and manual specialist management tick box - I got SO bored with the way IV kept changing my specialist selection and persisted in allocating spies no matter what I did.
7. Larger worked areas for individual cities.
8. No anarchy for the equivalent of civic changes - that always irritated me in Civ IV.
That's it I'm afraid. The improvements really don't make up for the deficiencies
1) Hexes.
2) Graphics.
3) Culture as a spendable resource.
4) Quantified resources.
The rest is either bad or poorly implemented: for example I didn't say I liked social policies, only that I liked culture as a spendable resource.
2) Graphics.
3) Culture as a spendable resource.
4) Quantified resources.
The rest is either bad or poorly implemented: for example I didn't say I liked social policies, only that I liked culture as a spendable resource.
Things I like:
- hexes
- 1upt
- ranged combat
- limited resources
- units surviving fights
- road maintenance
- possibility to buy land tiles
- music is awesome
- buildings that can only be built if you have a particular resource or the city is built on a particular terrain type
- hexes
- 1upt
- ranged combat
- limited resources
- units surviving fights
- road maintenance
- possibility to buy land tiles
- music is awesome
- buildings that can only be built if you have a particular resource or the city is built on a particular terrain type
I like limited resources, the idea of building a tradition you can't change at will (althoug I think this should alongside a government system that you can), and the reintroduction of ranged combat... but I don't think any of these have been implemented all that well.
duckstab
Child of Noble Family
1) Hexes. I come from an old board wargaming background so hexes feel a lot more natural to me than squares.
2) The fact that unit strength increases more geometrically with era, so spearman-vs-tank is less likely to be an issue.
3) Resource constraints on the number of certain units that can be built.
4) Certain aspects at least of the social policy system, like that fact that some are incompatible with others. No more Free Speech with Police State...
5) City states are at least an interesting concept.
6) Tech trading being gone is good, though I'm not sure how I feel about its replacement.
7) I'm a big Art Deco fan, so I appreciate the WPA look.
8) Elimination of naval transports.
9) Tile-by-tile growth of cities, rather than big border pops.
10) Units being able to survive combat without winning.
2) The fact that unit strength increases more geometrically with era, so spearman-vs-tank is less likely to be an issue.
3) Resource constraints on the number of certain units that can be built.
4) Certain aspects at least of the social policy system, like that fact that some are incompatible with others. No more Free Speech with Police State...
5) City states are at least an interesting concept.
6) Tech trading being gone is good, though I'm not sure how I feel about its replacement.
7) I'm a big Art Deco fan, so I appreciate the WPA look.
8) Elimination of naval transports.
9) Tile-by-tile growth of cities, rather than big border pops.
10) Units being able to survive combat without winning.
Personally I like the hexes and most of the graphics are decent. (rivers aside)
I like cities being able to defend themselves and I like quantifiable resources.
The music is pretty good as well overall.
I like cities being able to defend themselves and I like quantifiable resources.
The music is pretty good as well overall.
Flexmaster
Chieftain
- Joined
- Nov 2, 2001
- Messages
- 55
Ranged combat. That's it.
1.) Embarkation. I actually like this concept, although I think it's silly that you can't use it upon discovering sailing. That doesn't make sense from an historical perspective (see also, polynesian folks paddling canoes all over the pacific...).
2.) Units are more durable. You can get killed in a turn (and can kill in a turn), but it's less likely that you'll just get ganked outright.
3.) Culture spread one tile at a time, instead of as expanding rings. Not entirely sanguine on the whole "buy a plot of land" angle, though.
4.) I'm sort of split on the new "civics." They seem to offer practical benefits a bit more, but I don't like how you can't really shift them.
5.) I like not having to "hook up" resources. I don't like being charged for roads. Come on, man, if New Jersey can stick a toll booth up every 50 feet on its roads, why can't I?!
6.) The animations on the new leaders look nice. I think they'd have been better off keeping them silent, though. As annoying as it got in the old days of Civ 4 having units babble at you every time you clicked on them, it's even more annoying when the AI babbles at you in the diplomacy screen. Although that could be because diplomacy overall sucks.
7.) I like some of the options IN diplomacy. Friendship agreements, research agreements (I think -- haven't played with that one as much), etc. Of course, they're meaningless in the grand scheme, because the AI will still flip out and kill you, but the idea is nice.
8.) I like the introduction of the city-state concept. I just wish it was more robust instead of acting as a gold sink and/or farming mechanism for whatever resource they produce.
9.) Ranged combat is interesting too, although it doesn't always work, given the scale of the game (IE: archers being able to hit Calais from London...maybe if they were V1s or V2s headed in the other direction...)
2.) Units are more durable. You can get killed in a turn (and can kill in a turn), but it's less likely that you'll just get ganked outright.
3.) Culture spread one tile at a time, instead of as expanding rings. Not entirely sanguine on the whole "buy a plot of land" angle, though.
4.) I'm sort of split on the new "civics." They seem to offer practical benefits a bit more, but I don't like how you can't really shift them.
5.) I like not having to "hook up" resources. I don't like being charged for roads. Come on, man, if New Jersey can stick a toll booth up every 50 feet on its roads, why can't I?!
6.) The animations on the new leaders look nice. I think they'd have been better off keeping them silent, though. As annoying as it got in the old days of Civ 4 having units babble at you every time you clicked on them, it's even more annoying when the AI babbles at you in the diplomacy screen. Although that could be because diplomacy overall sucks.
7.) I like some of the options IN diplomacy. Friendship agreements, research agreements (I think -- haven't played with that one as much), etc. Of course, they're meaningless in the grand scheme, because the AI will still flip out and kill you, but the idea is nice.
8.) I like the introduction of the city-state concept. I just wish it was more robust instead of acting as a gold sink and/or farming mechanism for whatever resource they produce.
9.) Ranged combat is interesting too, although it doesn't always work, given the scale of the game (IE: archers being able to hit Calais from London...maybe if they were V1s or V2s headed in the other direction...)
