^ If space and cultural victory conditions are in I think we can expect a mostly non-warmongering approach to be feasible and reasonably well balanced. And if we're forced to think about strong defensive military that'll just be a consequence of the AI actually trying to win now, which is something to be welcomed IMO.
What worries you the most about the Civ 5 yet?
- Thread starter stealth_nsk
- Start date
stealth_nsk
Deity
Who could have guessed what option is leading?........
I already learned what I could completely wrong anout what majority of people thinks here. That's why I started the poll.
Yeah, I think this is good. Building transports and loading units to them was a tedious task. Naval assaults should be much easier now. It's quite unrealistic, but gameplay is more important.
I'm gonna be the first sad to see Corporations gone here (Publishing was my other, obvious, vote).
Not that they were that useful late-game the way they were, but I think they could have expanded on the concept.
- Guilds could be an earlier, more accessible form of Corporation.
- I liked having to go for the base tech (Corporation), then needing another tech down the tree AND a specific Great Person. Made the corps something far more fulfilling to pull off than religions.
- I also ADORED the emphasis on collecting multiple resources, planning out even land conquest for comboing many resources. Gave resources potential new purpose, but then what they did with Strategic resources partly makes up for taking corps out, and shows them to be in the right direction.
- It had an alternative way to use, if you were small and (literally) unresourceful, that you could not get the benefits of your own corp but instead get loads of cash from touting it to the seven winds. With gold having more use now, it would be an even nicer strategy.
- They didn't skew diplomacy like religion did.
Not that they were that useful late-game the way they were, but I think they could have expanded on the concept.
- Guilds could be an earlier, more accessible form of Corporation.
- I liked having to go for the base tech (Corporation), then needing another tech down the tree AND a specific Great Person. Made the corps something far more fulfilling to pull off than religions.
- I also ADORED the emphasis on collecting multiple resources, planning out even land conquest for comboing many resources. Gave resources potential new purpose, but then what they did with Strategic resources partly makes up for taking corps out, and shows them to be in the right direction.
- It had an alternative way to use, if you were small and (literally) unresourceful, that you could not get the benefits of your own corp but instead get loads of cash from touting it to the seven winds. With gold having more use now, it would be an even nicer strategy.
- They didn't skew diplomacy like religion did.
Should I raise the sarcasm sign now, or have I missed something myself?
There are only 2 Social Policy branches out of 10 that focus on warmongering, Honor and Autocracy. There are a few military policies scattered in other branches, but not that many.
I think Civ5 will actually be more convenient for the builder, because you can set up a strong defensive position and be fairly safe as long as you keep it up to date. In Civ4 you had to keep spamming units, because with some exceptions (Khmer, China), you couldn't really defend against a SoD.
compute
Chieftain
Mainly the requirement of Steam (i'm not too fond of making use of a Soft-DRM specifically designed to circumvent the Reseller market) and the DLC model. (which I feel far too often simply boils down to paying more money for much less content than say an expansion.)
I'm also rather worried that they'll use the former two as reasons to lock out the modding community. (so as to sell more DLCs)
Either way i'll probably buy it if it's still good enough to be called a Civ game, but probably not until after someone has released a Steam crack. (even if this means completely giving up on Multiplayer)
I'm also rather worried that they'll use the former two as reasons to lock out the modding community. (so as to sell more DLCs)
Either way i'll probably buy it if it's still good enough to be called a Civ game, but probably not until after someone has released a Steam crack. (even if this means completely giving up on Multiplayer)
Ahriman
Tyrant
Hiding data from the player.
No more visible diplomacy modifiers.
No more visible combat odds.
Also:
I'm worried that ranged bombardment will dominate too much, particularly with naval units.
[And the super-secret unit isn't the GDR??]
No more visible diplomacy modifiers.
No more visible combat odds.
Also:
I'm worried that ranged bombardment will dominate too much, particularly with naval units.
[And the super-secret unit isn't the GDR??]
stealth_nsk
Deity
Boris Godunov
Prince
- Joined
- Aug 23, 2002
- Messages
- 401
Not being able to rename my cities is really annoying. I don't understand why they are removing that feature from the game--it seems like a win-win no brainer of a feature to include.
Gre_Magus
Manet
- Joined
- Oct 26, 2005
- Messages
- 273
You can rename your cities. It just wasn't in the preview build.
I'm not sure about units being able to transport themselves, but I'll see how it goes. Removal of religion, espionage, and diplomacy modifiers don't bother me per se - I'm actually interested in the "fewer, better features" model they're going with in Civ 5 - but what is in the game needs to be well balanced. I guess the proof will be in the pudding.
Countmonte8242
Warlord
- Joined
- Oct 25, 2005
- Messages
- 180
Other: Too many late, "just one more turn," nights this fall.
Thoughtful Thug
Deity
Definitely multi-player is one thing I vaguely do not know anything about in this new upcoming game. Will it be covered by VAC or Punkbuster, or simply neither of them? Will it have a leaderboard or not?
Psyringe
Scout
- Steam requirement. This is the biggie for me. As a customer, I don't accept someone else taking control over my purchase away from me, and I don't accept being at the mercy of a computer gaming company (a volatile and insecure business if there ever was one) whenever I change my hardware, and whenever Nostalgia hits me and I want to replay the game several years later. As long as there's no legally binding warranty from Steam or Take2 that the DRM gets removed should the companies go down, I don't se myself buying Civ5.
- Hiding data from the player. It's easier to understand what's going on, and easier to get immersed into the game, if you know why things happen and why rivals like or don't like you. In a complex strategy game, it's imperative that the player can see and gauge the effects of his decisions. One of the main failings of MoO3 was that it hid too much information. As a consequence, it was nearly impossible to understand the game's economy, and players felt that they rather randomly pressed buttons without being able to evaluate their effects.
- Removal of religion. I liked it very much, for immersion (religion _was_ an important factor in history) as well as gameplay (it helped building diplomatic blocks of nations).
- Hardware requirements too high. If the game indeed needs a multi-core CPU, then my machine can't handle it.
- Hiding data from the player. It's easier to understand what's going on, and easier to get immersed into the game, if you know why things happen and why rivals like or don't like you. In a complex strategy game, it's imperative that the player can see and gauge the effects of his decisions. One of the main failings of MoO3 was that it hid too much information. As a consequence, it was nearly impossible to understand the game's economy, and players felt that they rather randomly pressed buttons without being able to evaluate their effects.
- Removal of religion. I liked it very much, for immersion (religion _was_ an important factor in history) as well as gameplay (it helped building diplomatic blocks of nations).
- Hardware requirements too high. If the game indeed needs a multi-core CPU, then my machine can't handle it.
Thorburne
Centurion
I voted for "removal of Religion", "Changing of Diplomacy", and "Other".
On a note, I really don't understand everybody's hatred for Steam. I have not had any problems with it so far (knock on wood) and I really hate dealing with CDs/DVDs.
Anyway, I am still annoyed that they removed the religion feature without making any attempts to improve it first. The only real problems I had with religions in Civ IV is how they were founded and the limited number available. I don't think their affect on diplomacy was a bad thing (people just can't seem to handle the adjustment). As far as the number, I there were so many more religions they should have added and I didn't really buy the excuse that they could only fit in 7.
As far as diplomacy, I think too much emphasis is being put on diplomacy and I don't really think that the flashy leader graphics is necessary. Other than that, it is a small complaint.
Finally, the "Other" that I voted for is, yes, the OUPT. I am still skeptical as to how it will work and look in the game. I really dread seeing France covered with one army and Spain covered with the opposing army. I HAVE reached the point of acceptance, but I will remain skeptical until I get a chance to try it for myself.
On a note, I really don't understand everybody's hatred for Steam. I have not had any problems with it so far (knock on wood) and I really hate dealing with CDs/DVDs.
Anyway, I am still annoyed that they removed the religion feature without making any attempts to improve it first. The only real problems I had with religions in Civ IV is how they were founded and the limited number available. I don't think their affect on diplomacy was a bad thing (people just can't seem to handle the adjustment). As far as the number, I there were so many more religions they should have added and I didn't really buy the excuse that they could only fit in 7.
As far as diplomacy, I think too much emphasis is being put on diplomacy and I don't really think that the flashy leader graphics is necessary. Other than that, it is a small complaint.
Finally, the "Other" that I voted for is, yes, the OUPT. I am still skeptical as to how it will work and look in the game. I really dread seeing France covered with one army and Spain covered with the opposing army. I HAVE reached the point of acceptance, but I will remain skeptical until I get a chance to try it for myself.
Similar threads
