What worries you the most about the Civ 5 yet?

[bjbrains]

I
Anyway, I am still annoyed that they removed the religion feature without making any attempts to improve it first. .

How do you know that they didn't try to improve it? They've been working on it for years, and they only showed it to the public a few months ago - I'm sure they spent time trying to implement religion, and only then discarded it.

 

[Helmling]

The only thing that worries me is that my wife will leave me after it comes out.

 

[f35acepilot]

On the topic of the super secret unit, I think we all know what it is.

 

[bjbrains]

On the topic of the super secret unit, I think we all know what it is.

That's not the super-secret unit. That's a regular unit that just requires a tech. The super-secret unit is confirmed to not be in the civlopedia, which the GDR most certainly is.

 

[Evocatus]

Overall I am happy with what Firaxis has announced/shown so far. I'm not really a fan of the GDR however. The name sounds silly to me, though I am aware of the history around this unit.

I hope that the soundtrack will be awesome. I liked the theme to Civilization IV, but some of the ingame tracks were mediocre in my opinion. Particularly the ancient and modern music, though as they say, to each their own I did not really enjoy the music Firaxis added in one of the expansion packs either. I think they took some tracks from Civilization III. I ended up making my own playlist instead.

Either way I am very excited to play the fifth edition!

 

[Thorburne]

How do you know that they didn't try to improve it? They've been working on it for years, and they only showed it to the public a few months ago - I'm sure they spent time trying to implement religion, and only then discarded it.

Any "attempts" they may have tried were obviously half-hearted. There are a number of things that they could have tried, but, instead, they just threw the baby out with the bath water. It just wasn't the direction that they wanted to go with it. And that is our loss.

I am sure I could give many examples, but that is the topic of another thread. The number one thing would be to change how the religions are "founded".

 

[Varelse]

I don't like how they are including an extra civ only for people willing to pay 10 dollars more for the game. It makes me think that maybe instead of doing full blown expansions they will release new features in a slow trickle, milking us for cash the whole way. 5 dollars here, 10 dollars there....unless you're always giving them just a little bit more money, you won't have the full experience.

 

[bjbrains]

Any "attempts" they may have tried were obviously half-hearted. There are a number of things that they could have tried, but, instead, they just threw the baby out with the bath water. It just wasn't the direction that they wanted to go with it. And that is our loss.

I am sure I could give many examples, but that is the topic of another thread. The number one thing would be to change how the religions are "founded".

Again, you're just putting in your opinion with no evidence, or even an argument. Making strong, judgmental claims based on such seems like a bad road to go down.

 

[Szpilman]

Overall I am happy with what Firaxis has announced/shown so far. I'm not really a fan of the GDR however. The name sounds silly to me, though I am aware of the history around this unit.

I hope that the soundtrack will be awesome. I liked the theme to Civilization IV, but some of the ingame tracks were mediocre in my opinion. Particularly the ancient and modern music, though as they say, to each their own I did not really enjoy the music Firaxis added in one of the expansion packs either. I think they took some tracks from Civilization III. I ended up making my own playlist instead.

Either way I am very excited to play the fifth edition!

You mean it's history as in it was born in a thread in this forum six years ago? I'm curious if there's more to it, since from looking at the thread I didn't notice any major commotion over it at the time.

 

[Evocatus]

You mean it's history as in it was born in a thread in this forum six years ago? I'm curious if there's more to it, since from looking at the thread I didn't notice any major commotion over it at the time.

Yep, saw the thread some time ago It certainly helps to explain why Firaxis chose to add this particular unit to the game, though I can imagine that many players outside the community will wonder what Firaxis were thinking when creating the GDR

 

[Szpilman]

Yep, saw the thread some time ago It certainly helps to explain why Firaxis chose to add this particular unit to the game, though I can imagine that many players outside the community will wonder what Firaxis were thinking when creating the GDR

Yeah, I think it's very cool that they went as far as using the exact same (silly ) name, and it's an important unit too! However I share your mixed feelings about it, too wacko, I guess.

 

[Psyringe]

On the topic of the super secret unit, I think we all know what it is.

I still hope that this is some sort of a belated April Fools joke ... the silly "humor" of the purported Civilopedia entry is right on par with the hardly bearable "Caesar salad" joke in Civ4 diplomacy ...

 

[Thorburne]

Again, you're just putting in your opinion with no evidence, or even an argument. Making strong, judgmental claims based on such seems like a bad road to go down.

The simple fact that their argument for not including it is that it "doesn't fit with the diplomacy model of Civ V" is proof enought. It is just a poor excuse for them getting rid of something. I never heard any complaints about how religion affects diplomacy until the stated it.

Where is the proof that they HAVE tried?

 

[bjbrains]

The simple fact that their argument for not including it is that it "doesn't fit with the diplomacy model of Civ V" is proof enought. It is just a poor excuse for them getting rid of something. I never heard any complaints about how religion affects diplomacy until the stated it.

Where is the proof that they HAVE tried?

I don't have to prove anything, I'm not making claims. I'm just saying that your claims are baseless until you can show otherwise. The religion-diplomacy aspect was their main problem with it, I'm sure they tried other ways to make it fit.

 

[Thorburne]

I don't have to prove anything, I'm not making claims. I'm just saying that your claims are baseless until you can show otherwise. The religion-diplomacy aspect was their main problem with it, I'm sure they tried other ways to make it fit.

Since they came out claiming it! The majority of people who complain about it have only been vocal since after the developers said it and it is a pointless argument...

"Religion shouldn't have an affect on diplomacy!!!"

I got news for ya... it has always had an affect on diplomacy throughout history. Even today it has an affect. It is a purely pointless argument and just an excuse for them to remove it.

 

[Aussie_Lurker]

I don't have to prove anything, I'm not making claims. I'm just saying that your claims are baseless until you can show otherwise. The religion-diplomacy aspect was their main problem with it, I'm sure they tried other ways to make it fit.

Actually, I'd say the randomness of acquiring religions was the biggest problem with Civ4 religion. However, *both* issues are very easily solvable. In Civ5, we know that City-States have a rapid decay in influence, meaning you have to keep working hard to maintain relations with them. I've seen no proof yet, but I'm guessing major AI civs are similar. So there is a very simple fix to the Religion-Diplomacy problem, make the immediate benefits of adopting a Civ's state religion relatively large (a +3 to +4), but have it decay relatively quickly, so that only frequent maintenance of that religion in your cities will allow you to retain the diplomatic benefits of having the same State Religion (so you have to actively spread the religion to as many of your cities as possible, & build all the available religious buildings, in order to retain the maximum diplomatic bonus-this works even better if a neglected religion ultimately disappears from a city). The flip-side of this is to have the initial benefit of adopting a Civ's State religion small, but have it grow *only* if you actively spread the religion to all your cities (but still have the relatively rapid decay, so you really have to *work* for the maximum diplomatic bonus). Of course, your religious settings should play as much-if not more-of a role in religious diplomacy than whether you have the State Religion or not! Another suggestion that's been posted around here-& which is excellent IMO-is to take Religions out of the hands of the major Civs, & instead tie them to certain City-States, again negating many of the problems with Civ4 religion.
So, you can see at least 4 ways in which Civ4 religion could have been adapted to work with the Diplomacy system of Civ5. I simply can't believe that they couldn't get *any* of these systems to work in the game. Instead, I suspect they tried to shoe-horn Civ4 religion into the game-unchanged-then abandoned it when it didn't work. I'd like to be wrong, but it just doesn't feel like I am!

Aussie.

 

[Thorburne]

Actually, I'd say the randomness of acquiring religions was the biggest problem with Civ4 religion. However, *both* issues are very easily solvable. In Civ5, we know that City-States have a rapid decay in influence, meaning you have to keep working hard to maintain relations with them. I've seen no proof yet, but I'm guessing major AI civs are similar. So there is a very simple fix to the Religion-Diplomacy problem, make the immediate benefits of adopting a Civ's state religion relatively large (a +3 to +4), but have it decay relatively quickly, so that only frequent maintenance of that religion in your cities will allow you to retain the diplomatic benefits of having the same State Religion (so you have to actively spread the religion to as many of your cities as possible, & build all the available religious buildings, in order to retain the maximum diplomatic bonus-this works even better if a neglected religion ultimately disappears from a city). The flip-side of this is to have the initial benefit of adopting a Civ's State religion small, but have it grow *only* if you actively spread the religion to all your cities (but still have the relatively rapid decay, so you really have to *work* for the maximum diplomatic bonus). Of course, your religious settings should play as much-if not more-of a role in religious diplomacy than whether you have the State Religion or not! Another suggestion that's been posted around here-& which is excellent IMO-is to take Religions out of the hands of the major Civs, & instead tie them to certain City-States, again negating many of the problems with Civ4 religion.
So, you can see at least 4 ways in which Civ4 religion could have been adapted to work with the Diplomacy system of Civ5. I simply can't believe that they couldn't get *any* of these systems to work in the game. Instead, I suspect they tried to shoe-horn Civ4 religion into the game-unchanged-then abandoned it when it didn't work. I'd like to be wrong, but it just doesn't feel like I am!

Aussie.

I was about to ask for you... you showed up in the nick of time with a very good explanation of how it could be improved. (much better than I could come up with off the fly... especially with someone grilling me, being tired from a long day at work along with a long commute, and sweating to death in this August heat and humidity).

 

[Boris Godunov]

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.

Do you have a link to confirmation of that? I had wondered as such, but since all of the posts I'd seen had said there was no renaming and I didn't see any updates or information that it was going to be different in the final release, I assumed that's how it was (especially since that's how it was in CivRev). If that won't be the case, that's definitely good news.

 

[Thorburne]

Do you have a link to confirmation of that? I had wondered as such, but since all of the posts I'd seen had said there was no renaming and I didn't see any updates or information that it was going to be different in the final release, I assumed that's how it was (especially since that's how it was in CivRev). If that won't be the case, that's definitely good news.

Wait... No renaming??? I missed that! I can understand for land units changing into transports, but you should be able to rename the other naval units (as well as cities).

That is just stupid! Another thing to add to my last against Civ V.

 

[Aussie_Lurker]

Wait... No renaming??? I missed that! I can understand for land units changing into transports, but you should be able to rename the other naval units (as well as cities).

That is just stupid! Another thing to add to my last against Civ V.

You *can* rename cities Thorburne. One reviewer had an older build, where that ability had not been added yet, & so that is how the rumor got started.

Here is a quote from Jon Shafer himself on the matter:

Fear not friends, the ability to rename cities will be in. Its not part of some massive conspiracy

The exact quote can be found *here*: http://www.quartertothree.com/game-talk/showpost.php?p=2330688&postcount=1059