What worries you the most about the Civ 5 yet?

[Thorburne]

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:



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

OK... that is a relief! What about units? To me, with OUPT, renaming units is more important than ever! Besides, I have to be able to name my ships! How can I play without the ability to name my ships? If I can't name my ships, how can I keep track of them? What will I do if I can't have the USS Enterprise, or the USS Arizona, or the Jupitor.... Phoenix... Annihalater???

Panic - Panic - Panic!!!!!!

 

[Aussie_Lurker]

OK... that is a relief! What about units? To me, with OUPT, renaming units is more important than ever! Besides, I have to be able to name my ships! How can I play without the ability to name my ships? If I can't name my ships, how can I keep track of them? What will I do if I can't have the USS Enterprise, or the USS Arizona, or the Jupitor.... Phoenix... Annihalater???

Panic - Panic - Panic!!!!!!

Well we know you can rename your leader & we know that you can rename cities, so I find it easy to believe that you can rename units too-just as you could in Civ4.

Aussie.

 

[Thorburne]

Well we know you can rename your leader & we know that you can rename cities, so I find it easy to believe that you can rename units too-just as you could in Civ4.

Aussie.

Hopefully you are right! It will be a tragedy if you can't.

(By the way, I was dramatizing a bit in my last post... but I do truly want the ability to rename my units)

 

[Babri]

Too little emphasis on trade. Especially international trade. Limited strategic resources was a big plus though.

International trade was one of the reason for long turn times late in the game. I am happy to get it removed. And I prefer fewer trade routes yielding more than having many of them but of little benefit.

 

[CossackProblem]

Tons of gameplay options chopped off from Civ4 and I think there's gonna be some mega imbalance between the civs. That aside, I'm stoked.

 

[r_rolo1]

Other. AI general behaviour. The major concern in a largely SP directed game ( no hate to MP , though ). Civ IV AI is definitely sheepish in some contexts, but i wonder if they weren't too much to the "self interest" part in here, based on what I've read so far.

Not that I like Steam , though

 

[Ikael]

Other:

- Too much warmongering focused
- Little, if any historical accuracy
- More wargame than sociopolitic simulator, as some previews have already hinted at
- Removal of several aspects (religion, spyionage, corporations, health system, and a long etc) without adding anything at all to add complexity except for a much needed overhaul of the combat system

 

[Szpilman]

International trade was one of the reason for long turn times late in the game. I am happy to get it removed. And I prefer fewer trade routes yielding more than having many of them but of little benefit.

What exactly do you guys mean by International trade? You mean allowing trade routes over the ocean?

 

[r_rolo1]

I think, due to context, that he is talking of Civ IV trade routes.

 

[comatosedragon]

Since I have already arranged to take my vacation 20-26 September, I am deathly afraid that the release date will change . . .

 

[Sullla]

My vote would also go down for "Other", specifically in the realm of the game's internal economy. The biggest changes in Civ5 that no one's talking about are economic in nature. All the preview information suggests that the development team has ripped the guts out of the traditional Civilization system:

- Cities that can work 37 tiles (instead of 21)
- Happiness as the growth limiting factor, not economic cost
- Limited, consumable strategic resources

And so on. These are major, sweeping changes; even the granary, which has had an identical function in every previous Civ game, has changed to a building that just provides +2 food/turn. Now everything might work out perfectly fine, and let's hope so, but until we see non-idiot reviewers playing the game, there's some cause for concern.

The lack of any previews on Multiplayer stuff is also deeply concerning. If they're not talking about it, that's a bad sign.

 

[Szpilman]

My vote would also go down for "Other", specifically in the realm of the game's internal economy. The biggest changes in Civ5 that no one's talking about are economic in nature. All the preview information suggests that the development team has ripped the guts out of the traditional Civilization system:

- Cities that can work 37 tiles (instead of 21)
- Happiness as the growth limiting factor, not economic cost
- Limited, consumable strategic resources

And so on. These are major, sweeping changes; even the granary, which has had an identical function in every previous Civ game, has changed to a building that just provides +2 food/turn. Now everything might work out perfectly fine, and let's hope so, but until we see non-idiot reviewers playing the game, there's some cause for concern.

The lack of any previews on Multiplayer stuff is also deeply concerning. If they're not talking about it, that's a bad sign.

I mean no offense, but your criticism for me comes out merely as being "they've changed the core strategies so I'll have to adapt more than I'd expected!"
Maybe some things like the granary take away depth from strategy, that's still to be seen, but at the upside things like the happiness and strategic resources mechanics will be probably replacements rather than dumbing down, I personally think they'll actually deepen the game in a global strategy way, instead of going for micromanagement strategy.

 

[Psyringe]

I mean no offense, but your criticism for me comes out merely as being "they've changed the core strategies so I'll have to adapt more than I'd expected!"

That's not what Sullla said. As far as I understood, he says that a tried-and-true system which he liked has been replaced by a new system which hasn't been tested in a competent and thorough review yet, so he's concerned whether he'll like the new system as much as the old one. Perfectly reasonable approach if you ask me.

 

[r_rolo1]

And there is the obvious danger of things simply not gluing with eachother as good as that, that is far higher when you change a lot of stuff... given that Sullla was a civ 4 beta tester and was involved in checking balance issues there, I guess it is just his experience talking

 

[Alki]

NO worries here, the changes look good to me.

I can take or leave the whole steam thing.


Still, the proof of the pudding is in the eating as they say.

 

[Xzylvador]

Checked anything that mentions "removal" simply because I fear a "dumbed down" Civ... same with the GDR, checked that one for the simple reason that this seems to target a different audience than a game of Civ's complexity...
Note: I did play with GDR and nanobot units in Civ4 through mods, but that's what it should be: mod stuff, not vanilla.
Didn't check the Steam/DLC thing... this should've been separated. I don't mind (even like) Steam, I'm worried about the DLC.

 

[Szpilman]

It's not merely Steam but having a different limited edition for each distribution platform (and DLC).

 

[henryMCVII]

[x] The game is not out yet.

 

[Szpilman]

[x] The game is not out yet.

That shouldn't be a reason for worry. Anxiety, maybe. But it's precisely threads like this that show that when people have to wait a little hype only goes up

 

[Rebel44]

I dont like DLCs