Why I probably won't buy Civ V.

[Drago Askani]

I wouldn't call it completely unrealistic. All of the units in a stack were in a tile representing miles of land. With the new system, now the units are spread out over huge lands... well, that would be pretty unrealistic. Your army could fill the Iberian Peninsula, while the enemy's army could fill France. Tactics are fine and dandy, but the only way they would truly work would be in a zoomed map, IMO. Now, I have lessoned my discontent (a little) on the OUPT feature, but I still don't really like it. What people seem to keep forgetting is the scope of Civilization. It is a global game taking place over centuries and across an entire globe. Tactics are great for more "zoomed in" games that focus on specific areas or battles (for example, Gettysburg, Waterloo, Normandy, etc). On a global scale, it takes away from the game when it is brought into core gameplay with no transition to a "zoomed in" map. I think that the best thing that will come out of Civ V will be scenarios that represent certain battles (like what I mentioned before) or at least more focused scenarios (like, say, American Westward Expansion... or AWE as I like to call it). But it will be a struggle to maintain a sense of immersion when half the continent is covered with units battling it out.

Gameplay > Skewed Sense of Realism Perpetrated by The Ignorant Masses.

 

[Danielos]

Well, something really had to be done about the huge stacks and silly cityfighting that has plagued this series. Sure, I would also have prefered if we could keep the stacks and zoom into an all-new tactical map for the fight, but this is a good compromise. Hopefully the maps would be a bit larger than in Civ 4 which would bring a little better scale to the whole thing.

 

[tom2050]

Gameplay > Skewed Sense of Realism Perpetrated by The Ignorant Masses.

You realize that the switch to hex and 1-unit per tile was done to increase combat realism by the developers. In order to create what they think works best for gameplay and realism, I'm sure alot of discussion and thought went into it, since this is something they don't want to have completely unrealistic to a drastic degree, even if it improved gameplay.

Do you think Firaxsis and 2K are a bunch of ignorant fools also because of this?

No game can be completely realistic, and never will be... dev's have to balance gameplay, enjoyment, and realism. In my mind, a combo of very low unit stacking could have achieved something similar, but after having thought about it; I like tactics more than not, and in all my Civ games I don't play the SoD route (unless I want revenge), using SoD's only on occasion (usually try to keep them max of 15 or less units).

 

[Earthling]

That attitude is infinitely better than folks who do want Civ V . . . but don't want Firaxis to actually change anything.

I've seen almost nobody say that. There are people who prefer fewer changes in a new civ V game; but a graphics overhaul, new AI, hex tile system, and changes to combat (some folks, including myself, don't want the advertised changes, but most seem to have some of their own ideas) is already worthy of a new version.

What I find funny, and majorly at though, is people who say now they always preferred civ III over civ IV because they say civ IV is too small scale/dumbed down...seems like they're about to get their hopes dashed if they think civ V will improve in that category.

 

[Zhahz]

Deja Vu.

Same thing some said when Civ IV was coming out.

Nothing wrong with playing different versions of the same franchise if they offer different and enjoyable gaming experiences.

I'm pretty excited about Civ V too because for me one of the weakest parts of all of Civ has always been the combat, and for a game that almost always involves combat, it's a downer.

Hex-based, ZoC, turn-based system have way more potential for strategy and tactics and I think AI deals with it better too.

Civ's combat AI has always been rather lacking as well.

This change has a lot of potential if they don't screw it up.

 

[tom2050]

What I find funny, and majorly at though, is people who say now they always preferred civ III over civ IV because they say civ IV is too small scale/dumbed down...seems like they're about to get their hopes dashed if they think civ V will improve in that category.

Some players prefer a bit of micromanagement over macromanagement... and that is the point most convey in that aspect. Civ 5 will be more like Civ 4 than 3... 3 is in the past, and never will return for that gameplay style. Other classic games such as Alpha Centauri are more in tune with Civ 3 than 4 style gameplay. I prefer classic style, although I expect less micro with newer games. They have to keep competitive and gain players from the younger generation if they are to be successful in the long haul.

 

[Drago Askani]

You realize that the switch to hex and 1-unit per tile was done to increase combat realism by the developers. In order to create what they think works best for gameplay and realism, I'm sure alot of discussion and thought went into it, since this is something they don't want to have completely unrealistic to a drastic degree, even if it improved gameplay.

Do you think Firaxsis and 2K are a bunch of ignorant fools also because of this?

No game can be completely realistic, and never will be... dev's have to balance gameplay, enjoyment, and realism. In my mind, a combo of very low unit stacking could have achieved something similar, but after having thought about it; I like tactics more than not, and in all my Civ games I don't play the SoD route (unless I want revenge), using SoD's only on occasion (usually try to keep them max of 15 or less units).

That had nothing to do with what I said. <removed> The changes aren't for realism, you have very little realism in civ. The changes are the most elegant solution to SoD's... Do you talk just to hear yourself speak sometimes?

 

[tom2050]

Moderator Action: Post removed.

Flaming not required - warned.
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889

 

[EzInKy]

That had nothing to do with what I said. You fail at reading comp. The changes aren't for realism, you have very little realism in civ. The changes are the most elegant solution to SoD's... Do you talk just to hear yourself speak sometimes?

The most elegant solution to SoDs would be armies. Certainly they should be restricted by era, say two units in ancient times, three in medieval, etc. But doing away with reasonable combining of arms throughout the whole game is quite silly.

 

[Disgustipated]

I just wanted to say I'll definately buy.

Sure civ4 was great, it was easily the best of the series. But I do grow bored of it. I still play from time to time, but can only play so much before becoming bored again.

 

[LegionSteve]

I will definitely buy it too. Possibly not as soon as it is released though. In software development, nothing is ever done when you thought it was going to be. I expect Civ5 will be released just before Christmas 2010, whether it is ready or not. Followed by several important patches. If I can, I will try to wait for the first couple of patches before I buy it.

 

[Drago Askani]

Moderator Action: Post removed.

Flaming not required - warned.
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889

 

[ainwood]

Moderator Action: Drago Askani, tom2050: Not acceptable. Discuss the issues without discussing or abusing each other.

 

[Padje Dog]

Debate realism
Computers are not real life
Go join the army

Haiku ode to "Why I probably won't buy Civ V"

 

[jbryant]

I just hope it will be easier to mod. I made a few mods with CIV III, it was painstaking but possible. I couldn't do crap with CIV IV .

 

[frekk]

What a silly thread. If you're not going to even try the game, why are you posting here? Just to annoy people?

I never had any intention of playing Civ Revolutions, but I didn't go and patronize them by opening a long list of complaints about the game. Just common courtesy. I wasn't asked.

If you've got some constructive criticism - that's one thing. This, is not that.

Nothing wrong with sticking to 3 or 4. I found 1 to 2, and 2 to 3, an easy transition. 3 to 4 took a bit of getting used to and I was pretty uncomfortable with the changes at first, so I can understand the skepticism/hesitancy. I just can't understand the need to dampen the enthusiasm of people who like the new version.

 

[mib666007]

I've seen almost nobody say that. There are people who prefer fewer changes in a new civ V game; but a graphics overhaul, new AI, hex tile system, and changes to combat (some folks, including myself, don't want the advertised changes, but most seem to have some of their own ideas) is already worthy of a new version.

I'm in that group. When I heard they are getting rid of religion completely - my jaw dropped. Even being non-religious in my personal life, seeing the little Judaism symbol next to my religious allies names was always a fun thing However, again, new AI, hex tile, combat, etc. is enough to make me stop by Best Buy.

 

[onedreamer]

Good luck to Civ V and hope it is a huge success. As for me. I am perfectly content with Civ IV.

Cool... not sure why you post this in a Civ5 forum rather than in the Civ4 forum where it belongs, and why do you think we should be informed about this fact, but ok...

 

[BigBirdZ28]

The only thing that would stop me buying CIV5 is DRM.

 

[Ahriman]

Civ5 is the quintissential offline single-player game. It would amaze me if they were mad enough to include PITA DRM.

I think basically everyone on these forums will buy the game... we're hanging out on forums discussing it 6 months before its even released! We're CivFanatics; we're not really the people that Fireaxis needs to be worrying about losing. Heck, we'll buy the game just so we can complain about how they "ruined the series" and "destroyed Civ" and "I won't be buying another Fireaxis game ever".