ihatestudents
Chieftain
Playing this game, i cannot see how anyone who's played Civ IV can enjoy it, it's inferior in almost every way. They've removed so many things that were good about the past series, it's unreal. Things that actually made you feel you're running a Civ, not just playing some 'RPG' game on a free games website. My question is why?
-Removed religion and health. These are real dimensions of any civilisation in history, so why get rid?
-Removed governments. Surely the only thing that should be completely indispensible in a civ game. All Civilisations depend on governments right?
-Decided to make the unhappiness system affect the whole civ, rather than each city. How boring is that?
-Removed war weariness. So dumb and out of touch with reality, i wont even comment. On a similar note, why do your people get unhappy when you win a war and the enemy is forced to give up their cities to you? Why would obtaining cities peacefully make your people unhappy?
-There is now only 1 way your people can become unhappy; through overall population size. This is more basic and unrealistic than Civ I.
-Diplomacy is reduced to little more than declaring war and making peace. I want to see civs questioning my goverments, religion etc... oh hang on, those things have been removed.
-Illogical victory conditions; why have a diplomatic victory that has nothing to do with your diplomatic skills? And i've never yet manage to deploy a giant death robot; by that time someone's already won with a science victory.
-lame luxury resource rules; a flat 5 happiness for each one regardless of circumstances. (apart from 1 policy that increases the figure to
6.) No more enhancing their effectiveness with markets or other buildings; shame.
-Replacing hamlets with trading posts. Possibly the worst change of all, removes a great chunk of both strategy and reality from the game.
This is what really disappointed me about this game; they went for simplicity over reality and strategic skill. For what? It's bad for the established fans, and why would new fans be drawn in by such a strategically empty game? I played CIV I as a kid; i understood how it worked and it involved more strategy than this. My conclusion is the makers simply couldn't be bothered with CIV V. Their lame patches show that, they do nothing more than add a aqueduct here or improve the output of horses by 1 there. If they really weren't interested in making this game properly, they could have just re released civ IV.
What also upset me is that this game had great potential. They finally got rid of the stacking combat system, though blew the 1UPT system by making the AI completely incompetent at it. They introduced a more interesting culture system and improved the strategic resource system (though one source of wine can still supply the entire worlds drink needs.) Why couldn't they have made these additions and kept the good things from the franchise?
Maybe one day someone will make a mod that reverses the makes decision to get rid of all the good things from the franchise. Until that time, i'd be grateful if someone told me what's good about this game, so i can figure out a way to enjoy it.
-Removed religion and health. These are real dimensions of any civilisation in history, so why get rid?
-Removed governments. Surely the only thing that should be completely indispensible in a civ game. All Civilisations depend on governments right?
-Decided to make the unhappiness system affect the whole civ, rather than each city. How boring is that?
-Removed war weariness. So dumb and out of touch with reality, i wont even comment. On a similar note, why do your people get unhappy when you win a war and the enemy is forced to give up their cities to you? Why would obtaining cities peacefully make your people unhappy?
-There is now only 1 way your people can become unhappy; through overall population size. This is more basic and unrealistic than Civ I.
-Diplomacy is reduced to little more than declaring war and making peace. I want to see civs questioning my goverments, religion etc... oh hang on, those things have been removed.
-Illogical victory conditions; why have a diplomatic victory that has nothing to do with your diplomatic skills? And i've never yet manage to deploy a giant death robot; by that time someone's already won with a science victory.
-lame luxury resource rules; a flat 5 happiness for each one regardless of circumstances. (apart from 1 policy that increases the figure to
6.) No more enhancing their effectiveness with markets or other buildings; shame.
-Replacing hamlets with trading posts. Possibly the worst change of all, removes a great chunk of both strategy and reality from the game.
This is what really disappointed me about this game; they went for simplicity over reality and strategic skill. For what? It's bad for the established fans, and why would new fans be drawn in by such a strategically empty game? I played CIV I as a kid; i understood how it worked and it involved more strategy than this. My conclusion is the makers simply couldn't be bothered with CIV V. Their lame patches show that, they do nothing more than add a aqueduct here or improve the output of horses by 1 there. If they really weren't interested in making this game properly, they could have just re released civ IV.
What also upset me is that this game had great potential. They finally got rid of the stacking combat system, though blew the 1UPT system by making the AI completely incompetent at it. They introduced a more interesting culture system and improved the strategic resource system (though one source of wine can still supply the entire worlds drink needs.) Why couldn't they have made these additions and kept the good things from the franchise?
Maybe one day someone will make a mod that reverses the makes decision to get rid of all the good things from the franchise. Until that time, i'd be grateful if someone told me what's good about this game, so i can figure out a way to enjoy it.
