Discussion in 'Civ5 - General Discussions' started by RobAnybody, Oct 11, 2010.
I agree completely.
Occasionally it's useful, but I agree for the most part.
Not really. On the highest levels (and in multiplayer), religions really aren't that important to aim for. It's nice if you can found one as an afterthought, but not really necessary. I actually find that religions are less important on large maps in Civ4. They become a bit more important on duel maps where the extra happiness is often necessary.
Have there been people who clamored for a "Civ 3.5" when they see religions in Civ IV and hate them?
Completely agree with the original poster! All the great things about Civ 4 and all the great things about Civ 5 need to be combined by a great modder!!
The prophecies have fortold your coming, young one. Please step forward and lead us to the promised game.
They are more powerful on larger maps, imho. The money you can get from a holy city with a great prophet is crazy.
But the rate of growth of that money is very slow. Even if I get a holy city early in the game + Stonehenge or the Oracle, I'll use the first Great Prophet or two as specialists simply because they'll give me a greater return than the Shrine would have that early. It's only in the mid-game that holy cities start getting the potential to earn their keep with Shrines, and even then the benefits aren't that huge compared to some other wonders (Pyramids, Great Lighthouse, Great Library). And in the later game holy city income is dwarfed by corporation income anyway.
Sometimes in Civ4 I'd consider going to war for the holy city of a particularly well-spread religion with a pre-built Shrine (usually an AI that had been spamming missionaries... humans don't tend to do this as much), but most of the time it was no more important than sniping other wonders or strategic locations in war.
That's not true at all. The Shrine increases how quickly the religion spreads and gives you one gold per city with it in. It very quickly earns more than a prophet as a great person.
I'm talking hammer benefits as well, though. Those early-game hammers help massively with empire expansion and all future build projects. Sacrificing a few gold per turn in the short term is usually worth it.
Of course, it depends a bit on the map type. Holding off on a Shrine is less sensible on a pangaea map than a continents/islands map. (I tend to prefer continent/island maps myself, so this might explain a bit.)
That is funny, and you're right. I wonder how the game developers missed that. In the real world unhapiness is local (to Detroit) and food is shipped all over the world.
Speaking of which, why doesn't unemployment make people unhappy in this game?
I agree with all of that. Although it's not difficult to see that a hybrid of all of the best features from Civ IV and Civ V would be better than either of them alone. Sadly, as it stands now I still prefer Civ IV to Civ V despite it being over 5 years old.
I'd go with organized religion, so getting a religion and spreading it paid off pretty quick (especially considering each missionary I don't have to make is 40 hammers saved). Global spread is nice too.
I tended to play on continents as well for what it is worth.
Hmm, it has been so long though, I don't quite remember whether I spent my first or second prophet on a holy building (first I think, since I believe the building lets you get the second pretty quick with specialists).
I played on huge maps with about 18 Civs and on Emperor, never bothered to go for religion. You can concentrate on more useful techs, wait for a neighbour to found one, spread it around, build the shrine, then just attack them and take over the shrine city. Concentrating on religion makes a Civ weak at the start, especially AIs, so they are easier to steamroll.
Yes, I'd love to go over all of this again with someone else, but it doesn't really change my main point that how Civ IV did religions was pretty stupid.
I'd imagine with 18 Civs there were probably plenty of spiritual civs that would have beaten you to the early religions.
It was gamey and should have been fixed for this version instead of removing it. However, I find nearly every aspect of Civ 5 gamey... it's all abstract and it's about maximising variables (that's the difference between empire sim and Euro board game I alluded to earlier). Things like, when I realised after a while that science and money are totally disconnected from unhappiness, I started up my second game on a huge map on Immortal and all I did was, just after reaching the renaissance era, I went all out against every AI, one after the other, Annexing every city and not worrying about unhappiness. Because the cities keep their culture borders and every plot has a TP, you get tons of science and money. You race up the science tree and you can buy replacement units and buildings as needed in the cities as you go along. The 33% combat penalty means nothing when you outnumber your enemies 3:1. Had a dom victory in no time.
The whole disconnection of the mechanics for the sake of "streamlining" is just wrong.
I'm fine with it being added in later (or at release). I don't think either is a big deal. I agree it was flawed in execution in IV.
Eh, how was IV not about maximizing variables? I see the same stuff in V, just employed in a different way (instead of a tax slider for trade off, you trade off improvements, so dramatically shifting the focus of an empire is a lot of work...which really makes sense). In IV you certainly wanted to maximize pretty much everything, with some trade offs just like you see in V.
That's not much different from how it works in Civ IV, except there are zero essentially penalties for taking over a bunch of other cities. I don't think it is constructive to criticize V's gameplay where IV has the same faults AND act like it is somehow special to V.
Most of the problems you describe have more to do with V clearly being released early and hence lacking a bunch of polish than aything else. For this reason there are a lot of silly mechanical loopholes that didn't get fixed.
OMG Yes!! This would be awesome. The irony is as most of the hard work has already been done (low costs) Firaxis would have made a huge profit and everyone (well except the console "streamlined" crew) would have been estatic. Please hire Gatsby and RobAnybody for Civ VI
You're still maximising, but there were too many mechanics to maximise variables so easily. These games lose their challenge when you figure out the best way to maximise the important variables. With Civ 5 you figure that out pretty quickly. I didn't want a game that so many Civ veterans are beating on Immortal+ after one game. The thing with Civ 4 was everything was interconnected - you couldn't change one thing without affecting everything else. What you had to do was figure out what mechanics were the most important for your style of play, maximise them while keeping the others reasonably balanced. Figuring out that combination took months and that was against an AI that was worse at empire building than this one.
Once you've learnt to balance Civ 4 and BtS, balancing Civ 5 is a walk in the park. There are so few variables and there are hard distinctions - science is only connected to pop and gold is only connected to TPs and so on. The buildings are clear cut for city specialisation and social policies are clear cut for victory conditions. You quickly figure out what you need to concentrate on, which is why so many people are beating it on the hardest difficulty right after release.
Nope, if you tried to steam roll an AI like you can in Civ 5 you will lose the game. The cities you take will drop in population heavily due to unhappiness caused by their foreign culture and the maintenance costs from distance to palace will be greater than the income earned. Eventually war weariness will bring your whole empire to a halt and you won't be able to protect your borders because you need a lot more military in Civ 4.
It's true Civ 5 is trying to cap expansion with a hard cap instead of a soft cap, but when you realise the mechanics are not interconnected, you can just abuse them to beeline to victory, like I was saying about ignoring unhappiness completely. Sure they could fix that in an expansion by adding some mechanics back from Civ 4 in a more "streamlined" fashion as they call it (I don't think it can be fixed in a patch because they can't change fundamental mechanics in a patch).
Sure it's all about maximisation in these games, but more organic empire sims with interconnected mechanics make it a lot harder to figure out how to do it. The fun lies in the process of figuring it out. You asked about the distinction between empire building games and Euro games before. If you play proper empire sims like Europa Universalis or Victoria and then play some German board games (also called Euro games), you'll see too very different strategic play styles. Then you'll see why I feel Civ 5 is much closer to Euro games than empire sims. Civ 4 was still very board gamey compared to Paradox, but not this much.
Here, here. I would also include a more fleshed out Civ 5 policy system to supplement government civics - leaving the govt civics as they are, but using social policies to "define" your culture. Something Civ lacks is this kind of mechanic to distinguish different cultures, giving then different advantages and disadvantages based on choices they've made over time and stick with them through history. That would let each Civ develop different traits, just like the various cultures of the real world, based on their historical needs. Cultures that started on the map near desert would choose policies/cultural traits that help them take advantage of it, while cultures near the sea would choose more maritime traits, etc.
Almost everything you said about these things in Civ 5 is simply not true. Sciences is connected to a bunch of stuff, as is gold. They simply aren't directly linked to each other.
Again, most of the problems with the game are because it was rushed out the door, not a problem of the base mechanics.
That's not at all what Civ IV was like. War Weariness was best handled by having a short and dominating war with lots of troops, taking as many cities as possible. Unhappiness in conquered cities was overall pretty easy to handle and even if you had population loss (Which hardly happened all the time), you were still left far more powerful than before.
Separate names with a comma.