- Nov 9, 2010
I'm definitely interested, but the price is too high considering that the vanilla Civ V was pretty... mediocre. I don't want to pay 80-130 euros for the experience I want.
You should try the Total War games, if you havent already.ReiverCorrupter said:The Civ games are great, but all they seem to do between games is make tweaks to the same basic formula. I think the city-production game play element is becoming a bit outdated.
What I would like to see is a new system based upon more complex macro-management. Perhaps an option to build libraries or other basic public works in all cities by taking out a certain amount of gold for a certain amount of turns. I think it would also be nice if you can have the ability to micromanage the resource distribution of the cities so that they can improve certain works, or give their garrisoned army better training/equipment, instead of just allocating certain citizens to certain plots of terrain. Just having a city produce one thing every certain amount of turns is a bit simplistic.
I'd also like to see the game move from combat centered on single units to armies comprised of several different types of units. This way one could specialize one's army for certain things. I'd also like to see customizable units where you can modify their equipment in order to specialize them for certain things; e.g. make them more maneuverable by cutting down their defense. You could modify the formation of each military unit too; e.g. put the archers in the back behind the phalanx and put the spear-men on either side to protect against cavalry, or make the phalanx form a V as opposed to a straight line.
Instead of each city producing one unit of a certain type after a certain amount of turns you could change it so that each city can produce and garrison only one military unit, though the size of this unit depends upon the size of the city; e.g. your capital city could garrison an entire division, whereas a small peripheral city could garrison a battalion or a company. In order to improve/refit the city's unit you have to devote a certain amount of city resources for a certain amount of turns. You could also improve the military capacity of the city by building certain improvements such as a fort, a training camp, or a military academy. This would allow you to improve the units garrisoned in the city. I'd also like to see supply routes to one's army when they are in enemy territory. That would add a lot more strategy to invasions.
Well... on second thought, maybe I just want to see another turn based strategy game with completely different game play mechanics than Civ. Lol.
For me the different Civ abilities, unique unit and building have a big on how you play the game. Some of the new unique abilities in God & Kings are game-changing, like Maria Theresa of Austria's ability to purchase city states so that they become part of her empire through "Diplomatic Marriage".canadamus_prime said:One thing I always felt was missing from Civ5 was the way that in Civ4 many of the civilizations had 2 of 3 leaders to choose from which altered the way the game played. For example you could be England under Churchill or England under Queen Victoria and the two wouldn't start or play our the same way. Also the fact that each civ started out with different technologies already researched which would mix up gameplay a bit. However in Civ5 all the civs only have 1 leader a piece and they all start out with the same tech so much of the incentive to play as the different civs is removed. ...or at least that's how I felt anyway.
The religion thing was never a big issue for me, although it was kinda fun trying to found every religion in the game.
I agree, I love the city-states because it makes the game less static.DeathQuaker said:That's funny, city states are one of my favorite parts of Civ 5, and one of the reasons I don't want to go back and reinstall Civ 4. I like how they influence diplomacy and help you in wars and stuff.
Anyway, thanks for the review, Greg Tito. I've already bought this (a rare, once in the blue moon event of my actually preordering something) but I am glad to hear it seems to meet my expectations. Really looking forward to the religion customization and new Civs especially. Also really glad to hear they beefed up naval capacity, while it sounds like it makes a strong navy almost too dangerous, I think it makes navies more of an appropriate force to be reckoned with rather than basically water-based armed scouts and exploration units.
Yeah, I've head good things about that series, though it's an RTS and not a turn-based game like CIV. I still think CIV could do a lot better. They definitely aren't pulling a Call of Duty, but they aren't taking too many risks with their formula either.cahtush said: