Men, Gods And Kings: Civilisation V Expansion

By Adam Smith on February 16th, 2012 at 1:41 pm.

At one time, this was the equivalent of wearing a baseball cap backwards. Radical.

I liked Civilisation V, which sometimes causes long-time fans of the series to hurl detritus at me in the streets, but I would never argue that it wasn’t lacking features that I craved. Foremost among them was a decent application of the cultural and historical force of religion, so I’m extremely pleased to see that the just announced expansion, Gods and Kings, will bring all manner of theism into the game. Along with religion, there’s a focus on bulking out espionage and diplomacy. There will also be plenty of stuff. More details below.

First up, here’s a screenshot of some religion happening.

Very good. Let’s just hope they didn’t miss out your favourite.

Nine new civilisations, including Carthage, the Netherlands, the Celts and the Mayans, fill the package out, along with mercantile and religious City States, which will form part of the expanded ‘quest system’. There shall also be new technologies, units, buildings and wonders. I wouldn’t normally be interested in new scenarios, since I never play them, but one of those being added is called Empires of the Smoky Skies and is “Victorian science fiction”. That does grab my attention quite aggressively.

We’re also promised improved AI, which only hands-on experience will validate. The only word on a release date is late spring, which is close enough to make me quite excited about a bit of hexotheology. All the details are here.

, , , , .

105 Comments »

  1. NathaI3 says:

    I really liked Civ V, but I never invest the time I need to get really good at Civ games. This looks amazing though (as long as they pull off the improved AI) so maybe it’ll hold my interest long enough for me to become masterful.

    • coamxzcv says:

      If it is of any help, nothing any of us does ultimately matters in the grand scheme of things, so you may as well spend your time playing computer games. http://urldt.com/8945

  2. Kohlrabi says:

    Like in Civ4 you can apparently still found Christianity 900 BC. :)

  3. Jockie says:

    As long as each religion has a catchy little jingle/strange noise to accompany every announcement I’ll probably grab this.

    Wish they’d make the MP a bit less rubbish though.

  4. Premium User Badge

    jezcentral says:

    I also doubt the game’s chances of grabbing me long enough to play it properly. Although I love being able to buy any game that takes my fancy, I do miss the time when I used to play every game into the ground, learning all its little rules, glitches and exploits.

    It helps that, back then, I didn’t have the realisation of my life slipping inexorably away from me towards cold, cold death.

    • SanguineAngel says:

      If it is of any help, nothing any of us does ultimately matters in the grand scheme of things, so you may as well spend your time playing computer games.

      I also sort of miss that time when I was a kid and any game in my possession represented months of saving. Not only was I not overwhelmed by choice to such a degree that I never devote enough time to any single game but also, each game held much greater value to me.

    • Koozer says:

      SanguineAngel is a man of many truths.

      EDIT: or woman!

    • Asherie says:

      I couldn’t put my finger on why I tend to complete a game, then leave it at that – no urge to find easter eggs, perfect skills etc. I’ve been blaming their replay-ability quality but I think you’ve just unlocked something within my subconscious and I don’t know whether I like it… Deathclock: 232 average game lengths til death – choose wisely!

  5. lerouxb says:

    How about they get their turn-based game to run on entry-level (hell – even mid-range!) hardware without it melting down?

    Surely a tile/turn-based strategy game should be playable on something like the equivalent of a macbook air? Or a tablet. Or a smartphone. Just think of the possibilities. Board-gaming with your friends around a table, playing a few turns on the bus or train.. (And really – it is just a board game where the rules are too complicated to enforce manually.)

    But no – it must require the latest and greatest and then _still_ experience severe slowdown and probably a water-cooled rig. Perhaps it is part of a deliberate market segmentation strategy so they can sell you the shitty stripped down mobile version?

    • Hensler says:

      I built my computer for $700 in 2007, and I run Civ 5 just fine.

    • noodlecake says:

      Yeah. My £600 laptop I got 2 years ago ran it fine and it wasn’t one I got on a particularly good deal. I bought it with insurance money and I was limited to Curry’s so I couldn’t shop around. :(

    • SanguineAngel says:

      Yeah my computer is 5 years old or so (when exactly did the E8400 come out?) and I have not experienced a single game which I have not been able to max settings on, including civ 5.

    • InternetBatman says:

      My $600 five year old computer had no problem running Civ V. You couldn’t run it at max, but it still worked.

    • AshEnke says:

      Have to agree with the others, it runs fine on my Atari ST.

    • Jumwa says:

      I could run it on my old PC with lower settings. Though it raised the question: why waste all this time with graphics anyhow? Does this really enhance anyones time with Civilization? It’s a serious question, not me being facetious.

      The cash spent on making needlessly complex graphics could’ve been used to polish up the game some so it wasn’t the buggy mess it was at launch, and maybe provide some more of the depth of previous titles as well.

      Don’t get me wrong, I absolutely love the new things that Civ V added to the formula. The hex grid? One-unit per hex? City states? All that stuff is pure gold. It really improved on the series. But it was rather a mess upon launch, and my partner still refuses to play it with me anymore because of it, despite my assurances that new patches have come along to smooth the rough edges.

    • noodlecake says:

      I’m pretty sure no extra time was spent on the graphics. They will have started the graphics and programming at the same time and work on both would have run parallel. Also I think it would probably have taken a lot of time to produce 2d pixel art graphics too. I like the new graphics anyway.

    • nanowired says:

      Yea, not only does this game suck resources, but if you are on the LOWER end of their supported card list, you stand a good chance of your card melting down and them blaming the layout of your case rather than the overtaxing from their game.
      Note that they had the same problem as the one scene from Starcraft 2 where the Battlecruiser was animated without a cap on frames so it overheated your card…except for it was the ENTIRE GAME.

      check out their support forums, theres a huge Thread dedicated to it with payed apologists blaming things which weren’t an issue before or after(since people with those cards that stopped playing civ5 could go on and play other games)

      Granted, now those cards are horribly obsolete, but still.

      Oh, and I want to, for once, be able to get past 1900 without the game crashing. Thanks.

    • Sarlix says:

      My £2500 PC from 1958 can’t run Civ V because it’s crap. It also takes up half of my house.

    • Doctor_Hellsturm says:

      Acutally Civ5 was the game that made me buy a new computer. It fried my poor old radeon 9700m. Overheating like a true Dell m1530!

    • tur1n says:

      I have issues with Civ 5′s performance as well. Not the framerate, I don’t give a damn how a turn based strategy game looks, but the time between turns gets really, really long at the end of the game. One of my top reasons why I still play Civ 4.

    • Jumwa says:

      Extra money was undoubtedly spent, and that’s the thrust of my argument.

      You can have an attractive looking strategy game without wasting your time doing needlesly intricate 3D modelling. Personally my favourite grand strategy games were the likes of Hearts of Iron, which had little to nothing in the way of 3D images.

    • MattM says:

      @nanowired If a full load causes a card to overheat it is the fault of a poorly cooled case. Running at 100% utilization is within the normal operation of a gpu and you should provide enough cooling to account for this. CPUs get loaded to 100% all the time and people understand that that is normal.

      @Jumwa I enjoyed the nice graphics of Civ V. I wouldn’t want to play a game with terrible strategy and good graphics, but I would rather play a good game with nice graphics than a good game with lesser graphics. For me playing computer strategy games is about more than a set of abstracted rules. There is an element of simulation and a sense of place and time and graphics help the presentation of the game. Abstracted strategy like chess or go lack the context that I like.

    • runtheplacered says:

      @MattM,

      “but I would rather play a good game with nice graphics than a good game with lesser graphics.”

      I don’t even think you needed to say this. This gets filed in “O” for obvious.

    • nanowired says:

      @Mat:

      And that excuses Civ 5 for being designed to melt said cards without a perfectly set up case?

      Yea, if you believe that I’ve got a bridge for you…

    • MattM says:

      If someone burned out his cpu by sticking it in a poorly ventilated case then loading it to 100% (many encoding tasks do this) who would blame the software writers for using 100% of the available cpu. When I assembled my computer, i ran a GPU tester (occt) to make sure I had acquitted cooling even at 100% load. Thermal management is the responsibility of the end user or the computer builder not the software writers. Full load should be expected to occur and planned for with adequate cooling.
      If Civ V (or any other game) overwhelmed the case’s cooling then it wasn’t set up properly in the first place.

    • animlboogy says:

      Putting the game into DX9 mode gets it running on most things, and I’m pretty sure you can even play it on netbooks if you run it in the 2D mode.

    • sloppy says:

      As a long time fan of Civ, and a tightarse that has not updated their PC in over a decade.. I feel your pain.

      @tur1n “but the time between turns gets really, really long at the end of the game. One of my top reasons why I still play Civ 4.”

      I find that hilarious since Civ 4 has the same issue.. which often makes me give up on long games, and it’s still a problem in Civ 5? Ugh.

  6. caddyB says:

    I’ll buy it, because maybe it’s good.

  7. Mitch says:

    A Steampunk scenario? Cool. :-)

  8. dmastri says:

    Terrible game births terrible expansion. Oh boy.

    The real problem with Civ5 is the one unit per tile implementation. Yes, the early game combat is fun and tactical (or would be if the AI wasn’t shit), but the late game is nigh-unplayable. No mechanism for queuing moves makes it beyond tedious.

    The snail pace of building and prevalence of ICS don’t help either, but I think they fixed that in a patch?

    Really, who cares.

    • Walsh says:

      False.

      I like Civ5 better than Civ4 but I liked Civ4 back when it was called Civ2.

      Super stacks of units were stupid and called for zero combat strategy.

    • InternetBatman says:

      The one unit per tile is a good limit. The AI isn’t great, this much is true, but the limit makes capturing railways and supply lines crucial, making it more tactical and a better reflection of real life. Once you have control of the enemy’s railways, you can pump however many units you want into the countryside, and they’re pretty much toast.

    • Khemm says:

      The one unit per hex in CiV is actually th best thing that could have happened to the series, I was so sick of stacks of doom. The only thing they need to work on is the AI, it behaves as if the stacks were still there.

    • Kohlrabi says:

      Funny, for me the one-unit-per-tile concept tremendously increased the fun I have with combat in Civ. It is true that moving a lot of units is very tedious. I’d like to see an option to define “battle groups” which you can order around with a single click, or rectangle selections like in RTSs. But it was even worse with the hundreds of units you had in stacks in previous Civs.

      The real bugger is that you cannot turn off airplane animations, so if you use a lot of bombers you have to watch every single one take off, drop its load and land before you can order the next one.

    • GreatGreyBeast says:

      No, dmastri has it right. I was excited at first about 1UPT, mostly because it looked cool, but it just causes too damned many problems. The AI has never been able to handle it, even after a year of patches, it frequently causes hair-pulling congestion problems, and it’s a horrible pain to micro-manage troop movement in the late game. And for what? The Stack of Doom has now been replaced by the Carpet of Doom. Superior numbers still wins over brilliant tactics. And why shouldn’t it? That’s how the North won the Civil War.

      Honestly I’ve grown tired of SOD complaints. Bigger armies win wars. That’s not unfair – that’s about as fair as it gets. And it doesn’t mean there’s no strategy either. It just means most of the strategy lies in the production stage, which is as it should be in a Civ game. There is also strategy in the mix of units you put in a stack, though that could be improved in many ways. The Civ4 system of pitting each attacker against the strongest corresponding defender is probably the REAL problem that SOD haters don’t like, because that automatically nullifies most of your unit decisions (PROVIDED the defender has a good mix of units – which is where the existing strategy lies… have a counter unit to every variety of attacker). Perhaps a good balance that would appease more tactical players would be a manually set “marching order” so you could decide who fights first. Or at least more intuitive rules, like, say, nobody can attack an archer until all melee units are destroyed, as they are presumably standing in the back. Or max units of a certain kind per tile. Or whatever. Point being, there are endless ways to FIX Civ4 stacks without freaking out and abandoning the entire system for something that’s just as problematic in an entirely different way.

      And underpinning all this is the real problem with 1UPT — Civ is not and never has been a tactical game. As many have pointed out, what Civ5 tries to do is put tactical combat on the strategic world map, and madness ensues. Now, defenders of 1UPT are quick to point out that change is good and there’s no point releasing a new game if it works just the same as the last one. I agree. But there is a limit. Once you’ve changed the gameplay to the point of being in a different genre, you’ve gone too far, and that is what Civ5 does. If Tim Shafer wanted to make a remake of Panzer General, he should have made a remake of Panzer General… instead of hijacking another game that has never been about tactical combat and trying to shoehorn it in. The integrity of both is lost.

      All that said, I kinda like the hex grid.

    • gritz says:

      A good compromise between STACK OF DOOM and 1UPT is Paradox’s support limit system. You can have as many units on a tile as you want, but if you go over a certain limit (based on the tile’s terrain and features), you incur penalties and attrition.

      So this way, you get around the problems of 1UPT while still forcing the big stacks to break up and play a little more strategically.

    • FunkyBadger3 says:

      Walsh: zero tactics, not strategy. Building Stacks of Doom is exactly what strategy is.

      And an awful lot of tactics, to be honest. Guderian’s Achtung Panzer!, in one line: “Tanks are great, more tanks are better!”

  9. Turquoise Days says:

    Call me a cynic, but religion, melee naval units, and espionage make this sound like Civ 5: Beyond the Sword, frankly.

    I have no objection to new content being provided in an expansion, not at all. I do vaguely resent being expected to pay for features that they are now admitting they should never have left out of Civ V in the first place. Ho hum. As lerouxb angrily points out this creaked so much on my system I’ll probably stick with CivIV:BTS, as they’re looking pretty similar now.

    • Turquoise Days says:

      Whilst I’m at it, unless they improve the UI, I’m definitely not touching it.

    • pilouuuu says:

      CiV – BTS sounds like a great idea and the UI was the best ever!

  10. Premium User Badge

    The Sombrero Kid says:

    Depends how much they’re going to try and gouge me for it.

  11. BobbyKotickIsTheAntichrist says:

    I’m well satisfied with my Civ 4 Complete Edition. No Civ 5 for me, tank you very much.

  12. Sadraukar says:

    I wonder if they’ll add multiplayer unit animations as an “expansion feature.”

  13. MistaJah says:

    In the old days they would wait for all expansions to be out before releasing a Game of the Year edition. Still, I’m looking forward to this.

    • radioactivez0r says:

      Yeah, I had sort of assumed that the GOTY would be definitive. Guess not. Then again, Dawn of War II did it as well, and never really packaged the Gold version with its last expansion. Still, it certainly continues to reinforce the idea of “don’t buy me right away, because there will be 18 months of trickling content that may eventually get packaged together at a lower price”

  14. Frosty840 says:

    Civ V never really gelled with me, mostly because it was bad, but specifically because the narrator was godawful.

    I remember finding a YouTube link at around the time of the game’s release of his performance in one of the Elvira films… Not worth looking up again, I can assure you.

    If they redo the entire voiceover for the expansion, I might consider it, but if it follows the recent trend it’ll be another bloody £30 expandalone with no payback for those of us who already have the main game.

  15. pakoito says:

    Broken game with gameplay holes the size of Asia gets the Asia-sized expansion everybody was expecting.

    No economy rebalance from scratch, AI or netcode tweaks still makes the game unplayable.

    • Gaytard Fondue says:

      Oh come on. Are you saying 30k players everyday are playing and enjoying a broken game that is completely unplayable? If CiV is unplayable, Civ 4 isn’t even a game. Still tons of bugs after 2 expansions and a useless AI.

    • pandora says:

      CivIV’s AI is not useless, it is made “for player’s enjoyment”/”fun”.

    • mouton says:

      pakoito was, obviously, using a hyperbole. Civ 5 is playable, but so are many other poor games.

      Civ 4 AI wasn’t stellar, but it wasn’t outright moronic. It worked reasonably well with stacks and diplomacy was actually workable.

    • Gaytard Fondue says:

      The only thing that kept the CIV AI from failing was the incredibly dull stack combat. I personally did not enjoy throwing stacks consisting of 100 units and more at the AI. And the concept of suicide catapults was just plain wrong.
      Diplomacy in CIV works like this: “What? We don’t have the same religion? Screw you!” (which is almost as bad as the Total War way: “We are neigbours? This means WAR!!!!”)

    • mouton says:

      The religious thing actually worked quite similarly IRL. Also, it is still preferable to the utterly random Civ5 behaviour.

      Yes, CIV4 AI was helped by the stack system – but if you remove a crutch, you had better make sure your creation doesn’t fall flat on your face. I really like hexes and one unit per tile, but without an AI that knows how to navigate it, it is meaningless.

  16. CaspianRoach says:

    What’s the deal with “bring your own microscope” screenshots? Developers these days…

    • Adam Smith says:

      Added clickability, just for you!

    • MuscleHorse says:

      And now it’s so big my 1440*900 screen can only fit about half of it.

    • Kresh says:

      Blog commenters: Can’t live with them, STILL illegal to choke them to death.

    • Premium User Badge

      Rikard Peterson says:

      You just have to remember not to simply click on it, but to open it in a new window (or tab). Then your browser can scale it for you (assuming that’s something that your browser is capable of doing) or let you scroll around it and it won’t break your view of RPS. (It’s a good thing the workaround is so easy – the default version of embiggening screenshots is quite unusable to me.)

  17. UnravThreads says:

    Celts w/ Boudicca – Yes!
    Religion – Fuck the shit right off!

    Edit: Oh Gods, Espionage too? WHY?!

  18. rocketman71 says:

    Still waiting for PBEM.

    When they implement PBEM like they promised and release a nice little package at a fair price with all the DLCs (which probably by now cost more than the game all together despite not having a fraction of the content), then we’ll talk about buying this.

    Ok, I looked:

    - Base game: 29.99€
    - All the DLCs together: 37.89€
    - Game of the Year edition: more asequible, but doesn’t have all the DLCs, and will be superseded by at least 2 or 3 editions more.

    Sorry, Firaxis, but that’s is fucking ridiculous. Call me when you start thinking again about making a great game instead of nickle and diming me.

    • UnravThreads says:

      Would say it’s likely more to do with 2K Games than Firaxis.

    • mouton says:

      PBEM? Be happy if the enxt Civ isn’t pad-only.

    • phanatic62 says:

      You CAN play PBEM – technically. Set up a hotseat game with more than one human, set it to password protect, save after your turn and send the file over to your friend. I’ve played 2 games each with over 200 turns. It’s certainly not optimized, and it has a really annoying oversight/bug wherein you must Alt-F4 to close the game after you’ve saved, but don’t say that there’s no PBEM.

    • ain says:

      A PBEM mode would definitely be nice, but what’s more annoying is that you’re forced to use simultaneous turns in multiplayer which makes the whole game unplayable.

  19. 2late2die says:

    Oh this is bad. I already sunk in untold dozens of hours into this game. An expansion that features religion (one of the big things I was missing), improved espionage, a whole 9 new civs _and_ a Victorian science fiction scenario – yep, I can kiss my social life goodbye.

  20. Premium User Badge

    Phinor says:

    The whole time (all 30 or so seconds) I was reading the article I was hoping it would conclude with a release date that is soon, preferably before summer as there’s literally no games (that interest me) coming out before September.

    Needless to say, I was very satisfied by the conclusion of the article.

  21. SquidInABox says:

    Put me in the camp that never missed religion or espionage from Civ 5 and as such probably won’t be buying this. I’d hope that the new civs were available as DLC though I’d like to have The Netherlands in my game without the extra stuff.

    Also it never fails to amaze me how any news story about Civ 5 always brings out the worst in the comments just because Civ 5 wasn’t Civ 4 which is still a thing that exists.

    • noodlecake says:

      Those are my exact sentiments! I would say the same of Dragon Age as well.

    • gritz says:

      Yes it is truly amazing that commentors on a blog would express a negative opinion about a highly anticipated game they found very disappointing.

  22. Kresh says:

    I’m glad they re-introduced religion. It’s still not going to make me favor the game over Civ4. Civ5 feels more like a board game (mechanics-wise) than any of it’s predecessors. I like board games on my kitchen table and not on the computer. Yeah, yeah, I’m a luddite. Whatever.

  23. MCM says:

    This is EXACTLY the bullshit everyone knew would happen when Civ 5 came out without half the features from Civ 4 – especially religion and espionage. It gets old later as an expansion. Typical. Such total garbage.

    • Khemm says:

      Civ IV didn’t feel complete either until the expansions came along. Maybe not as much as Civ V, but still.

    • MCM says:

      Khemm is correct that the problem has grown worse with time.

    • phanatic62 says:

      How long did it take for BtS to come out? Because that is what made Civ IV the game that everyone loves so much. I think the real difference is the push nowadays for DLC over proper expansions that makes it seem like they’re nickel and diming the customer base. But to complain because they’re adding features with an expansion – ffs that’s what every Civ game since at least Civ II has done.

    • gritz says:

      Actually Civ4 was pretty universally beloved even before BtS came out. I don’t know why anyone would think otherwise, aside from some memory leak problems that were patched early on.

  24. InternetBatman says:

    I hope the new wonders fill out the late game. The wonders just felt so weak in Civ V, especially at the end when you couldn’t even get the internet. All in all I liked it, and thought it brought several improvements to the game. It just wasn’t as satisfying.

  25. Premium User Badge

    c-Row says:

    Already looking forward to the day people will finally stop complaining about the lack of religion in Civ V. Unless it turns into “Na na na, I have to buy the expansion to get religion features!” Oh, come on…

  26. Vinraith says:

    It seems to me that adding features to a game whose AI can’t properly utilize the features already in the game would be a bad idea.

    • Zenicetus says:

      Exactly. Didn’t one of the devs say in one of the pre-release interviews that they tried adding religion, and it didn’t work with the new game engine? Presumably due to the AI. Maybe they’ve been working on it in the meantime, and now it’s good enough. Trying to think positively here.

      I might try this expansion. One of the reasons I don’t play more Civ 5 is that I don’t like the way every faction shares the same linear tech tree, so everyone is using the same armies and essentially the same development strategies, regardless of faction. I still wish each faction had its own tech tree (as in GalCiv 2), but different religion for each faction should help shake things up a little.

  27. Khemm says:

    It feels like they’re trying to fix what was wrong with CiV and add the missing stuff from CIV. It could actually be great.

  28. AgamemnonV2 says:

    Can we identify the religions? The first is obviously Buddhism. The second I would only figure because it’s selected (never seen Christianity represented under that symbol). I’ve no clue what the third is supposed to be. The fourth is Hinduism, the fifth is Islam, and the sixth is Judaism (also obvious). The seventh is Shintoism. The eighth is Sikhism. The ninth is Taoism. And I’m guessing the last two are American religions (One Mesoamerican, the other Totemism).

    It’s curious; they added culture-specific religions (Japan, Mesoamerica, Native America, etc.) and yet they continue to miss out on Zoroastrianism.

    • InternetBatman says:

      Maybe the third is a Confucian symbol. The rest are on the wikipedia religious symbol page.

      Personally, I always get a little surprised that they don’t have a polytheistic option represented by the Roman gods or the Norse gods. Both covered huge portions of a continent in their day.

    • cuc says:

      The last one is Zoroastrianism.

      The third religion is Confucianism. The symbol is the Chinese character for water.

    • Stupoider says:

      Paganism was the default religious civic in Civ IV so that might be why they decided not to include it as a state religion.

      I agree though, the thought of a modern day civilisation worshipping Zeus makes me want it.

    • AgamemnonV2 says:

      Right, Confucianism. Should’ve thought of that.

      @cuc: Now that I look at it more closely, yeah, it is a pretty crude-looking Faravahar. Then again, they really didn’t do justice to the symbol for Christianity either. So I guess that leaves us with our mystery religion, which, if I had to guess, has something to do with Mesoamerica (although maybe I’m wrong, considering most Mesoamericans considered their sun god as their all-powerful god).

      @InternetBatman: They do. Every time you start the game in Civ 4 your state religion is paganism, which is what ever polytheistic religion that culture worshiped at one time or another. It would be far too crazy to include every culture’s early religion; you’re not just talking about Greek/Roman and Norse, but Egyptians, Sumerians, Celts, Slavs, Chinese, and Japanese. It’ll be difficult enough juggling eleven religions–another nine or ten polytheistic ones would just throw off the balance for it. Every culture pretty much has its own starting religion and everyone would be locked in a religious war until…well, forever, probably.

  29. MadMatty says:

    still looking for the satanism logo….hmmm….. hmmmmm….

    Or Rastafari ….! :)

  30. tkioz says:

    A lot of people complained about the combat in Civ5, but to me adding the hex finally made it worthwhile, no more stacking 50 tanks or whatever and just rolling at a city, I actually had to think about the tactics, so I’m glad to see they are bringing in more features.

  31. Drinking with Skeletons says:

    I still think that, after all these years, that Master of Orion 2 still has the best espionage in a game, both in it’s cold passivity and simple effectiveness.

    I’m hoping that this new system will at least not be the nightmare mess of Beyond the Sword.

    Also: I hope that religion has a bit more “oomph” than it did in Civ IV, where each religion was interchangeable. I understand you can’t risk offending anyone, but geez. BLAND.

  32. Stupoider says:

    YEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEES

    Religion was one of the slightly more jarring omissions from Civ V. I liked Civ V too, but I -loved- Civ IV.

  33. harrumph says:

    Yeah, as much as I loved Civ IV (shameless, equal-opportunity Civ fanboy that I am, I have loved every Civ ever, even those weird post-Civ 2 knockoffs like Call to Power), it seems like people are too quick to forget that the game we know and love did not ship in such lovable condition. The AI and the game’s performance were both dramatically improved over time (pre-BTS late-game turns took whole minutes to process), and some big gameplay holes had to be filled in.

    In fact, some of those holes never did really get filled in properly. Espionage wasn’t added until BTS, and when they did add it, it sucked. Actually, religion was somewhat flawed too, being pronouncedly skewed towards Hinduism, Buddhism, and Judaism—did any of you ever play a game in which Taoism or Islam played a significant role?

    Even after all the fixes and both expansions, the Civ IV AI was pretty much garbage, certainly no better at mounting a naval invasion than its Civ V counterpart (although, granted, it didn’t make as many totally dumbfounding moves like embarking units right next to enemy warships). Just about the only thing that Civ IV does absolutely, unequivocally better than Civ V is diplomacy (you could argue that it’s a difference of priorities—Civ IV being more naturalistic, Civ V more game-y—except that Civ V’s diplomacy is a complete basketcase no matter how you cut it). I’ve found it hard to go back to Civ IV since getting Civ V, in spite of all the flaws, and I’ve been waiting with bated breath for news of the first expansion. And now I’m super excited! Yay!

    I do agree that the pricing of the DLC is goddamn highway robbery. Unfortunately I have no willpower or financial sense. At least I got most of it on sale!

    Oh, also, Adam (and anybody else who doesn’t usually fancy scenarios): “Wonders of the Ancient World” and “Conquest of the New World” (and, to a lesser extent, the Polynesian one) are actually pretty cool, quite different from the usual overdetermined scenario fare. They give you the option, in each of those three, of randomly generating the map, and the game plays out more like a normal Civ game, just focused narrowly on one time and place.

  34. Premium User Badge

    ffordesoon says:

    YAY! Religion’s back!

    The other additions sound great too, but religion is the one that I genuinely missed from Civ V.

  35. MellowKrogoth says:

    Paint me interested. I quickly lost interest in Civ V because it didn’t have enough depth for me compared to Civ IV: BTS, let’s see how it’ll be with this expansion.

  36. Saiko Kila says:

    If there’s no atheism – I’m skipping on it.

    • Zenicetus says:

      Atheism isn’t helpful until you no longer need mass slave labor, and can start relying on technology.

      The closest thing to an Atheist “religion” in a Civ game would be something like a Greek Epicurean cult. And they would probably get stomped by any neighbor with a real religion to gin up the masses for sectarian hatred and warfare.

  37. tenrec says:

    Wait, there are alternate spellings of civilization? Cool. Does habitually using the Z form make me more gangster?

  38. Dances to Podcasts says:

    Yaay! Gooo Netherlands! :)