Hi driztduorden,

I think i read almost all review and non of this reviews said the game is full of bugs. (there are somme small bugs, but nothing gamebreaking) All reviewer had something to critize, sure. But the critic had nothing to do with technical issues/bugs. 

And... if you love Civ, HoMM and customization. This game will not disappoint you. Ofcourse this is only my opinion.

Lantros,

"Some reviews say this game is full of bugs"

It might have been an article about the game and not an actual review. I am not sure about this. I have seen this comment a couple of times as a responce to a revies. I have not played the game yet but only watched a small portion of a let`s play of Maddjinn. Ive read some reviews and articles. Been reading some in the forums. So i have no clue if the game has bugs or balance issues in this state. My experience from some games the last few years is that at release some issues might come up which might be somewhat annoying. I`m expecting i can live with this when i pick up the game (again i have no idea what the state of the game is after release and 1 patch) as probably i am to excited about the game and want to explore everyting afap.

Ive thought a lot about this game before i even know it came out. If i would make a game myself it would be a blend between civilization 4/5 and total war in a fantasy setting. This game comes very close except the thousands of thousands of units TW has to offer. But if i can costumise and really get attached to my units when they die etc. this is very cool.

Again, this game has so much potential from what i saw of it already and how it is build. And i guess i already made up my mind that i will buy and play it as soon as time comes available. It just that im not sure when the game is at a state that is is good enough to dig into it.

I`ve seen a lot of possitive reactions to the game.

I think u are right this game will not dissapoint me.

Yes but it sucks pretty bad. And very buggy

No I bet he is some damn Blleding heart progressive liberal (not talking about a normal liberal) who loves the Political Correctness crap.

I personally thing Civ 5 is a terrible example of a 4x game, but Civ 4 with all of the expansions was a great game. Also this game is nothing like the total war games. They're more RTS/Tactical War Game, where as this is a turn based strategy game with a minor emphasis on tactical battles that are also turn based. The difference between 4x and tactical war games in my opinion is the city building ability, while you can make minor improvements in TW city building is a really minor part of the game because there is an emphasis on warring and political intrigue. The game is more of a mix of Civ 4, GalCiv 2, and some rpg flare thrown in. 

Huh... that should be interesting.

Emperor_Nero,

Visually Civ 5 looked way better than 4. Not perse that it has better graphics but the stacking of units in civ 4 was the biggest issue i had with that game. Seeing a huge blob of units on the scteen is more satesfying that a stack of doom. Still civ 4 is probably the best game ever made.

Seeing a huge army with thousands of soldiers marching towards eachother in real time is absolutely awsome. If the micromanagement is done in turnbased and the actual battle in realtime it would be perfect for me.

I understand that making that kind of game would cost many millions of dollars. But if someday the companys would take over each others franchises and blend it into one game it would be perfect for me.

I don't really play strategy games for graphics, which must explain my 6 month addiction to dwarf fortress. Strategy gamers in general don't really care about graphics, because unlike an RPG you're usually looking at many characters at a time or are trying to make a decision that is vital. It isn't realistic to have a single unit attacking a city. Like I wouldn't be able to roll up on a city with a group of panzers. It would be an entire group of varied units. I appreciated that the hex based system allowed for more strategy, but not allowing stacked units just isn't realistic. 

None of it is realistic.  A stack of doom , attacking one unit at a time isn't either.  

Civ V: Gods & Kings arguably better that Civ IV: Beyond the Sword.  As far as I'm concerned, it's currently the 4x strategy game to beat.

Lord Xia,

Realism often goes against gaming. If i would play a realistic roman or ancient battle most of the time armys would try hard not to fight against eachother. Moving into a superior position and waiting for the other to attack. Which wouldnt be much fun. Civilization isnt realistic but it wouldnt be much of a game either if it was realistic.

Oh, I agree completely, I was just arguing against a previous statement made.  Often, I think making a game "real" can hurt it's fun.  There has to be a line made where it's real enough not to make players think it's stupid, but at the same time it's at it's optimal fun level.  

Mtn_Man

True, civ 4 is better. But i prefer some things about civ 5.

I still play civ 4 whenever i want a real challenge.

Maybe i should have spend some more time explaining myself. I diddnt have the time to read over the first 2 posts more carefully. Well. Good night all.