History Headscratchers / Civilization

** This one actually makes a little more sense in the older games, where the range of any unit is only bound by the elngth of track itself. Sure, effectively infinite movement isn't balanced, but at least it's relatively consistent.

* Presumably you did, and it's just an abstraction. You can assume that the citizens add more water mills or factories as necessary as the city grows.

** I'm scratching my head as to why this is a headscratcher. The scientific method was created by Christian fundamentalists. Even then, not all science is rejected. Creationists, for example, dispute only the parts of modern science as taught today that cannot be directly tested in a lab.

* Why is the Satrap's Court in 'V', a representation of a pre-Roman form of government, the replacement for a ''renascence''-era building? Wouldn't it make more sense for it to replace the Market?

** Awesome that it WON, though.

*** Its one more step towards games being respected as artistic medium.

** I think it's more just because the 'Rifleman' unit is usually used to represent 18th/19th century gunpowder-based soldiers in general (like the Infantry unit is used to represent early-mid 20th century infantry as a whole despite looking like a WW2 era American soldier), and the Redcoat is the iconic representation of British infantry of this era; it's more like one of the AcceptableBreaksFromReality the game makes, I'd say.

* Of all things ''archery'' is the prerequisite tech required to research ''the wheel'', in Civ5. What's with that?

** On that note, though, you can still fit 635 stealth bombers in one city.

** In ''V'', you choose a religion but also choose the beliefs associated with it, so all religions are treated equally until the players get their hands on them. However, some of the beliefs are for religious buildings, and each building is different. Pagodas provide more happiness, mosques are more cultural, etc. Technically, the buildings aren't tied to any religion (Christianity can claim pagodas, for example).

** Because there are enough strategic resources in the game that adding deuterium-tritium fuel just for the sake of a single unit would be stupid.

** In ''V'', you choose a religion but also choose the beliefs associated with it, so all religions are treated equally until the players get their hands on them. However, some of the beliefs are for religious buildings, and each building is different. Pagodas provide more happiness, mosques are more cultural, etc. Technically, the buildings aren't tied to any religion (Christianity can claim pagodas, for example).
* ''Brave New World'' is fine and all, but... why are all the new Civilizations introduced in ''Gods & Kings'' removed in BNW? What were they thinking?

** In ''V'', you choose a religion but also choose the beliefs associated with it, so all religions are treated equally until the players get their hands on them. However, some of the beliefs are for religious buildings, and each building is different. Pagodas provide more happiness, mosques are more cultural, etc. Technically, the buildings aren't tied to any religion (Christianity can claim pagodas, for example).

** Do we actually know that it didn't cause problems in 3? If it ''did'' cause problems, that would handily explain the change in 4.

* In 4, the developers deliberately avoided giving the different religions in game special bonuses since they didn't want to cause any offense to members of the faiths. However, in the [[TheMiddleAges Middle Ages]] campaigns added to 3 in the Conquest expansion pack, they had no problem with having a separate 'Christian' and 'Islamic' TechTree for the Arab and European nations (With the Islamic TechTree consisting [[UnfortunateImplications almost exclusively of military advancements, while the Christian one more focused on civil development]]). So if it didn't cause any problems in 3, why were the developers worried about it in 4?

** Because it causes even more problems if you can build horse archers without archery. The first option makes little sense, but the second option is a pure impossibility.