View Full Version : Civ V Gameplay Changes


Camikaze
Feb 18, 2010, 08:13 PM
So what are the gameplay changes going to be, and are they good or bad?

So far, it seems all we have to go off is the screenshots, and this:
- Switch from squares to hexagons changing the way the game plays. More room for maneuvers and more tactical options.
- Changes to combat. More depth in combat, no more stacking of units. This will lead to bigger focus on terrain.
- Inspired by Panzer General.
- Reintroduction of Bombardment, now archers and siege equipment can shoot over melee units.
- Better diplomatic AI.
- More diplomatic options between players.
- Less "cheating" AI.
- Religion is not a factor anymore.
- Ressources are not infinite. For example one source of horse only supplies enough horses for 1 unit, but when that horseman dies the horses will respawn as a unit. (this confused me alittle, i guess we will have to watch it in action)
- City States as a sort of small countries that never develop beyond their single city. They can provide bonusses if you befriend them, or you can take over their land.
- Civics are out, now there is something called "Social Policies".
- About the same amount of wonders, the tech tree will feel familiar. Great People still in.
- Some victory conditions changed. For example in Conquest you only have to capture all the other capitals. Eliminates boring mop up phase.
- Unique Civ leader bonusses, no more standard "Spiritual" or "Financial".
- DirectX 11 support.
- Built in webbrowser. Sid Meier is also working on a facebook application of Civilization.
Stolen from here (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showpost.php?p=8912349&postcount=19).

Matt0088
Feb 18, 2010, 08:24 PM
Possibly losing Religions is saddening.:(

Finite resources is a good idea, if handled well. Ideally, each resource should have a total pool, which slowly decreased based on the your civ's size[for luxury resources], or use by each military unit you raise (one time deduction) and maintain(per turn) [strategic resources]; until there's literally no more, at which point the resource disappears. The exception would obviously be food resources, seeing as those never run out. Looking at the description, having 1 unit per 1 resource seems rather...dumb, especially as the total number of units gradually increases over the length of the game.

I imagine city states to be similar to independent civs found in RFC, but simply more fleshed out(the bonuses, or annexing em part), which in the overall picture certainly adds realism.:)

Camikaze
Feb 18, 2010, 08:26 PM
Also, we have the official website (http://www.civilization5.com/), which offers some information on features of the game.

One thing I noticed in particular about what is mentioned is 'trading items and land'. Will this mean that borders will no longer be decided by culture, but by diplomacy, or does it simply mean you can trade cities like you could in Civ4?

I can't seem to copy and paste from that site, so I'll work on typing up what's there.

taillesskangaru
Feb 18, 2010, 08:29 PM
- Reintroduction of Bombardment, now archers and siege equipment can shoot over melee units.

Yes! YES!!!

- Religion is not a factor anymore.

Less enthusiastic about this. Still, Civ3 was fine without religions, and I would think it's possible to mod it in. I'll wait and see.

Ressources are not infinite. For example one source of horse only supplies enough horses for 1 unit, but when that horseman dies the horses will respawn as a unit. (this confused me alittle, i guess we will have to watch it in action)

Less than enthusiastic about this as well. As Matt said, a resource pool would be good.

City States as a sort of small countries that never develop beyond their single city. They can provide bonusses if you befriend them, or you can take over their land.

Good, good. :)

Opera
Feb 18, 2010, 08:32 PM
The City States feature sounds fun, that's one of those I'm really looking after; the others being "no stacking units" and the new tiles system...

I'm really sad about the religions.

Legionarius
Feb 18, 2010, 08:34 PM
Finite resources is a good idea, but to go along with it, I think that the chance of discovering another source should increase as you advance technologically (i.e. to simulate new technologies giving you access to otherwise unassailable locations). This could vary from resource to resource; copper should have a relatively higher chance of discovery than gold or gems.

And I agree with the above poster that 1 unit per resource is stupid. One resource should have a number of points associated with it, which would decrease depending on the number of units requiring that resource, basically linking military upkeep with resources in addition to gold.

And I'm questioning why they got rid of religion; it worked very well in IV, adding another layer of complexity to the diplomacy aspect of the game. But if they said they revamped and upgraded the diplomacy in V, maybe we won't need it. After all, all the religions were basically the same, differing only in name and when one could discover it.

Lord Parkin
Feb 18, 2010, 08:36 PM
I'll transfer over my relevant comments from the other thread, since it seems like we'll be using this one from now on.

With regards to the limited number of units per resource:

One problem I can forsee is that this makes land-grabbing and warmongering an even more powerful strategy. Empires that span more land get more resources, and consequently can build more units. There's no longer anything small empires can try to do to compensate (get a super-productive city, etc) because they're no longer able to produce more than a limited number of units while their opponent with 2-3 times the resources can produce 2-3 times the units.

Obviously warmongering is going to be an effective strategy in every Civ game, but I'm worried about whether this new resource limitation might make it so necessary to war for land that peace isn't an option if you want to survive. I hope they'll be taking this into account when creating the resource system.

With regards to the "capital capture conquest" victory:

Hmm, interesting, but could make it a bit too easy to win on a naval-based map with a sudden stab attack strategy. At least thinking from Civ4 combat mechanics. Maybe the limit of units per tile will make such a strategy near-impossible in Civ5. We'll have to see.

Either way, I'm fairly sure that this "capital capture conquest" (dare I introduce the acronym of CCC?) will probably be a selectable option. In other words, if you want to play the "traditional" style of conquest by complete and utter demolition, you should be able to tick or untick a box to do so.

With regards to the stacking of units:

I wonder if the units we see in the screenshots are made up of several individual units combined? This might mean that there's some kind of "unit per tile limit" imposed... e.g. can't have more than 10 or 20 units on the same tile. This would work against the "invincible stacks" thing, and at the same time be realistic (because there's only a finite number of troops you can fit into a certain space - i.e. tile).

[Later] Looks like my stab in the dark might have been right about limits for units on the same tile. I just hope the limit won't be ONE unit per tile, that'd be silly. But 10 or 20 I'm fine with.

With regards to religion:

No religion? Aw, that's a shame. I thought that was a pretty cool feature of Civ4. Guess they got too PC or something...

With regards to leader bonuses:

Unique leader bonuses... sounds great, I'm all for it. I just hope they can come up with enough unique bonuses so as not to make them repetitive (especially when the expansions start arriving).

Matt0088
Feb 18, 2010, 08:38 PM
One thing I noticed in particular about what is mentioned is 'trading items and land'. Will this mean that borders will no longer be decided by culture, but by diplomacy, or does it simply mean you can trade cities like you could in Civ4?

This is most likely a feature of the,"- More diplomatic options between players.". Trading items would obviously be gold, tech, resources etc. I'd be especially interested to see how finite resources affect how you trade em, and since there isn't a sensable resource model to look at, I have no clue.:dunno: As for land, I would imagine it to be something similar to provinces(except as tiles in Civ5) in EU3 for peace treaties, just another option to bring to the peace table.

Lord Parkin
Feb 18, 2010, 08:48 PM
One thing I noticed in particular about what is mentioned is 'trading items and land'. Will this mean that borders will no longer be decided by culture, but by diplomacy, or does it simply mean you can trade cities like you could in Civ4?
Trading land hexes between borders would be quite cool. I've always wanted to be able to do that, if only to ensure my city is working a full fat cross (which I guess will now be a fat... polygon?... :crazyeye: ).

Finite resources is a good idea, but to go along with it, I think that the chance of discovering another source should increase as you advance technologically (i.e. to simulate new technologies giving you access to otherwise unassailable locations). This could vary from resource to resource; copper should have a relatively higher chance of discovery than gold or gems.
Actually, that could potentially balance the problem of "more land = more resources" which I mentioned above. One civ might expand militarily very fast and claim 2-3 strategic resources, while another might put all their resources towards teching and discover a couple more sources of resources within their small borders. You just have to be careful to make sure that the fast-expanding military civ can't ALSO tech at the same rate (or faster) while they're warring compared to the small peaceful nation, as that would be really unbalancing. Maybe have some sort of production bonus/research penalty implemented while in a state of war or something. I don't know.

And I agree with the above poster that 1 unit per resource is stupid. One resource should have a number of points associated with it, which would decrease depending on the number of units requiring that resource, basically linking military upkeep with resources in addition to gold.
That's what I originally assumed it would be like, but re-reading the post I noticed it did say "1 Horse per resource". Maybe this was just a mistake, or maybe they're planning on implementing the multi-thing later in the game. Or maybe they're trying to reduce the number of units in the game to speed it up and make it more appealing to a different audience. I hope it's not too much of the latter.

And I'm questioning why they got rid of religion; it worked very well in IV, adding another layer of complexity to the diplomacy aspect of the game. But if they said they revamped and upgraded the diplomacy in V, maybe we won't need it. After all, all the religions were basically the same, differing only in name and when one could discover it.
Yeah... but they were still cool. It'd be cooler if they'd had unique bonuses, but I can see why they couldn't do that without risking PC backlash. Still, removing religions altogether seems a shame. But I'm sure they'll be modded back in at the earliest opportunity. Or maybe they're planning to save religions for an expansion or something. Who knows.

Camikaze
Feb 18, 2010, 08:58 PM
My apologies for any transcription errors. From the Civilization V website (http://www.civilization5.com/).

Believable World

More than just a strategy game - immersive visuals and sound invite would-be kings to take up the reigns of power and forge a mighty empire. Civilization V offers a limitless variety of vast, realistic and diverse landscapes for players to explore, battle over and claim as their own.

Inviting Presentation

An intuitive interface eases both new players and Civ veterans into the game. Guided by a set of trusted advisors who will explain game functionality and provide counsel for significant decisions, even first-time players will be confident in the choices they make.

Live History

Write your own epic story each time you play! Choose one of eighteen historical civilizations to lead from the stone age to the space age on your quest to build the world's most powerful empire.

Improved Diplomacy

Negotiate with some of history's most cunning rulers, each with a well-crafted plan for victory. Successful diplomacy will depend on players carefully managing relationships with other leaders, training items and land, plying them with gold, and deciding if they are friend or foe. City States will present a new diplomatic background on which the major powers of the world will vie for supremacy.

Huge Battles

Combat is more exciting and engaging than ever before. Wars between empires feel massive with armies spreading across the landscape. The addition of ranged bombardment allows players to fire weapons from behind the front lines, challenging players to develop clever new strategies to guarantee victory on the battlefield.

In-Game Community Hub

Complete with Civ players from all over the globe via the Internet and Play by Email, or compete locally in Hotseat and LAN matches, offering endless ways to rile the world. The game itself now serves as the hub of the community activity featuring the ability to share scenarios, compare scores, brag about achievements and visit one of the thriving Civ fansites without leaving the game. It's now easier than ever for players to become involved in the global Civ Community.

Modability

With unprecedented modding tools, players will have unlimited options for modifying Civ V any way they like.

Some very interesting ideas in there. Another one I noticed whilst typing- it appears that the advisors are back.

_hero_
Feb 18, 2010, 08:59 PM
Chose from one of eighteen historical civilizations to lead from stone age to space age on your quest to build the worlds most powerful empire

My best guess of the 18 is, in no particular order:
Aztec
America
China
India
Greece
France
England
Germany
Russia
Mongols
Rome
Zulu
Spain
Egypt
Japan
Arabs

And two of
Babylonians
Vikings/Scandinavians
Inca
Maya
Persia
Iriqious/Sioux/Cherokee/some Native North American civ

Tholish
Feb 18, 2010, 09:10 PM
Maybe "one horse per resource" uses the word "resource" as a unit of measure.

If its one unit per tile that's bad. Its too blunt a way to get rid of the SOD, and leads to more use of the strategic playing area to double as the tactical playing area. Better would be if each of those ranks in the screenshots were one unit being represented graphically all at once. Especially if it also represented attack or defense order when in combat (assuming all don't fight at once or some totally changed system) and you could select their order. Then again, maybe these units that take up a whole tile are like Civ3 Armies that you build up. Also, it looks like the number of scales has been reduced, ie you have one scale for units and improvements and another for cities instead of each item having its own scale sufficient for it to fill the tile. That's good.

Not to be a stickler for "realism" but tiles translate to the size of states if you really think about the size of the world and the size of a civ map. So area is not really an issue for unit stacking. Of course you just have to do some suspension of dibelief.

Inverse Icarus
Feb 18, 2010, 09:14 PM
I really hope that religion isn't removed. I wouldn't mind if it was changed majorly or abstracted in some other way, but religion as a whole is a very interesting part of history, and make for fun games.

1morey
Feb 18, 2010, 09:17 PM
Hey people, remember there is still room for expansion packs. (If they ever do, which is almost certain.) Hopefully this time there will be complete ethnic diversity and New leaders/civs along with old ones/

Lord Parkin
Feb 18, 2010, 09:18 PM
The game itself now serves as the hub of the community activity featuring the ability to share scenarios, compare scores, brag about achievements and visit one of the thriving Civ fansites without leaving the game.
Hmm, don't we already do that all the time... Alt-Tab, or just run it in a window. I don't see how this is new. ;)

But the rest sounds great. :)

I really hope that religion isn't removed. I wouldn't mind if it was changed majorly or abstracted in some other way, but religion as a whole is a very interesting part of history, and make for fun games.
It did say "Religion is not a factor anymore", which seems pretty clear. Maybe they're planning to introduce it in an expansion though. Otherwise I'm sure it'll be modded in quickly. Either way, it'd be sad to see it go.

Matt0088
Feb 18, 2010, 09:19 PM
Regarding this apparent one unit per tile rule. If you have one unit defending an important choke point, say, a machine gun, and want to move your infantry across it, how would you? If its only one unit per tile, then you couldn't, unless you move the machine gun forward, therefore losing it's fortification bonus (Which seems to be what one units has in the lefthand side of one screenshot) and putting it in possibly an exposed position, which in some some scenarios could be costly, then would that make such a rule...a bit unrealistic and unfair?:(

Camikaze
Feb 18, 2010, 09:19 PM
This is most likely a feature of the,"- More diplomatic options between players.". Trading items would obviously be gold, tech, resources etc. I'd be especially interested to see how finite resources affect how you trade em, and since there isn't a sensable resource model to look at, I have no clue.:dunno: As for land, I would imagine it to be something similar to provinces(except as tiles in Civ5) in EU3 for peace treaties, just another option to bring to the peace table.

Trading land hexes between borders would be quite cool. I've always wanted to be able to do that, if only to ensure my city is working a full fat cross (which I guess will now be a fat... polygon?... :crazyeye: ).

It would certainly be interesting, and would certainly represent an expansion of diplomacy in the game, but what would the implication be for culture? Where would it's role in the game be past providing defensive bonuses?

Inverse Icarus
Feb 18, 2010, 09:20 PM
The idea of City-States is very interesting to me.

I figure they'll just be little AI-owned cities not aligned to any empire. You could probably trade with them and stuff.

You could probably leave them as a separate entity, convince them to join you diplomatically, or just stomp on them and make them your cities.

I really like this, not only from a gameplay perspective, but because this is more true to history. The idea of 8 or so nations starting with a single city and colonizing an empty world is kind of silly. Depending on the number of city-states in the game, it could be really interesting.

Maybe they could join together if there are enough of them nearby, and become a real civilization?

Camikaze
Feb 18, 2010, 09:23 PM
Hmm, don't we already do that all the time... Alt-Tab, or just run it in a window. I don't see how this is new. ;)

Well, it will certainly be brilliant for CFC if it makes the forums more accessible to people who would otherwise not come here. I mean, most people who play the game do not go to the forums, so if it is made an actual part of the game, then it would be absolutely fantastic for CFC. And, I would assume, Apolyton. Although IDK how they'd go about selecting which sites to link to, or whatever.

Regarding this apparent one unit per tile rule. If you have one unit defending an important choke point, say, a machine gun, and want to move your infantry across it, how would you? If its only one unit per tile, then you couldn't, unless you move the machine gun losing it's fortification bonus(Which seems to be what one units has in the lefthand side of one screenshot), but that could potentially cost you in some scenarios.:(

I'm not buying this possibility. I mean, surely simply limiting units to one per tile is way too basic a solution to stacks for them to contemplate. Perhaps the screenshots are being misleading and you just can only see the selected unit on a tile? I mean, currently, without the dots above the flag, you can only actually see one unit per tile. So maybe the only difference is the absence of those dots. :dunno:

22bebo
Feb 18, 2010, 09:28 PM
I think religion should stay, and each should have their own benefits, instead of they're all the same.

Lord Parkin
Feb 18, 2010, 09:29 PM
It would certainly be interesting, and would certainly represent an expansion of diplomacy in the game, but what would the implication be for culture? Where would it's role in the game be past providing defensive bonuses?
He who gets all the culture gets to sell (or keep) all the land at will. ;)

I don't see it detracting from the cultural mechanics in any way.

Well, it will certainly be brilliant for CFC if it makes the forums more accessible to people who would otherwise not come here. I mean, most people who play the game do not go to the forums, so if it is made an actual part of the game, then it would be absolutely fantastic for CFC. And, I would assume, Apolyton. Although IDK how they'd go about selecting which sites to link to, or whatever.
I presume they'd probably link their own forum (2K games) as a preference to all others. But maybe they'll extend a hand to us here at CFC. :)

I'm not buying this possibility. I mean, surely simply limiting units to one per tile is way too basic a solution to stacks for them to contemplate. Perhaps the screenshots are being misleading and you just can only see the selected unit on a tile? I mean, currently, without the dots above the flag, you can only actually see one unit per tile. So maybe the only difference is the absence of those dots. :dunno:
Or maybe when one unit passes through another they just amalgamate together in the graphics, so it looks like there are twice the guys on the tile. Either way, I really doubt that we'll be limited to 1 unit per tile. Five, ten or twenty sounds much more plausible.

Camikaze
Feb 18, 2010, 09:36 PM
I think religion should stay, and each should have their own benefits, instead of they're all the same.

Well this may be precisely why they took it out. They may have felt that to do religion justice, they would have to give them a degree of uniqueness, but that they could not do that from a business perspective without alienated or offending people.

He who gets all the culture gets to sell (or keep) all the land at will. ;)

I don't see it detracting from the cultural mechanics in any way.

Well if you are going to buy and sell tiles, culture loses its importance. Assuming, of course, that once a tile is sold, or transferred in diplomacy in some way, that it cannot be won back with culture. Because otherwise it would be an exploit, right? So either you can't culture flip tiles once they are transferred, reducing the importance of culture as a determiner of borders, and invariably eliminating it as the important factor for determining borders, or you allow people to sell a tile, flip it, sell it again, flip it again, sell it again, and so on and so forth.

I presume they'd probably link their own forum (2K games) as a preference to all others. But maybe they'll extend a hand to us here at CFC. :)

Well it does say fansites, being a plural (although it does say visit one of the, so that could indicate it links to only one of the many thriving sites, that being 2K games site, or whatever), so I would assume it links to a few of the 'thriving' sites.

Or maybe when one unit passes through another they just amalgamate together in the graphics, so it looks like there are twice the guys on the tile. Either way, I really doubt that we'll be limited to 1 unit per tile. Five, ten or twenty sounds much more plausible.

This is most likely, although given there is apparently a whole new combat system, the amalgamation could be more than just with graphics.

And I have to gripe about arbitrary caps. Why 5, 10 or 20? Why not 6, 11 or 19? It makes no sense. There should be exponential penalties instead. :mad:

cybrxkhan
Feb 18, 2010, 09:42 PM
I really wished that religion stayed, even in generic form. It was one of the "big" additions to Civ4, like how culture was the "big" addition to Civ3. It really does give the game a much more "alternate history" feel.

Matt0088
Feb 18, 2010, 09:44 PM
This is most likely, although given there is apparently a whole new combat system, the amalgamation could be more than just with graphics.

And I have to gripe about arbitrary caps. Why 5, 10 or 20? Why not 6, 11 or 19? It makes no sense. There should be exponential penalties instead. :mad:

If there was to be a limit, instead of it being blatantly random, what would it have to be based off for logistics? Resources? Gold? Tech level?

I wonder what this new combat system and its related stats will be like. Neither the screenshots nor the tidbits of info shed any detail about it.

Lord Parkin
Feb 18, 2010, 09:47 PM
Well if you are going to buy and sell tiles, culture loses its importance. Assuming, of course, that once a tile is sold, or transferred in diplomacy in some way, that it cannot be won back with culture. Because otherwise it would be an exploit, right? So either you can't culture flip tiles once they are transferred, reducing the importance of culture as a determiner of borders, and invariably eliminating it as the important factor for determining borders, or you allow people to sell a tile, flip it, sell it again, flip it again, sell it again, and so on and so forth.
Or it could work on a loan system, exactly like a per-turn trade. If you have the majority of culture in a tile, you can loan it to them (e.g. for 2 gold per turn) for an indefinite period. Then if you choose to cancel the deal and regain the tile, you can, but you lose out on the gold you were getting. Seems like a workable system to me... the person with the most culture still has the upper hand, which is how it should be considering how powerful war usually is.

And I have to gripe about arbitrary caps. Why 5, 10 or 20? Why not 6, 11 or 19? It makes no sense. There should be exponential penalties instead. :mad:
Yeah, it probably doesn't make sense (unless you view it as an "overcrowded, can't fit any more people in" thing). I'm betting they'll go for a round or even number with the unit per tile limits though, just because that's what tends to happen. People like round numbers (in base 10 at least) after all. ;)

I agree that an exponential penalty system would be cool, but I think it's a bit late to be able to convince them to head that way. Besides, the new system they've got might not be so bad. Remember when limits were imposed on the number of air units per city post-BTS? That didn't take too long to get used to, and work around. Maybe you'll even have similar stuff in Civ5 for increasing the number of units that can be on a tile... e.g. by building a Fort you're allowed a few more defenders. Now that would be pretty cool, and might make Forts an integral part of gameplay. :)

Inverse Icarus
Feb 18, 2010, 09:51 PM
I really wished that religion stayed, even in generic form. It was one of the "big" additions to Civ4, like how culture was the "big" addition to Civ3. It really does give the game a much more "alternate history" feel.

Culture was introduced in Civ III, but it was clunky. It was refined in Civ IV and got better.

Religion was introduced in Civ IV, but was clunky. [... blank ...]

I'm really hoping it stays in. I'm sure Firaxis can do it well.

Camikaze
Feb 18, 2010, 09:52 PM
If there was to be a limit, instead of it being blatantly random, what would it have to be based off for logistics? Resources? Gold? Tech level?

Yeah, it probably doesn't make sense (unless you view it as an "overcrowded, can't fit any more people in" thing). I'm betting they'll go for a round or even number with the unit per tile limits though, just because that's what tends to happen. People like round numbers (in base 10 at least) after all. ;)

I agree that an exponential penalty system would be cool, but I think it's a bit late to be able to convince them to head that way. Besides, the new system they've got might not be so bad. Remember when limits were imposed on the number of air units per city post-BTS? That didn't take too long to get used to, and work around. Maybe you'll even have similar stuff in Civ5 for increasing the number of units that can be on a tile... e.g. by building a Fort you're allowed a few more defenders. Now that would be pretty cool, and might make Forts an integral part of gameplay. :)

Well yeah, sure, I'm sure it will all work out in the end and be all fine and dandy, but if there's something that's going to make me consternated until I the game is released, it is likely to be arbitrary and seemingly random limits.

I don't know how they could apply any limit without it being random, though. Which is why I would prefer if there was no limit, but an exponential penalty. And I wouldn't say it's too late to convince them, seeing as, for all we know, that's what they've gone for.

GKrause
Feb 18, 2010, 09:53 PM
I think religion should stay, and each should have their own benefits, instead of they're all the same.

Religion was a really strange mechanic to me when I first started playing Civ IV, but now I think it will feel really strange to play without it. Perhaps there will be new mechanics bringing a similar radical change or layer of complexity to compensate, but I'm worried I'm going to be disappointed without religion.

However, having each one with their own benefits sounds like a balancing nightmare and would likely be either too convoluted or inconsequential to be fun.

Inverse Icarus
Feb 18, 2010, 09:53 PM
Yeah, it probably doesn't make sense (unless you view it as an "overcrowded, can't fit any more people in" thing).

This is exactly what I want. It seems kind of silly that you can have 40 tanks and 100 infantry divisions in one tile.

Lord Parkin
Feb 18, 2010, 10:04 PM
I don't know how they could apply any limit without it being random, though. Which is why I would prefer if there was no limit, but an exponential penalty. And I wouldn't say it's too late to convince them, seeing as, for all we know, that's what they've gone for.
True, actually. Re-reading that post, it says:

More depth in combat, no more stacking of units.
That might not mean it's impossible to stack units, just that it's detrimental to do so excessively. Good catch. :)

Gath
Feb 18, 2010, 10:42 PM
This is exactly what I want. It seems kind of silly that you can have 40 tanks and 100 infantry divisions in one tile.

But a tile is an indeterminate amount of land space. A numerical limit doesn't hurt significantly, but limiting it to 1 would be terrible.

Camikaze
Feb 18, 2010, 11:07 PM
RE: Resources- so we think that one horse tile will allow for x number of mounted units, or something. Okay, that makes sense. But how will this translate to other resources, particularly non-military ones? How will this translate to, for instance, incense?

Lord Parkin
Feb 18, 2010, 11:20 PM
RE: Resources- so we think that one horse tile will allow for x number of mounted units, or something. Okay, that makes sense. But how will this translate to other resources, particularly non-military ones? How will this translate to, for instance, incense?
It could be X number of happy citizens and/or cities. Not too hard to imagine. However, they could just as well keep the same system for luxuries/bonus resources, and just change the strategic resource system. After all, that's the most important aspect.

kulade
Feb 18, 2010, 11:30 PM
- Switch from squares to hexagons changing the way the game plays. More room for maneuvers and more tactical options.
More room for maneuvers? There are six tiles that touch a hexagonal tile, but eight that touch diamonds. Well at least they're dropping the repulsive squares.
- Changes to combat. More depth in combat, no more stacking of units. This will lead to bigger focus on terrain.
- Reintroduction of Bombardment, now archers and siege equipment can shoot over melee units.
There has to be a point insofar you mar a sequel to such an extent that you can't call it Civilization anymore.
- Built in webbrowser. Sid Meier is also working on a facebook application of Civilization.
If I wanted a built in web browser I'd download iTunes. This may be a surprise, but I don't think most people would want to load a browser to play civilization. You can add a browser when you release Civilization the OS.

Without a doubt, the only improvement from CivIV to CivV will be the same as the one from Civ3 to CivIV: increased modability. All the other misguided tweaks just serve reasons for the aforementioned improvement.

Granted games will always be "improved" in the most naive of ways. Somehow the ability to zoom in on your units' murky faces is worth the tenfold load time.

Bibor
Feb 18, 2010, 11:57 PM
RE: Resources- so we think that one horse tile will allow for x number of mounted units, or something. Okay, that makes sense. But how will this translate to other resources, particularly non-military ones? How will this translate to, for instance, incense?

This is, in my opinion, the best way to go.
Every horse tile allows you to purchase 2 mounted units?
Every Iron mine allows +3 melee units, every copper mine allows +2 melee units?

Incense, each happy resource halves the upkeep cost for each military unit?
Cow, each health resource means your units can move +1 hex further into enemy territory?

Having supply lines dependant on your health/food/oil resources makes perfect sense.

Bibor
Feb 19, 2010, 12:04 AM
There has to be a point insofar you mar a sequel to such an extent that you can't call it Civilization anymore.

Making a strategy game with squares is like building a house with hexagonal bricks. Its fun, but not really common.
Hexes - 6 out of 8 properly displayed distances (NE, E, SE, SW, W, NW)
Squares - 4 out of 8 properly displayed distances (N, E, S, W)

Also, with hexes, only units sharing a "wide border" with another unit can be called "adjacent", which is also more realistic.

Lord Parkin
Feb 19, 2010, 12:14 AM
More room for maneuvers? There are six tiles that touch a hexagonal tile, but eight that touch diamonds. Well at least they're dropping the repulsive squares.

There has to be a point insofar you mar a sequel to such an extent that you can't call it Civilization anymore.

If I wanted a built in web browser I'd download iTunes. This may be a surprise, but I don't think most people would want to load a browser to play civilization. You can add a browser when you release Civilization the OS.

Without a doubt, the only improvement from CivIV to CivV will be the same as the one from Civ3 to CivIV: increased modability. All the other misguided tweaks just serve reasons for the aforementioned improvement.

Granted games will always be "improved" in the most naive of ways. Somehow the ability to zoom in on your units' murky faces is worth the tenfold load time.
Don't be too positive, now. ;)

I'm sure it'll be fine. I was reluctant to switch from Civ3 to Civ4 initially, but I was glad I made the switch after I had. Change can be a good thing. :)

The one point I agree with you on is the browser thing... that sounds a bit weird, and I hope the game won't have to be played on a browser. That sounds a bit much like Civ Network.

This is, in my opinion, the best way to go.
Every horse tile allows you to purchase 2 mounted units?
Every Iron mine allows +3 melee units, every copper mine allows +2 melee units?
Something like that will be the case, I imagine.

Incense, each happy resource halves the upkeep cost for each military unit?
I'd rather have it affecting the cities instead of (or as well as) the units.

Cow, each health resource means your units can move +1 hex further into enemy territory? Having supply lines dependant on your health/food/oil resources makes perfect sense.
Not so sure about this, sounds like it could lead to problems. What happens if you have a small amount of land, and don't have enough resources to be able to venture far enough into enemy land to conquer any more cities? Sounds like a dangerous idea to me.

Windsor
Feb 19, 2010, 12:29 AM
About ranged bombardment, I can see lots of gameplay improvements, but if an archer can shoot 2 tiles, how far can the units move? It would be stupid if a group of warriors needs 50 years to reach some archers shooting at them...

NonPrayinMantis
Feb 19, 2010, 12:37 AM
- Inspired by Panzer General.


This is interesting. Panzer General (PG) was one of the best SSI games they made.

Looking at the graphics, it looks like they might have a system like PG for unit strengths. Each unit has a base str of 10, kind of like hit points and firepower combined. Also, as the unit gains in experience, you can increase strength over this limit (PG had a limit for an elite unit of 15 str points).

Another thing that PG had was bombardment, both direct and indirect. Artillery could be used to fire directly at a unit, damaging it before an attack. Artillery could also be used to protect units. If an artillery unit was next to another unit, it would fire indirectly at the attacking unit when it protected unit was under attack. This was sort of like bombardment from Civ3.

One unit per hex in PG, too.

NPM

Bibor
Feb 19, 2010, 12:43 AM
Not so sure about this, sounds like it could lead to problems. What happens if you have a small amount of land, and don't have enough resources to be able to venture far enough into enemy land to conquer any more cities? Sounds like a dangerous idea to me.

Army sizes could definitely be "capped" at your health resources (total, not unique), just as is the case now with city sizes, even if we don't go into the "logistical issue".

But it also makes perfect sense that you need to trade for those resources to make a military campaign possible.

Lord Parkin
Feb 19, 2010, 12:46 AM
About ranged bombardment, I can see lots of gameplay improvements, but if an archer can shoot 2 tiles, how far can the units move? It would be stupid if a group of warriors needs 50 years to reach some archers shooting at them...
Technically you can poke a whole bunch of holes in any Civ game from a realism perspective. For instance, in the early game you'd have group of Warriors travelling for 1000 years to invade your next door neighbour. Civ isn't meant to be a perfect historical simulator though, it's meant to be fun. As such, I welcome the introduction of ranged units that can attack tiles not directly adjacent to them. It sounds like great fun, and there'll be a whole lot of strategy that comes with it. :)

Bibor
Feb 19, 2010, 01:40 AM
It sounds like great fun, and there'll be a whole lot of strategy that comes with it. :)

You mean like, Cavalry will finally be able to flank archers and artillery? :P

CivGeneral
Feb 19, 2010, 02:22 AM
A built in webbrowser? I already see that in Garry's Mod through the use of addons. Plus people do alt-tab or run Civilization 4 in windowed mode.

The Hex tiles somehow would have a more Panzer General feel to it than a classic squared game.

niklas627
Feb 19, 2010, 02:33 AM
I can’t see the different between earlier versions of Civs and CivV when it comes to game play :confused:
- What makes the game better when you get an Inviting Presentation?
- Each time I starting a new Civ game I get new epic history, especially if I play on a random generated map.
- Civ sucks when it comes to battle!
For example can elephant units beat attack helicopters.
Simple warriors can beat tanks. You have nothing for attack enemies from two directions, and so on.

At the first look I think CivV I a disappointment. I hoped fore more than just graphics. Hexagon system has been in games fore decades, maybe new for Sid’s staff?

Old MacDonald
Feb 19, 2010, 02:36 AM
My main fear is that with the added focus on combat tactics (Panzer General/Battle Isle-style), something else might have to go in order to make the game manageable for players (more depth in one area usually means less depth in another). And it is interesting and a little worrying that I haven't seen any mention of economy or other "peaceful" things so far. I am quite happy to play an entire game of Civ IV without a single war, because the main foundation of the game is the building of your nation. I hope added focus on combat does not mean this part is being neglected. Though the apparent loss of religion seems to suggest so.

Civ V is going to be an instant buy for me no matter what, and it is still early days for sure. But I am not as convinced as I hoped I would be.

CivGeneral
Feb 19, 2010, 02:37 AM
For example can elephant units beat attack helicopters.
Simple warriors can beat tanks. You have nothing for attack enemies from two directions, and so on.


Have you seen a spearmen beating a simple tank? :mischief:
:spear:

Mathalamus
Feb 19, 2010, 02:40 AM
taking out religon? thats like taking out a sizable chunk of the game.

with the demise of religion, whats the point? we will all be one big happy family from the start.. no AI hating each other due to religious differences, no human hating the AI for the same thing, etc. obviously that makes war a lot harder.

niklas627
Feb 19, 2010, 02:47 AM
Have you seen a spearmen beating a simple tank? :mischief:
:spear:

No but a pike man, which is more or les the same.
And an elephant has take down one helicopter…

EsaKo
Feb 19, 2010, 02:56 AM
Religions gone. I have mixed feelings about this. Of course, the religous alliances and such were realistic and had some interesting things, but after all, didn't all that feel just a bit... artificial?

I think religions should've been more like separate factions in Civ IV - they have demands to make, holy armies and a nice potential for violence if they are repressed/ignored/greedy, as in real life (crusades, islam extremism for example). On the other hand, religious communities, if treated well, would allow the empire to prosper - like Saladin did. He gave the people mosques, places of learning, markets, whatever they needed. And the religious community helped him do this.

Overall, I feel confident that removing religions won't do great harm to gameplay. I trust they know what they do. And probably some modder adds religions in no time after the initial release.

BasketCase
Feb 19, 2010, 03:09 AM
First and foremost, they MUST put more emphasis on smarter AI and not cheatier AI. I never enjoyed a game where the difficulty was ramped up merely by giving all the other players extra settlers. BOOOOORIIIIIING.

Second: the government model needs a much more fundamental change than they made from Civ3 to Civ4. What they need is to make the governments different, but not necessarily better. In Civ4 there was almost no excuse for not having the politically-correct civics (such as environmentalism and free religion) unless you played badly on purpose. What they need to do is make it possible to play the game as a maniacal dictator, because, let's face it, rewriting history and having Germany win World War II is part of what makes this game special. (That did actually happen to me once--I went to war against France, and in a hilarious twist on history it was ME, GERMANY, who built the Maginot Line and the FRENCH who ran around the Maginot Line to invade me. Also, France lost :D )

Edit: What the---did I just post in something besides Off Topic??? :dubious:

Windsor
Feb 19, 2010, 03:32 AM
In Civ4 there was almost no excuse for not having the politically-correct civics (such as environmentalism and free religion) unless you played badly on purpose.

Slavery and State Property. Do I need to say more?

EsaKo
Feb 19, 2010, 03:37 AM
Slavery and State Property. Do I need to say more?

Yes. You forgot caste system and "hey we can make our people join the army even if they don't want to"-civic (aka nationhood).

Lord Parkin
Feb 19, 2010, 03:37 AM
I can’t see the different between earlier versions of Civs and CivV when it comes to game play :confused:
- What makes the game better when you get an Inviting Presentation?
- Each time I starting a new Civ game I get new epic history, especially if I play on a random generated map.
- Civ sucks when it comes to battle!
For example can elephant units beat attack helicopters.
Simple warriors can beat tanks. You have nothing for attack enemies from two directions, and so on.

At the first look I think CivV I a disappointment. I hoped fore more than just graphics. Hexagon system has been in games fore decades, maybe new for Sid’s staff?
You're judging the game an awful lot when only a couple of screenshots and a few tidbits of information have been released. Nothing has really been revealed about the gameplay yet, and yet you're already saying you can't see the difference between the gameplay of this Civ5 and the earlier versions. Doesn't really make much sense. :crazyeye: ;)

Oh, and I challenge you to beat a (not mortally wounded) helicopter with an elephant, or a (not mortally wounded) tank with a warrior in Civ4. You're not going to get it to happen in anything but a freak accident. :)

taking out religon? thats like taking out a sizable chunk of the game.

with the demise of religion, whats the point? we will all be one big happy family from the start.. no AI hating each other due to religious differences, no human hating the AI for the same thing, etc. obviously that makes war a lot harder.
That's not really true, and you know it. Religion was only one part of Civ4's diplomacy system. Sure, it sometimes polarized portions of the world, but even without it leaders would still grow to like or dislike you over time. If you've ever played a game on a continent where the early religions were not founded, you'll know what I'm talking about. Start next to Monty, Alex and Shaka without a religion a few times, and then try to claim that they're all like "one big happy family" with you.

I'm not really worried about the absence of religion from the perspective of diplomatic positive and negative points - I'm sure that other elements will be introduced that influence those things. I will definitely miss religion from a flavour point of view though. It was just a neat thing to have in the game, and I'll be sad to see it go. :(

Opera
Feb 19, 2010, 03:39 AM
Actually religion made happy families better to create, since it gave a bonus with such aggressive leaders. But I agree that its flavor will be missed :(

Lord Parkin
Feb 19, 2010, 03:42 AM
In Civ4 there was almost no excuse for not having the politically-correct civics (such as environmentalism and free religion) unless you played badly on purpose.
Eh? You actually use Environmentalism most of the time? And Free Religion isn't exactly a great civic in most cases either. :huh:

I agree that some of the civics in Civ4 are much preferable to others for most styles of gameplay on most maps (e.g. Slavery, Bureaucracy, Free Market, Representation/Hereditary Rule), but I think you chose some odd ones to illustrate your point. ;)

EsaKo
Feb 19, 2010, 03:53 AM
Eh? You actually use Environmentalism most of the time? And Free Religion isn't exactly a great civic in most cases either. :huh:

Actually he said that there was no reason to use them. Which is true, although I use free religion a lot (it's good in a diverse religion civ in LoR)

Lord Parkin
Feb 19, 2010, 04:04 AM
Actually he said that there was no reason to use them. Which is true, although I use free religion a lot (it's good in a diverse religion civ in LoR)
No, he didn't say that... check it again.
In Civ4 there was almost no excuse for not having the politically-correct civics (such as environmentalism and free religion) unless you played badly on purpose.
It's a double negative, i.e. he's saying they're the best civics. ;)

Newcomer24
Feb 19, 2010, 04:04 AM
I really wished that religion stayed, even in generic form. It was one of the "big" additions to Civ4, like how culture was the "big" addition to Civ3. It really does give the game a much more "alternate history" feel.

Exactly! Let's start a petition to bring religion back... at least in a generic form.

Opera
Feb 19, 2010, 04:05 AM
BTW, "Religion is not a factor anymore" is quite a vague statement. We can hope it means something else than its removal.

EsaKo
Feb 19, 2010, 04:13 AM
It's a double negative, i.e. he's saying they're the best civics. ;)

No, my English teacher said that double negative either means a politician trying to wriggle out of something or someone who is typing in haste and is careless enough to overlook this mistake. :lol:

Bibor
Feb 19, 2010, 04:30 AM
To be completely honest, these people in Firaxis get paid to do their job. Which is, more or less, from a game design perspective, a question of whether you have classical eduaction or not. Any person who goes through West Point* pretty much has what it takes to make these kinds of choices. Knowledge in military, art, history, religion, economics, politics, natural sciences. At least some knowledge from all these fields is required to make good CIV5 decisions.


*or any other Academy that is capable of teaching a man literally everything about everyting.

Cilpot
Feb 19, 2010, 04:31 AM
I'll miss the little religion icon over the city name. I love details like that :(

niklas627
Feb 19, 2010, 04:47 AM
Maybe I judging it hard, but it have happened a lot in the last 5 years when it comes to strategic games. I think that Civ-V needs to come up with more ideas more than graphic to distinguish from the rest.
Like it or not, but I think that strictly turn based strategic game belongs to the past. Games (like Total War) which can both been played as turn based and real time games is more present.
If a turn based strategic game should distinguish from the numbers it needs to be lot more complex than it is to day. For example does the battle system need to be improved, with different artillery range, supply lines, the ability to manoeuvre out an enemy army, and ability to make ambush.

The political and economic simulations are harder to put in new ideas.
My own believe is that the best way for a civ to “survive” is trying to get rid of corruption and control resources.

cheers/
niklas

You're judging the game an awful lot when only a couple of screenshots and a few tidbits of information have been released. Nothing has really been revealed about the gameplay yet, and yet you're already saying you can't see the difference between the gameplay of this Civ5 and the earlier versions. Doesn't really make much sense. :crazyeye: ;)

Oh, and I challenge you to beat a (not mortally wounded) helicopter with an elephant, or a (not mortally wounded) tank with a warrior in Civ4. You're not going to get it to happen in anything but a freak accident. :)


That's not really true, and you know it. Religion was only one part of Civ4's diplomacy system. Sure, it sometimes polarized portions of the world, but even without it leaders would still grow to like or dislike you over time. If you've ever played a game on a continent where the early religions were not founded, you'll know what I'm talking about. Start next to Monty, Alex and Shaka without a religion a few times, and then try to claim that they're all like "one big happy family" with you.

I'm not really worried about the absence of religion from the perspective of diplomatic positive and negative points - I'm sure that other elements will be introduced that influence those things. I will definitely miss religion from a flavour point of view though. It was just a neat thing to have in the game, and I'll be sad to see it go. :(

Camikaze
Feb 19, 2010, 05:05 AM
My main fear is that with the added focus on combat tactics (Panzer General/Battle Isle-style), something else might have to go in order to make the game manageable for players (more depth in one area usually means less depth in another). And it is interesting and a little worrying that I haven't seen any mention of economy or other "peaceful" things so far. I am quite happy to play an entire game of Civ IV without a single war, because the main foundation of the game is the building of your nation. I hope added focus on combat does not mean this part is being neglected. Though the apparent loss of religion seems to suggest so.

Civ V is going to be an instant buy for me no matter what, and it is still early days for sure. But I am not as convinced as I hoped I would be.

I think this is an exceptionally important point. Getting paste the obvious :woot: at Civ 5 being announced, it seems a bit disappointing (although nothing at this stage seems disappointing at all) that pretty much everything so far seems to be related to the military aspects of the game. Sure, some would say that changing the combat system is an absolute requirement of any new Civ game, but I would hate for Civ to move even further away from being a true empire management game (which would give roughly equal focus to domestic matters, like an economy and internal stability, as it would to external matters, like wars, diplomacy and trade) towards being a war strategy game. It was evident in Civ 4 that war was the central focus of the game, and I can certainly live with roughly the same balance again, even if it was heavily skewed towards war. I just hope that the balance hasn't gone even further towards war, which would invariably involve the neglect of other equally important aspects of the game, the most notable of which is economics.

BasketCase
Feb 19, 2010, 05:29 AM
Eh? You actually use Environmentalism most of the time? And Free Religion isn't exactly a great civic in most cases either. :huh:
Six extra health in every city? That's big. No, I never actually use it (mostly that's me playing badly on purpose :D ). And Free Religion = +10% research across the board. Also big. Research is huge in this game, and anything that bumps you 10% in ALL cities is huge.

It's a double negative, i.e. he's saying they're the best civics. ;)
Well, sort of. My point is, there shouldn't be "best" civics. What I liked about past versions is that there were strong advantages to ALL forms of government. Even despotism: you could have a huge army on the cheap.

Oh, and furthermore--whose stupid idea was it to remove the Great Wall of China from Civ 4??? Seriously, that's like taking the cheese off a cheeseburger!! :mad:

Shurdus
Feb 19, 2010, 05:51 AM
What I do not get: a tile in Civ has 8 tiles bordering it - that is, you can move to 8 tiles from the one you are currently in. How does changing the tiles to hexagonals allow more room for maneuvering? You will have less optional tiles or hexes to move to in the end...

Lord Parkin
Feb 19, 2010, 05:53 AM
Six extra health in every city? That's big. No, I never actually use it (mostly that's me playing badly on purpose :D ).
By that stage of the game, it should have negligible to null effect. You should have contact with everyone and access to most (if not all) resources, not to mention a bunch of buildings for improving healthiness. So the civic might mean a couple of extra food per turn in your few largest cities, but that's it. What makes it worse is that powerful Corporations come into play around this time in the game, and Environmentalism is the worst civic to be using in conjunction with corps.

More than that though, the +1 trade routes from Free Market or even the no maintenance and hammer bonus from State Property will far outweigh any benefit from a few extra food per turn. Indeed, the only time I've ever found myself using Environmentalism is on some One City Challenge games, where it can actually be useful because you tend to lack health resources due to such limited land. Aside from that though, I'm almost certain I've never used Environmentalism in any regular game. Hammer/commerce bonuses are just too powerful from the alternative civics at this point in the game. Maybe if Environmentalism was available earlier, it might be a bit more useful.

And Free Religion = +10% research across the board. Also big. Research is huge in this game, and anything that bumps you 10% in ALL cities is huge.
It's okay, but the hammer boost/easy missionaries from Organized Religion and the XP from Theocracy are also very valuable. Again, if Free Religion were available at the very start of the game I'd take it, but I find the other civics tend to be more useful once I get a widespread religion.

Anyway, I see I'm getting quite off track here. Back on topic. ;)

Oh, and furthermore--whose stupid idea was it to remove the Great Wall of China from Civ 4??? Seriously, that's like taking the cheese off a cheeseburger!! :mad:
Who said it was being removed? I sure hope it's not. :eek:

Lord Parkin
Feb 19, 2010, 05:55 AM
What I do not get: a tile in Civ has 8 tiles bordering it - that is, you can move to 8 tiles from the one you are currently in. How does changing the tiles to hexagonals allow more room for maneuvering? You will have less optional tiles or hexes to move to in the end...
Maybe the engine will be able to support much bigger maps with ease, and that's where our maneuvering room will come from?

(Crosses fingers and hopes... :D )

Windsor
Feb 19, 2010, 06:00 AM
It was evident in Civ 4 that war was the central focus of the game, and I can certainly live with roughly the same balance again, even if it was heavily skewed towards war.

CivIV is skewed towards war in the sense that it's often beneficial to declare war on some poor bastard.

However if you ask an immortal player on what he have improved on since he played prince his improved skill in managing his empire will be much more important than his better skills in the battlefield. Combat in CivIV is portrayed so simple that the difference between a good and a bad player here isn't great. The difference is getting the stack, not actually using it :)

So my hope is that the balance "war vs peace" doesn't change much, however a more detailed combat system(and therefor a higher skill requirement to be good at the game) is welcome.

And at last, archers shooting arrows at warriors is a much better promo material than some dull banker ;) But I do look forward to see screenshots of the city screen!

Camikaze
Feb 19, 2010, 06:27 AM
I suppose that is right. What I was trying to say was that the central focus of Civ4 was war; everything revolved around war. Sure, managing your empire is important, but you are essentially managing your empire so it is capable of going to war. A more detailed combat system isn't in itself bad, so long as it doesn't detract from other aspects of the game.

Bibor
Feb 19, 2010, 06:31 AM
What I do not get: a tile in Civ has 8 tiles bordering it - that is, you can move to 8 tiles from the one you are currently in. How does changing the tiles to hexagonals allow more room for maneuvering? You will have less optional tiles or hexes to move to in the end...

The size of the board doesn't matter, just the total number of squares or hexes.
The problem with squares is in skewed distance that's not multiplied by 1.41 for diagonal movement.

Currently in Civ it takes as much turns and time to cross 10.000 kilometers to NWES as it is to cross 14.100 kilometers to NW, NE, SW, SE. Where did those 4.100 (40%!) kilometers go?

Not to mention its easier encirclean enemy with 6 hexes than it is with 8 squares.

Camikaze
Feb 19, 2010, 06:58 AM
I'm very curious about this in particular:
Improved Diplomacy

Negotiate with some of history's most cunning rulers, each with a well-crafted plan for victory. Successful diplomacy will depend on players carefully managing relationships with other leaders, trading items and land, plying them with gold, and deciding if they are friend or foe. City States will present a new diplomatic background on which the major powers of the world will vie for supremacy.

We've covered the land trading bit, but some other things that stand out (leaving aside for a moment the city states) are the 'well-crafted plan for victory' and 'deciding if they are friend or foe'. With the first, I would hope that this means a better AI, and one that actually tries to win the game, rather than one that tries to just play the game. With the second, is that an indication that diplomacy attitudes won't be shown, and you'll have to figure out for yourself what an attitude towards you is, or is that just an embellishment of the whole diplomacy process?

Now, regarding city states, I wonder if they'll act as little Civs, just ones that you can't play as, and ones that cannot expand, and if so, I wonder if they will have leaders or any other unique historical characteristics? Will they be like barbarians that you can negotiate with? I'm struggling to think of another way they could fit within the diplomacy structure, given that that is what the descriptor relates them to.

beestar
Feb 19, 2010, 07:08 AM
If City States behave like standard but small civs, I suspect they would be very weak (following Civ4's mantra that "Land Is Power"). There would have to be some mechanism to let them keep pace.

Will City States be immune to being conquered? Otherwise they would just be too tempting as targets ...

Camikaze
Feb 19, 2010, 07:12 AM
Perhaps City States will be able to keep pace with every other civ by trading off their allegiance to others. Perhaps they'd be like mini-vassals that would have some special extra advantage for the owner, so they could feasibly leverage that for technology/power. Or perhaps they are never truly independent, but always part of a Civ, with the ability to switch allegiances given a better deal. Could be an incentive to increase happiness or healthiness, or something. :dunno:

kivanc
Feb 19, 2010, 07:43 AM
religion: it was an important parameter in the game. but it is not a core issue of the game. corporations are like religions as well, not a core point.
the most core issue of the game is food+hammer(shild)+commerce system. i will be glad if that doesn't change. if it changes, then it will be a real different game.
i wouldn't like the mechanism howa city pops to 4 from3.
i wonder about such things especially. is production similar? how is science researched? AFAIK, great people still exist, so i hope commerce and tax slide is simlar as well. i hope they wouldn't change such core points of the game.
also the happiness/health cap system of civ4, and espionage points mechanism were also fine.
else than these, the rest is not important much. w/o religion, game will still be fine.
i even can have a taste playing civ3, so why not play w/o religion?

civics: a change in this might be fine. still, i used to like the civics of civ4

traits/unique leader: traits were fine. there were great synergies. and each leader could be powerful if it was played cleverly. but now each leader will be unique. oh, i start to feel that the extras would be simple. i hope, it won't be.

for example, to get benefit from gandhi you found religion and assign priests specialists, right? at least you do sth. this is the favorite play style of gandhi and you know this, you apply.
if gandhi had such an advantage than other leaders: growth +5%. so each pop would come as 95% of required stock. it would pop up in 48 instead of 50. so this would be too simple.

or how would u play lizzy? you would make some cottages and assign some scientists and build academies in cottage cities, right? if lizzy had this feature: gold +5%. would that give u fun?

shortly, i expect good extras from leaders. extras should be useful only when it's played cleverly. i don't want no-brainer extras of leaders.

finite resources: that would increase the need for wars. could be great if implemented well.

better AI: i expect much from this. one person said that "i don't want AI to start with one extra settler", i agree with this. i expect AI extras to be better when we move up level. this is just similar to a football match between father and son and son starts with 2-0 ahead :)

city states: don't know what to say yet. what about barbs???

happyturtle
Feb 19, 2010, 07:47 AM
Maybe I judging it hard, but it have happened a lot in the last 5 years when it comes to strategic games. I think that Civ-V needs to come up with more ideas more than graphic to distinguish from the rest.
Like it or not, but I think that strictly turn based strategic game belongs to the past. Games (like Total War) which can both been played as turn based and real time games is more present.
cheers/
niklas

If Civ became real time, I wouldn't play it anymore. I would play more computer games if most of them didn't require physical reflex skills to go along with the mental ones.

I'm excited about ranged units being able to be used at ranged. That's the change I'm most looking forward to. :thumbsup:

Luckystrike77
Feb 19, 2010, 08:17 AM
I can’t see the different between earlier versions of Civs and CivV when it comes to game play :confused:
- What makes the game better when you get an Inviting Presentation?
- Each time I starting a new Civ game I get new epic history, especially if I play on a random generated map.
- Civ sucks when it comes to battle!
For example can elephant units beat attack helicopters.
Simple warriors can beat tanks. You have nothing for attack enemies from two directions, and so on.



I sense a missing understanding on how a game like CIV should be balanced. You think first one to develop tanks and helicopters should be able to conquer the whole world in no time without oposition?

Let's introduce the new victory condition: First one to tanks win the game... game over.....

One more thing, and something completely different; I'd love to finally see new military units, and reinforcement of old ones dependent on people in your cities. One new unit drains one person unit from your city. This would make wars really to cost you blood, not just production, and you would think twice before starting a rush tactic in the beginning of the game......

kivanc
Feb 19, 2010, 08:57 AM
I sense a missing understanding on how a game like CIV should be balanced. You think first one to develop tanks and helicopters should be able to conquer the whole world in no time without oposition?

Let's introduce the new victory condition: First one to tanks win the game... game over.....

One more thing, and something completely different; I'd love to finally see new military units, and reinforcement of old ones dependent on people in your cities. One new unit drains one person unit from your city. This would make wars really to cost you blood, not just production, and you would think twice before starting a rush tactic in the beginning of the game......

hmm new units like paradrop formers? :)
[from SM AlphaCentauri] you could build a full-armor (max defense) former (worker) who can paradrop

Shurdus
Feb 19, 2010, 09:00 AM
I sense a missing understanding on how a game like CIV should be balanced. You think first one to develop tanks and helicopters should be able to conquer the whole world in no time without oposition?

Let's introduce the new victory condition: First one to tanks win the game... game over.....

One more thing, and something completely different; I'd love to finally see new military units, and reinforcement of old ones dependent on people in your cities. One new unit drains one person unit from your city. This would make wars really to cost you blood, not just production, and you would think twice before starting a rush tactic in the beginning of the game......
Now this I wholehartedly support. If armies cost blood as well as hammers it would not be feaseble to field MASSIVE armies of 100+ units in the end-game. Of course it is nice to have epic battles, but if there would actually be 'panzer general' like combat, managing 100+ units would be horror. If units would cost pop as well, it will keep the number of units in check while it is also an extra barrier for warring in the first place. In Civ IV I feel like there are too little objecions to warring in the first place.

kivanc
Feb 19, 2010, 09:40 AM
Now this I wholehartedly support. If armies cost blood as well as hammers it would not be feaseble to field MASSIVE armies of 100+ units in the end-game. Of course it is nice to have epic battles, but if there would actually be 'panzer general' like combat, managing 100+ units would be horror. If units would cost pop as well, it will keep the number of units in check while it is also an extra barrier for warring in the first place. In Civ IV I feel like there are too little objecions to warring in the first place.

yes. so many units are not reasonable in fact. if they want to make it more realistic the system of civ1&2 was good.

each settler/worked was spending 1 food while each unit spent 1shield above some free units cost.
of course shild is not true. maybe 1food for 1unit could be more realistic. as troops eat food. this is the main cost of the army. and the population fighting.

so when you train a new unit, if city pop should decrease but with how much? with 1? in that case you wouldn't train any unit in a city with pop1.

well, maybe they could change the pop system but that would ruin the game. i don't think there is any way to do this w/o changing the growth mechanism dramatically.
just 1food support cost is enough and realistic I assume.

kivanc
Feb 19, 2010, 09:40 AM
double post

croxis
Feb 19, 2010, 09:44 AM
I recall from Civ4 development that Sid and/or Soren said. First Sid said that he would rather make one great game than two good games mashed into one (ie Total War). One of them also said they follow a rule of thirds game design, 1/3 of the features they keep from the previous game, one third they remove and one third they add (I may of gotten it slightly wrong, but that is the basic point). This prevents the problem found with Sim City 1 to SC$ where the game became ever increasingly complex.

Also remember while pleasing the hardcore fans is very important you can also not neglect the more casual players. Despite CFC size the community is only a small sliver of the total sales of Civ4.

GoodSarmatian
Feb 19, 2010, 10:33 AM
Looks very interesting.
Not sure how I feel about religions. They were an important part of CIV and leaving them out seems strange, but they also sometimes seriously impaired your diplomatic optios and could become an annoyance. If they really make diplomacy more important than I guess religions would overcomplicate things and do more harm than good.
I am also very curious about the "social policies", I thought Civ4's civic system was a big improvement over pre-definded governments but not as good as the system in Alpha Centauri.
All things considered I like most of the known changes so far, I just hope it won't be too dumbed down and combat heavy and the leader voices will be good. German units in Civ4 always sound a bit strange.

Ischenous
Feb 19, 2010, 12:34 PM
If the incentive not to conquer city states, perhaps it will be things like they share research or etc, or maybe even units, for instance you are allied with the Sarmatians, you could then be able to get a limited number of some horse archer unit, with some bonus to make them special.

DMOC
Feb 19, 2010, 12:53 PM
I will be sad to see religions go, but I'm sure that there will be plenty of other options for diplomatic interaction. In particular, I think that what social policies (a.k.a civics from Civilization IV) should have a greater diplomatic effect in Civilization V.

hellas
Feb 19, 2010, 01:16 PM
I wish religions had been kept, or at least have some kind of ideological element in the game. Maybe these "social policies" will affect that?

MrBanana
Feb 19, 2010, 08:29 PM
We have no real confirmation that religion is out, just info from what a Danish magazine tells us, whihch can be wrong.

BTW, have you thought of the fact that horsres have kids and wine is a plant too. The only really exhaustable resoure is metals and fuels.

ancestral
Feb 19, 2010, 08:32 PM
City-States? Like Athens, Sparta, Milan, Florence, Monaco, Hong Kong, etc.? Hmm…

cybrxkhan
Feb 19, 2010, 08:35 PM
^I think it's more like minor civilizations that are more developed than barbarians but are still weak enough, not actual city-states per se - though there could be overlap.

Camikaze
Feb 19, 2010, 08:37 PM
We have no real confirmation that religion is out, just info from what a Danish magazine tells us, whihch can be wrong.

BTW, have you thought of the fact that horsres have kids and wine is a plant too. The only really exhaustable resoure is metals and fuels.

Well all resources, if over-exploited, run out. So I would hope that there'd be some mechanism to replicate that, rather than a simple '1 horse allows for x units, and if you lose those x units, your horse resource magically reappears'.

jeffreyac
Feb 19, 2010, 08:40 PM
You know, I have to say that (with the exception of the hex map and the limited resources concept) I'm actually a little concerned that I may like the current iteration better than the proposed Civ V.

Oh, don't get me wrong - I'll still be eager to see exactly how Civ V works before I panic or worry too much. I guess I went from the first moment ("Holy &^%$, Civ V!! YES!) to a more reserved feeling ("I wonder if they'll have a demo I can try to see how this feels before I buy it...")

Mathalamus
Feb 19, 2010, 10:48 PM
one thing: will the diplomacy use text? if not, how are you supposed to translate what they speak in their native language or even hear it? ( some people are deaf and/or hard of hearing)

Loose Nut
Feb 19, 2010, 10:49 PM
Yeah I am sort of getting a hunch I may want to skip this one.

Cautiously optimistic, I guess.

I suppose I am most hopeful about the diplomatic aspect.

cybrxkhan
Feb 19, 2010, 10:50 PM
one thing: will the diplomacy use text? if not, how are you supposed to translate what they speak in their native language or even hear it? ( some people are deaf and/or hard of hearing)

I'm assuming there will be subtitles.

robcheng
Feb 19, 2010, 11:25 PM
This is most likely a feature of the,"- More diplomatic options between players.". Trading items would obviously be gold, tech, resources etc.

One interesting possibility would be that you could build different weapons/equipment from the same resource given your tech advancement. Then you could trade/sell those weapons to allies to equip/upgrade their units without having to give them the acual techs. That way you could pursue a "weapons dealer" strategy to prosper without having to conquer or manage a huge empire -- you would get raw resources, money, and perhaps other techs in exchange for keeping the warring empires equipped with the latest weapons. Of course, this requires there to be a natural and fundamental trade-off between expansion/conquest and tech advancement (e.g. conquered cities should not immediately generate research for you at the rate they did their previous owner -- perhaps there could be some critical mass of scientists and buildings/infrastrucutre needed in a city and nearby cities before research really starts going)

22bebo
Feb 20, 2010, 12:05 AM
Uh, I have a question. Where are you guys getting the Stats in the lower corner thing? I looked at the shots, and they aren't there for me . . .

Eli
Feb 20, 2010, 02:29 AM
This is :):):):)ed up. Civilization is about grand-strategy, not tactical combat. Also, why remove religions? It was a great aspect of the game.

Bah... I'm afraid I have to officially switch sides to Paradox. :(

Camikaze
Feb 20, 2010, 06:39 AM
one thing: will the diplomacy use text? if not, how are you supposed to translate what they speak in their native language or even hear it? ( some people are deaf and/or hard of hearing)

I'm assuming there will be subtitles.

Yeah, I would think it's either this, or you'll have advisors translating for you (this is a possibility given that advisors are mentioned in the game features blurb).

Blahblahman123
Feb 20, 2010, 11:11 AM
Finite resources are HORRIBLE! idea One unit per square? HORRIBLE no religions? HORRIBLE!!! I Might not even buy this game it took all the fun i had in civ 4 firaxis you bastards....

EddyG17
Feb 20, 2010, 11:24 AM
oops, wrong thread.

cthom
Feb 20, 2010, 11:40 AM
i like hex tiles, it's part of the grand tradition of wargaming. so is limiting troops per tile....

i would liked to have seen religion kept, but instead of historical, just by type (animism, poly/mono-theism, cult, etc), that would give bonuses and penalties of their own. oh well.

finite resources? so when copper runs out you need to replace your old axemen with proper infantrymen.....?

Blahblahman123
Feb 20, 2010, 11:55 AM
i like hex tiles, it's part of the grand tradition of wargaming. so is limiting troops per tile....

i would liked to have seen religion kept, but instead of historical, just by type (animism, poly/mono-theism, cult, etc), that would give bonuses and penalties of their own. oh well.I really liked religion in civ 4 (if you use it properly)could give you economic bonus

finite resources? so when copper runs out you need to replace your old axemen with proper infantrymen.....? If you mean upgrade youre axemen to infantrymen then yes i guess its gonna be like that and that sucks :(

OscarWildebeest
Feb 20, 2010, 12:03 PM
it appears that the advisors are back.

I do hope they can be turned off. I found them really annoying in Civ2, and just ended up turning them off all the time. Especially Elvis (sorry, but I have this Elvis allergy).

helpless_writer
Feb 20, 2010, 01:04 PM
And i'm glad for finite resources since now wars can be more justified. Since i was getting tired of going to war just because i had a different religion...

Mathalamus
Feb 20, 2010, 01:09 PM
not really, since the AI will also have finite resources you can go to war just cause you dont like his face.

you are likely to have a much bigger empire than the AI from the start.

kivanc
Feb 22, 2010, 03:03 AM
I am also very curious about the "social policies", I thought Civ4's civic system was a big improvement over pre-definded governments but not as good as the system in Alpha Centauri.

yes. it's 1of the core issues for me as well.
i loved SMAC. it's government system was fine, so is civ4's civic system.
the main difference is that reading the civics of civ4 is harder than that of SMAC's.
in SMAC it was so easy, you could even learn in how many turns you would explore the tech before revolting into a new system and similarly you could foresee what the new system will bring by all means.
the civic system of civ4 is generally for the guys who know about game mechanics very well. it'S not a problem for me but i admit that it makes the game a little more complex.
hardcore civ fans will always be curious about game parameters and mechanics so for them it is not boring to explore & understand the benefits of each civic system. but i assume for beginners, it can be boring.

in civ4, some UBs, civics and traits are defined so cleverly that beginners might not understand what it would bring as extra to the empire, i mean they are a a little bit more "hidden" while it was so much more obvious in SMAC.
in SMAC, you just see that it will bring +1to growth and -1 to support and you say "ok, city growth is more important at this time and i don't need a large army, so let'S revolt". such decisions were much easier in SMAC.

if u ask me, i prefer civ series being complicated and designed cleverly instead of games which are more-oriented for beginners. on the other hand, companies might think for sales and prefer the opposite.

BasketCase
Feb 27, 2010, 08:53 PM
Ooh! Idea! I got a idea!

Civ 5 should have some kind of way for one city to export food and labor to another. In the real world, a new city doesn't farm all its own food, it receives imports. And it doesn't use its own labor to get that granary built--Nissin Foods brings in a construction crew to build it.

In all past Civ games, getting a one-hammer city going has always been a pain in the ass. And it especially makes no sense, when you're in the Industrial and later ages, when you're sending out a few more settlers to fill out your territory, to have to wait forever for those little towns to get going.

I saw a past outer-space strategy game implement it this way: a planet could build a "workforce unit" at a cost of two hammers. A transport ship could then carry a load of workforce units to another planet, which could then spend them as labor points for construction. The two-for-one cost being the catch, of course.

Additionally, the concept of hurrying production with gold needs some tuning. I have no objection to spending gold to accelerate production, but simply having a building pop up out of nowhere in one turn is a little iffy.

Mathalamus
Feb 27, 2010, 10:54 PM
Additionally, the concept of hurrying production with gold needs some tuning. I have no objection to spending gold to accelerate production, but simply having a building pop up out of nowhere in one turn is a little iffy.

that's the point of spending gold. do you for example have 60,000 gold laying around for the statue of liberty to be bought?

i say keep the rush buy ability, its one of the things that you simply couldn't alter.

chongli
Feb 27, 2010, 11:57 PM
As an atheist I can't say I will miss religions. Sure, I recognize how historically significant they are, but I found the gameplay to be less than compelling. It was very meta-gamey and had almost nothing in common with how religions work and influence the real world from a political standpoint.

I think Sid and Co. feared, as I do, that an attempt to portray religions in a more accurate, realistic light would not be favourable and invite unwanted negative attention from the political correctness crowd.

From an economic standpoint, I welcome the addition of limited resources. I hope they are employed in a realistic, intelligent manner. I also think renewable and non-renewable resources should be treated very differently from one another. It seemed so absurd to me in the past Civ games that one city could start with wheat and cows and that you had no ability to plant that wheat or raise those cows anywhere else.

If Civ became real time, I wouldn't play it anymore. I would play more computer games if most of them didn't require physical reflex skills to go along with the mental ones.

You should give Empire: Total War a try. The real-time combat is not what you'd expect. It is very slow-paced and methodical, not frantic. I've had battles last up to an hour because I moved my forces in such a careful and tactical manner so as to minimize losses.

Typically, when you do lose units, you are left with the feeling "I shouldn't have done that!" rather than "I wasn't fast enough!". This is nothing like StarCraft. Your chance of success cannot be measured in APM (actions per minute).

BasketCase
Feb 27, 2010, 11:59 PM
You shouldn't be able to pop the Statue of Liberty instantly, IMO. In Civ 1 you could do that by building a bunch of caravans, and then having them all "help build Wonder" at the same time. As far as I know, that feature did not make it into Civ 2.

By accelerating production, I meant something along the lines of spending X amount of gold per turn to increase production speed of stuff by some percentage.
As an atheist I can't say I will miss religions. Sure, I recognize how historically significant they are, but I found the gameplay to be less than compelling.
I'm also an atheist, but I like the Civ 4 religion model. The beef I have with it is that the programmers were frightened of pissing off radicals and put way too much kid-gloves treatment on the topic.

chongli
Feb 28, 2010, 12:15 AM
I'm also an atheist, but I like the Civ 4 religion model. The beef I have with it is that the programmers were frightened of pissing off radicals and put way too much kid-gloves treatment on the topic.
I think it was more the marketing folks than the programmers who were frightened.

Heh, maybe we could put together a religion mod for Civ 5. Allow you to do exciting things like become the pope and play kingmaker, start your own religion of convenience like Henry VIII. :king:

Maybe even have special units like crusaders for the christians or suicide bombers for the muslims. Or how about a "great leader" whose special power is to start an inquisition like Tomas de Torquemada. I bet that would garner some attention. :D

In the modern era you could bilk the population with televangelists and faith healers and silly made-up scifi religions like scientology. :crazyeye: