http://www.gamepro.com/article/news/214082/civilization-v-announced-on-next-gamepro-cover/

So:

The magazine begins shipping to subscribers this week, and will be on U.S. newsstands on March 9.
The cover image, seen here, is an original rendering of George Washington, who appears in the game
along with an assortment of new world leaders that have not appeared in the franchise before.


This written on 18th Febr. - hm, does it mean we can get info by... say 23rd?

and someone in the forum of GamePro says:

I figure everyone would benefit from the information;
the gameplay structure in Civilization Revolution (Sid's first Civ game for a long time) was a big influence on the pace of Civ V.
While Shafer hasn't chopped play time back quite as drastically (4 hours tops for a Rev game) he discusses pacing a lot in the story.

*

by "story" I guess he means the would be article

Now I get really worried. I know what Sid Meier did with Railroads, a dumbed down Railroad Tycoon with tiny maps.:sad:

What I want to know is, if it comes out on March 9th, in what sense is it the April issue?

I think most magazines work like that - released "in time for" April, reviewing stuff that is being released in April (mostly).

What I want to know is, if it comes out on March 9th, in what sense is it the April issue?

Dunno, but March issue went on sale on 2nd Febr. ;)
http://www.gamepro.com/article/news/213834/gamepro-march-2010-issue-on-sale-today/

Anyone here a subscriber for the April issue...?

Magasines release with the "next months" date in order that they have a longer shelf-life.

A March magazine you buy in February seems like an early treat -- a February magazine you buy in March seems like out of date crap you should skip over. Or so the theory goes.

and someone in the forum of GamePro says:

I figure everyone would benefit from the information;
the gameplay structure in Civilization Revolution (Sid's first Civ game for a long time) was a big influence on the pace of Civ V.
While Shafer hasn't chopped play time back quite as drastically (4 hours tops for a Rev game) he discusses pacing a lot in the story.


If true, that's very depressing.

And before everyone goes insane about how they want their game to last for months, remember that in civ4 they ended up including the Marathon option. I'm sure they will do someting similar here. Don't worry.

I really hope that ciV isn't too much like Civ: Revolution. That would suck.

I think it will stay true to the main series. A few modifications isn't a big deal. I wouldn't mind removing the micro management of individual workers, for instance.

They're not going to make it too simple like Civ Rev, but I think they want to quicken the end game up like it was in Civ Rev. Civ IV got so slow at the end because there were SO MANY units to keep track of. Going to war took forever because I had an abundance of units to click through to get the one I needed. They're going to get rid of the stack of doom in favor of less units, which isn't dumbing it down, but making the game more enjoyable.

i want the early game to be more lenghty , or at least an option for this ... i like ancient times !

When can we expect someone here, a subscriber perhaps,
getting the hand on the GamePro issue we want? :)

(shipping of the issue already began... so...?)

Unfortunately I am not a subscriber, but I will def pick this up on March 9th! The game sounds intuiging so far. I wonder what new leaders we can look forward too?

And before everyone goes insane about how they want their game to last for months, remember that in civ4 they ended up including the Marathon option. I'm sure they will do someting similar here. Don't worry.They could make the units move in slow-motion too, but that's not really what's being asked for. The game will be optimized for a certain length in mind. If it's ten hours, the game will best be played for ten hours.

I'm not really concerned though. What I hope is that the game doesn't crawl in the modern times. If the gametime is reduced because of it, it's a good thing. Although, I wouldn't mind if more time was spent in the earlier fazes. Also, I want the maps to be large if not huge, the exploration is important and it kind of felt like the maps were downsized in civ4/the game was optimized for smaller maps... I hope they solve it somehow - larger maps without ending up with a giant empire in modern times.

They could make the units move in slow-motion too, but that's not really what's being asked for. The game will be optimized for a certain length in mind. If it's ten hours, the game will best be played for ten hours.
Exactly, a game designed to be short with a tacked on long version to satisfy those of us who like a bit of epicness in our games will always be unsatifactory. However, I agree that the end game could get ridiculous (I remember controlling like 3 invasions each with many stacks of tanks and infantry + a navy and air force). The Civ Rev quote still worries me though because I fear they will start hacking off bits all over the place, not just towards the end game (I never found Civ IV ever became sluggish before the modern age, and I played marathon on huge maps). People point out that shortening the game does not necessarily entail dumbing down, however that is usually what it entails. I found Civ Revolution very enjoyable for the DS, but I would never want anything like it for PC.

I don't think they're going to dumb the game down. They know people love the epic-feel of Civ games. What they are going to do, and which I fully support, is get rid of the sluggish late game. It got so boring at the end because there were way too many SoDs to keep track of. One unit per tile will I think quicken the late game up.

bonafide11, if they are going to do what you suggest then I absolutely hope you're right because that would be excellent. I think the only problem with the late game in terms of speed was that you simply had too many units, so I think one unit per tile could solve this. It seems they may make individual units more important. For example, some have suggested that single fights might not result in death, merely damaging both combatants. I just hope they don't cut off features like they did in Revolution (though in that case I think it way necessary to make it work appropriately on the console medium it was on).

and someone in the forum of GamePro says:

I figure everyone would benefit from the information;
the gameplay structure in Civilization Revolution (Sid's first Civ game for a long time) was a big influence on the pace of Civ V.
While Shafer hasn't chopped play time back quite as drastically (4 hours tops for a Rev game) he discusses pacing a lot in the story.

*

by "story" I guess he means the would be article

What???? They better stay away from Civ Rev gameplay and pace or most Civ fans will be disappointed. Now I'm worried.
I have nothing against faster game settings for quicker multiplayer matches, but the game gotta be designed with engrossing, epic gameplay in mind.