II don't know about "Vassal States", but the developers did confirm "Puppet States" where the puppet seems to act like a vassal to a larger country. When one is attacked, so is the other, ect. Plus, the big country is supposed to be able to reap economic an research benefits from the puppet states. So it sounds a lot like a Vassal State, just expanded upon.

II don't know about "Vassal States", but the developers did confirm "Puppet States" where the puppet seems to act like a vassal to a larger country. When one is attacked, so is the other, ect. Plus, the big country is supposed to be able to reap economic an research benefits from the puppet states. So it sounds a lot like a Vassal State, just expanded upon.

Excellent, I’m happy to hear that. Vassal and Puppet states are terms that are interchangeable I believe.

http://www.weplayciv.com/node/187

“When you conquer a city you can form a Puppet-State. "The addition of puppet states is going to mitigate the tedium. Whenever you conquer a new city, you can choose for it to become a puppet state. This means that you reap the benefits of its research, culture and gold but don't get a say in what it produces."

I hope this means that you will be able to multiple puppet states instead of one large vassal that has the high potential of gaining independence. This sounds very promising.

http://www.weplayciv.com/node/187

“When you conquer a city you can form a Puppet-State. "The addition of puppet states is going to mitigate the tedium. Whenever you conquer a new city, you can choose for it to become a puppet state. This means that you reap the benefits of its research, culture and gold but don't get a say in what it produces."

I hope this means that you will be able to multiple puppet states instead of one large vassal that has the high potential of gaining independence. This sounds very promising.

I never had vassals with high potential of gaining independence, it was always boring with my weakling vassals... :)
That does sound promising, but right now I'm hoping to be able to do border negotiations like; "I'll give you those 2 desert hexes for that hill over there", "Here take these 3 hills, they're out of my city radius anyway, but your city will gain from them and give me 9500 gold." and stuff like that, was very much needed in civ4.

"Here take these 3 hills, they're out of my city radius anyway, but your city will gain from them and give me 9500 gold."

You offer cutthroat rates. Even in Imperialism iron/coal resources would cost less.


Firaxis could cut the number of civilizations in half and replace all leaders with really obscure people and I would still buy it.

This reminded me of the standard state names in Imperialism. I've played so much, I remember them by heart.
Major: Kem, Zimm, Ordune, Deneb, Devron, Haxaco, Patagon
Minor: Pram, Pont, Zazi, Zinlu, Hurschen, Bruhr, Kessel, Kathay, Issa, Idolon, Manx, Loki, Dedge, Sindel, Wodan
I don't know if they had their own flavors but I always ended up befriending the same 2-3 ones, while there were 2-3 others that hated me.

Hmm, wither Rio being a city state either confirms, or denies Brazil, from being a civ. Can't tell.

I never had vassals with high potential of gaining independence, it was always boring with my weakling vassals... :)
That does sound promising, but right now I'm hoping to be able to do border negotiations like; "I'll give you those 2 desert hexes for that hill over there", "Here take these 3 hills, they're out of my city radius anyway, but your city will gain from them and give me 9500 gold." and stuff like that, was very much needed in civ4.

That would be so amazing. They could implement some kind of "value" system in where each plot of land is worth so many points based on a number of factors such as the kind of terrain, improvements in the plot, bonuses, how far away it is from a city, ect.

It would take diplomacy to a whole new level as wars fought over small strips of important land or resources can be resolved without having to do a full scale invasion into the heart of the enemy.

Also, I hope that War Weariness plays a bigger role in Civ5. I know it was there in Civ IV, but I really didn't think it did all that much. I think the longer you stay in a war, the more public opinion will come into effect. If you are losing a war badly and the war has been raging on for a long time, citizens should slowly get angry, calling demands for peace or face destruction from the inside out. On the other hand, if you are winning a war, especially a defensive war, then the people should rally behind you at first, and then if the war continues on for too long and the casualties start to climb, the pubic will start showing signs of disapproval.

Hmm, wither Rio being a city state either confirms, or denies Brazil, from being a civ. Can't tell.

With that being said we can count out Hungary and Medieval/Modern Italy:(

With that being said we can count out Hungary and Medieval/Modern Italy:(

Well, it DOES make sense if the Romans build Venice, if you know what I mean.

It's pushing it, but possibly Germany (Or, dear god, The HRE), could build Vienna. Note that one comonly requested civ doesn't have a city state. That's Canada. DISCUSS!

Quebec could make an interesting city state for V, also Jericho should be included.

Well, it DOES make sense if the Romans build Venice, if you know what I mean.

It's pushing it, but possibly Germany (Or, dear god, The HRE), could build Vienna. Note that one comonly requested civ doesn't have a city state. That's Canada. DISCUSS!

Just because they don't have any confirmed doesn't mean they won't have any.

Quebec could make an interesting city state for V, also Jericho should be included.

Quebec would definitely be a/the Canadian city state. :p


Modding in new city states will probably be pretty enjoyable. :)

How about Singapore for a city-state.

How about Singapore for a city-state.

already confirmed

already confirmed

I may be a day late and a dollar short, but I'm still there. :lol:

It could be possible that if a Civ is in the game, like Hungary for example, then Budapest wouldn't be in the game.

That way there is no name conflict.

I wonder if the city-states will have LHs and if so, will they be generic or specific to the city-state?

Well it didn't strike me as Washington at first, but actually it looks very similar to this portrait of him (http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/b6/Gilbert_Stuart_Williamstown_Portrait_of_George_Was hington.jpg) but less like this portrait of Jefferson (http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/46/T_Jefferson_by_Charles_Willson_Peale_1791_2.jpg). It may just be that the popular view of what Washington looked like is mistaken.


Washingtons apppearance changed according to his weight and teeth.

The more I look at pictures, the more it looks like Jefferson's nose to me.

Google some images and look at some currency, and tell me what you think, fellow fanatics.

Apart from the uniform (and background), I think he looks exactly like Civ IV's Washington.

I wonder if the city-states will have LHs and if so, will they be generic or specific to the city-state?
It would be nice, but I don't think it's very likely. I hope they at least have leader names, though. It would help make the city-states unique.

You offer cutthroat rates. Even in Imperialism iron/coal resources would cost less.
This reminded me of the standard state names in Imperialism. I've played so much, I remember them by heart.
Major: Kem, Zimm, Ordune, Deneb, Devron, Haxaco, Patagon
Minor: Pram, Pont, Zazi, Zinlu, Hurschen, Bruhr, Kessel, Kathay, Issa, Idolon, Manx, Loki, Dedge, Sindel, Wodan
I don't know if they had their own flavors but I always ended up befriending the same 2-3 ones, while there were 2-3 others that hated me.

I honestly don't know what you're talking about. :)

Hmm, wither Rio being a city state either confirms, or denies Brazil, from being a civ. Can't tell.

Ah come on people! There will not be Brazil, Hungary or whatever additional country you might wish for. I mean Brazil? Hungary? Seriously? Why not go all the way and lets say... Luxembourg, Belgium :lol:
Unless you're visiting Hopeland right now and I'm being a jerk customs officer :lol:
In that case I apologize.

It would be nice, but I don't think it's very likely. I hope they at least have leader names, though. It would help make the city-states unique.

Hmm I never thought about that... interesting, how will they do that? :think: :coffee:

I think if they do keep corporations, it should be a force in the game that acts on its own accord on were to spread and such. The government’s role (you of course) should just regulate how it operates, for example, what affect it has on the environment, and how much revenue you get out of taxing it.

Quebec would definitely be a/the Canadian city state. :p


Modding in new city states will probably be pretty enjoyable. :)

:lol: Never thought that someone would know the existence of my province.

:lol: Never thought that someone would know the existence of my province.

Many Canadians lurk here :)

:lol: Never thought that someone would know the existence of my province.

Quebec isn't the secret province, that would be Prince Edward Island;)

well since were talking about city-states.... howsabout jerusalem? think about it... religion is axed, city-states are basically political tools and well, think about it. thats basically what jerusalem was... crusades, etc

Ah come on people! There will not be Brazil, Hungary or whatever additional country you might wish for. I mean Brazil? Hungary? Seriously? Why not go all the way and lets say... Luxembourg, Belgium :lol:

This is not a good comparison. While I doubt Brazil will be in, comparing Belgium to Hungary(/the Magyars) is like comparing Ancient Rome to the Singapore. The Magyars had a great impact on medieval Europe. No offence but Belgium has done little on the world stage. Luxembourg had some power in the HRE but not enough to warrant a civ.

updated

I hope the effect of distance from Capital to the cities to the maintenance cost would be eliminated by the research of modern communication technology(such as internet or multimedia). Anyway, this game is highly anticipated and I hope it wouldn't fail me.

:lol: Never thought that someone would know the existence of my province.

Whenever I play an earth map and found a city in northwest NA I always call it "Quebec, DAMMIT!" and make believe you've declared independence & named your country exactly that!

You still have not putted in the OP puppet states and the erase of transport ships, bite....

This is not a good comparison. While I doubt Brazil will be in, comparing Belgium to Hungary(/the Magyars) is like comparing Ancient Rome to the Singapore. The Magyars had a great impact on medieval Europe. No offence but Belgium has done little on the world stage. Luxembourg had some power in the HRE but not enough to warrant a civ.

It's... not... supposed... to be. :p It's not about comparing, it's about delivering my point. :) and besides I didn't compare Hungary with Belgium, like I said; why not go all the way and lets say Belgium bla bla bla

the impact that a certain flavor has over this civ can be +/- two points along a ten point scaleI'm pretty sure this was just an illustration used to show how the change in a leaders personality would work, not an exact description of the numbers used to determine the change.

You still have not putted in the OP puppet states and the erase of transport ships, bite....

I must of missed the mention of puppet states could someone point me to the reliant preview. As for the erasure of transport ships, the only article i have read about that was a badly worded translation so I am going to wait till it is confirmed more clearly before adding it.

I'm pretty sure this was just an illustration used to show how the change in a leaders personality would work, not an exact description of the numbers used to determine the change.

The +/- 2 points has been stated in a verity of sources and it dose make sense, any greater variables and then it wouldn't make much sense having set flavors at all. I have reworded that section however, to make it a little clearer.

I must of missed the mention of puppet states could someone point me to the reliant preview. As for the erasure of transport ships, the only article i have read about that was a badly worded translation so I am going to wait till it is confirmed more clearly before adding it.

PC Powerplay magazine (Australia's premier gaming magazine) ran a 6-page preview after a one-on-one with Jon Shafer at Firaxis HQ, detailing clearly both concepts. http://www.weplayciv.com/forums/showthread.php?t=2830

I don't know if this has been mentioned yet, but this (http://news.vgchartz.com/news.php?id=7453) article would seem to suggest that the joint research thing gives a 15% boost to research for the participants.
For example, you can enter into a research agreement that provides 15% scientific research for both civilizations.
It also confirms Sidon as a city state.

Bite, you can add this (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=356898) to the AI part.

Bite, did you add that or don't you trust my translation?

It means that the AIs will take care if you amass troops to its frontier, seems to be a big improvement and promises good improvement for the AI.

Bite, did you add that or don't you trust my translation?

It means that the AIs will take care if you amass troops to its frontier, seems to be a big improvement and promises good improvement for the AI.

No it just needs some more filling out before I add it

thanks guys for the links

resurecting deal language for a civ in civ 5. they say thats why theres inca. however didnt they use inca in civ 4? the songhai civ is new to civ, and died 500 years ago. isnt that the new language? so i think there are two civs missing, my guess is spain and persia. would love to see viks and hannibal in an expansion, and shaka.

...But the leaders didn't speak in Civ IV.

...But the leaders didn't speak in Civ IV.

He's off on the Civ IV thing, but Quechua simply isn't a dead language. Not by a long shot. There are still 10 million plus speakers all over Peru & Bolivia.

Classical Nahuatl, as would be spoken by Montezuma & the Aztecs, would probably be the closest thing to a dead language in the game. It simply doesn't exist anymore, and what little rural communities that do speak one of the modern Nahuatl languages have been heavily influenced by Spanish, so much so that many varieties are mutually unintelligible.

Songhai, the language, is also still being spoken, for the record.

I must of missed the mention of puppet states could someone point me to the reliant preview. As for the erasure of transport ships, the only article i have read about that was a badly worded translation so I am going to wait till it is confirmed more clearly before adding it.



The +/- 2 points has been stated in a verity of sources and it dose make sense, any greater variables and then it wouldn't make much sense having set flavors at all. I have reworded that section however, to make it a little clearer.

Verity means truth. I believe you meant variety. ;)

given that transports are gone, I wonder how intercontinental invasion works. Do units travel the same speed (same # of tiles) on the ocean and land? Also, do they become invulnerable to naval units? I suspect an invasion requires a spearhead formation of naval units surrounding the ground units in the sea.

As a side note, maybe helicopters or air transports would make a comeback? Also, paratroopers seem like they become stronger in civ 5.

There are no longer Troop Transports instead Instead, units instantly transform into makeshift floating transports (PC PowerPlay) (http://www.pcpowerplay.com.au/) New

I am sorry, but this sounds really stupid!

I am sorry, but this sounds really stupid!To me it sounds like less micromanagement and a much larger role for a navy, both very good.

I agree, if well implemented, the no troop transports bit sounds pretty good! Makes for more naval usage and the need for better coastal defending. Just hope that as you move up the tech tree your ocean range/strength increases..

Why does such a feature equal "more naval usage"? I don't get that.

Why does such a feature equal "more naval usage"? I don't get that.

Because escorting a large invasion force that covers many tiles will require many warships. Although admittedly I may be wrong - just guessing with the info we so far have..

like with many aspects of the game (hexs, One unit per Tile) its not the feature that concerns me, more the implementation of said feature, which we won't know until the demo hits.

Would be nice to see real "root Civs" in the game. Sumeria, Akkad, Scythian Herders etc.. Then as you grow you can branch out and pick a leader to flavor your civilization. NONE of the Civilizations mentioned began as Civ's, except Egypt. Mycenean, Minoan, Hittite, Hurrian, Olmec, these are root civs from which many of the rest came, and don't forget the Gauls, Britions, Scotti etc. Real possibilities here if the designers and program writers want to be daring and radical. Somebody?

Would be nice to see real "root Civs" in the game. Sumeria, Akkad, Scythian Herders etc.. Then as you grow you can branch out and pick a leader to flavor your civilization. NONE of the Civilizations mentioned began as Civ's, except Egypt. Mycenean, Minoan, Hittite, Hurrian, Olmec, these are root civs from which many of the rest came, and don't forget the Gauls, Britions, Scotti etc. Real possibilities here if the designers and program writers want to be daring and radical. Somebody?

Yeah maybe... I'd definitely want to see that. But risky though, not sure they're ready. Maybe in civ6? :dunno: :think:

Because escorting a large invasion force that covers many tiles will require many warships. Although admittedly I may be wrong - just guessing with the info we so far have..Indeed, and navies may finally be able to easily intercept and sink poorly defended invasion forces, which is almost impossible in Civ IV.

To me it sounds like less micromanagement and a much larger role for a navy, both very good.

So you have 10 units that you have to move individually and send them out in the ocean, followed by an escort? I don't know, that doesn't sound like less micromanagement to me!

I agree, if well implemented, the no troop transports bit sounds pretty good! Makes for more naval usage and the need for better coastal defending. Just hope that as you move up the tech tree your ocean range/strength increases..

The key phrase there is "if well implemented"!

DX9 and 256mb video (http://news.vgchartz.com/news.php?id=7453)

DX9 and 256mb video (http://news.vgchartz.com/news.php?id=7453)

Dennis Shirk (Producer) has said that's a goal, not definite.

In the "Civilizations" part of the civ V tab, it shows that both Persia and possibly Siam are in the game, and says that the Incas aren't. This can't be right.

In the "Civilizations" part of the civ V tab, it shows that both Persia and possibly Siam are in the game, and says that the Incas aren't. This can't be right.

The Inca have been "confirmed" using the Quechua Language, while this may be a mistake of the reviewer, the simple fact is that the information can only be alluding to the inclusion of a certain Civ, not a city state or a unique unit for another nation.

However, Persia and Siam have been "confirmed" by some through the use of special units (Immortals and Siam Elephants respectively). While this may be an error, even if the information is correct, it does not definitively mean that those civs will in the game. As such until they get confirmed in a more clear way I'll be leaving them out.

The Inca have been "confirmed" using the Quechua Language this may be a mistake but the only thing it can refer to is Inca being a Civ.

However, Persia and Siam have been "confirmed" through the use of special units (Immortals and Siam Elephants respectively). While this may be an error, even if the information is correct, it does not definitively mean that those civ are in the game. As such until they get confirmed in a more clear way I'll be leaving them out.

I'd argue that no Civ should be confirmed without a leader, but this isn't my thread. Honestly, if we had the Immortal & Siam Elephant information before the Quechua language, we'd have the opposite problem. Better to just leave them all out as they have no leaders attached.

Partially related - I feel the Siam Elephants are a unique unit only available for befriending the Siam city-state. That's just speculation, though.

My bet on the Siamese phants is that they were refering actually to the Indian elephant subspecies and that it got lost in translation somewhere in between.

it might be India's UU. it's better than fast worker , anyway, and it's not impossible (carthage had numidian cavalry, celts had gallic warrior).

Yeah but the Celts are Gallic so it's not really the same thing, a better example would be Dutch Swiss pikemen and the crusader unites from civ 3.

At least there's no HRE. German UU is the landsknecht.

At least there's no HRE. German UU is the landsknecht.

Yes, sounds like the panzer is out then. :(

Panzer's we're overrated, it was the Tiger Tanks that ruled all.

Yeah but the Celts are Gallic so it's not really the same thing, a better example would be Dutch Swiss pikemen and the crusader unites from civ 3.
It should not be:
but the Gallic are Celts?

:p

emeralddude was comparing the Carthaginians using Numidian mercenaries to the Celts using Gallic warriors and I was saying it wasn't the same thing.

Panzers may be in with Landsknecht, if there are multiple UUs for some civs.

Panzers may be in with Landsknecht, if there are multiple UUs for some civs.

It has been said that the bonuses each Civ get will take different form à la Civ4 - Colonization. One example was one Civ getting multiple UU, and another being able to use forests as roads (which was subsequently cut, because it ended up being too powerful).

It has been said that the bonuses each Civ get will take different form à la Civ4 - Colonization. One example was one Civ getting multiple UU, and another being able to use forests as roads (which was subsequently cut, because it ended up being too powerful).

I remember about forest thing, but where did you read about multiple UU's from?

I remember about forest thing, but where did you read about multiple UU's from?

For the life of me, I can't remember. One of the earliest articles on Civ5. I just remember it being used as an example, so take that for what you will.

Yes, sounds like the panzer is out then. :(

I don't think panzer is out. After all Civ 5 was inspired by a game called Panzer General. So I think panzer will be uu for Germany. :)

Can the Landsknecht be a Swiss or Papal UU?

If Germany has the panzer AND landsknecht, they're going to be unstoppable.

Panzers are tanks (:

Ignore the idiotically obvious rant above. So like, I hope Germany isn't overpowered like in other Civ games... Like I could play Germany or Aztecs in C3C and tear it up HARD

So does 'no units stack' also mean you can block units of other civs by simply standing in their way?

I guess yeah. Maybe if you have open borders agreement it is possible to move past.

Civ V sounds very interesting. I am really looking forward to it. The flavors sound interesting, but they are not really new. We already know that Cathy is going to REX like crazy and it is difficult to avoid a war with Shaka or Monty. They have just made the whole AI decision making process more transparent.

Seems like Shaka isn't going to be there. But I guess Askia is the new Shaka.

Any news of Axemen? Can we still do the Quechua rush. I read some where that military is going to be more expensive, but relevant for a longer time.

BB

So does 'no units stack' also mean you can block units of other civs by simply standing in their way?His first post ^

Welcome to CFC Asaf! :king:

Also, you should have played Civ 3, you'd get the concept of blocking.

Bite, not sure if you'll find it useful but at WePlayCiv we've been tracking Civs/Leaders very carefully. Here's the full list as we see it:


Primary source = Firaxis/2K employees, can normally be assumed to be almost 100% reliable
Secondary source = Press/people who've seen the game in person, reliability depends on the reputation of the source and the quality of the report (off-hand mention vs detailed description)
Tertiary source = Re-telling of a secondary source (e.g. write-up of a magazine preview), not reliable on its own without detailed context and/or independent reports of original source

? = not enough info to call.

America - lock: screenshot, numerous sources
Arabia - ?: tertiary source (al-Rashid mention by GamePro (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=355773))
Aztec - lock: Jaguar Warrior (screenshot (http://www.weplayciv.com/forums/picture.php?albumid=36&pictureid=575)/artwork (http://www.firaxis.com/images/civ5/boxbottom.jpg)) leaderhead (PC Powerplay (http://www.weplayciv.com/forums/showthread.php?t=2830))
China - lock: 2 tertiary sources (Wu Zetian mentioned by Computer Bild Spiele (http://forums.2kgames.com/forums/showthread.php?t=62691) and Gamepro (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=355773)) Leaderhead (PCZone (http://www.weplayciv.com/forums/showthread.php?t=2890))
Egypt - almost-lock: 2 secondary sources (Rameses mention by IGN (http://pc.ign.com/articles/107/1075587p3.html)) played Egypt in demo (TenTonHammer (http://www.tentonhammer.com/events/gdc2010/CivilizationV))
England - lock: artwork, several sources
France - lock: primary source (Napoleon mention in G4TV interview (http://g4tv.com/videos/44682/Civilization-5-Interview-From-GDC-2010/?quality=hd)) leader concept (PC Powerplay (http://www.weplayciv.com/forums/showthread.php?t=2830))
Germany - lock: several screenshots, numerous sources
Greece - almost-lock: played with in a demo (Gamespot mention (http://gdc.gamespot.com/story/6253246/civilization-v-impressions-first-look?page=1)), and secondary source (Alexander mention by 1UP (http://www.1up.com/do/previewPage?cId=3178285)/UGO (http://www.ugo.com/games/civilization-5-preview) (same article))
Inca - ?: tertiary source (Quechua mention by Swedish mag (http://forums.2kgames.com/forums/showthread.php?t=62691))
India - lock: primary source (Gandhi mention in G4TV interview (http://g4tv.com/videos/44682/Civilization-5-Interview-From-GDC-2010/?quality=hd))
Japan - lock: artwork (Samurai) and several sources
Mongolia - likely: tertiary source (Genghis Khan mention by GamePro (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=355773)) and secondary (PC Powerplay (http://www.weplayciv.com/forums/showthread.php?t=2830))
Ottomans - likely: 2 secondary sources (Janissary mention by Italian mag (http://www.weplayciv.com/forums/showthread.php?t=2798); Suleiman mention by IGN (http://pc.ign.com/articles/107/1075587p2.html))
Persia - likely: secondary source (Italian mag mention (http://www.weplayciv.com/forums/showthread.php?t=2798)) + tertiary source (Dutch mag mention (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showpost.php?p=8983655&postcount=124))
Rome - lock: primary source (PC Gamer interview (http://www.computerandvideogames.com/article.php?id=238687&site=pcg))
Russia - likely: secondary source (Katherine mention by IGN (http://pc.ign.com/articles/107/1075587p2.html) and discussed at length in their podcast (http://pc.ign.com/articles/107/1076089p1.html))
Siam - possible: secondary source (Italian mag mention (http://www.weplayciv.com/forums/showthread.php?t=2798)) -- possible mix-up with city state/India/generic War Elephant?
Songhai - almost-lock: played with in a demo (IGN report (http://pc.ign.com/articles/107/1075587p2.html))

And this is probably in a more readable list:


Locked:
America - Washington
Aztec - Montezuma
China - Wu Zetian
England - Elizabeth (Victoria - unlikely from leader-head concept)
France - Napoleon
Germany - Bismarck
India - Gandhi
Japan - Oda Nobunaga
Rome - Julius Caesar

Almost locked:
Egypt - Ramses II
Greece - Alexander
Songhai - Askia

Likely:
Mongolia - Genghis Khan
Ottomans - Suleiman
Persia - ?
Russia - Catherine

To little to call:
Arabia - Harun al-Rashid
Inca - ?
Siam - ?

Which means at this point I'll call 12 confirmed, 7 unconfirmed.

Bite, not sure if you'll find it useful but at WePlayCiv we've been tracking Civs/Leaders very carefully. Here's the full list as we see it:



And this is probably in a more readable list:



Which means at this point I'll call 12 confirmed, 7 unconfirmed.

Who cares the civs, it will be pretty the same as the other Civs...

Would be nice to see real "root Civs" in the game. Sumeria, Akkad, Scythian Herders etc.. Then as you grow you can branch out and pick a leader to flavor your civilization. NONE of the Civilizations mentioned began as Civ's, except Egypt. Mycenean, Minoan, Hittite, Hurrian, Olmec, these are root civs from which many of the rest came, and don't forget the Gauls, Britions, Scotti etc. Real possibilities here if the designers and program writers want to be daring and radical. Somebody?
This is by far the best improvement suggestion that I have read. :goodjob: Too late for Civ V though

And this is probably in a more readable list:



Which means at this point I'll call 12 confirmed, 7 unconfirmed.

I think, all what you mention as not locked was named in the IGN article...so where do you make the cut for locked or not locked?

Apart from the uniform (and background), I think he looks exactly like Civ IV's Washington.

I thank you for your response, and you're probably right.


The picture reminded me of Jefferson as he appears here-

http://jrenseyblog.files.wordpress.com/2009/05/thomas-jefferson-big.jpg

I guess that Rembrandt Peale painted famous likenesses of both of them, perhaps that's the source of the similarities.

I think, all what you mention as not locked was named in the IGN article...so where do you make the cut for locked or not locked?

At the least, two reliable sources or direct from a primary source (Firaxis / 2K).

I've added some clarification to the apparent final three candidates for Civilizations

Number of flavors increased from 25 to 30 as shown on a recent preview, dekijk maybe.

Number of flavors increased from 25 to 30 as shown on a recent preview, dekijk maybe.

What recent preview? :confused::shifty:

Nothing new from PAX East yet?

Welcome to CFC Asaf!

Also, you should have played Civ 3, you'd get the concept of blocking.

Thanks, I've been reading these forums for a while, but for Civ V I've decided to join.

I have played Civ 3. And 2. And the original one. And 4.
I know what blocking units is and it was a bad feature of the game.
I just think that if they returned this feature it would be a step back.

I guess yeah. Maybe if you have open borders agreement it is possible to move past.

Not sure. If you can't even let your own units pass each other, how can another civ's units pass?
And what about neutral territories?

Is anyone else disappointed that they are removing religion and espionage? :(

I'm partially glad religion's gone. It's an important part of our history, but people don't automatically hate each other because they have different religions. As for espionage, I'm glad that I'll never see "Your farm has been destroyed by enemy infiltrators!" again.

I'm partially glad religion's gone. It's an important part of our history, but people don't automatically hate each other because they have different religions. As for espionage, I'm glad that I'll never see "Your farm has been destroyed by enemy infiltrators!" again.

Don't count your chickens. There were spy units before IV and espionage crept in in BtS. I imagine your farms are no more safe than they are quadrangular.

Nothing new from PAX East yet?

+1

Is anyone else disappointed that they are removing religion and espionage? :(

Yes, but I've adopted a wait and see attitude. I expect they'll be represented somehow, but if not I expect they'll be modified back into the game by fellow fanatics.

Any news of how Civic's are to be handled and hopeful expanded on?

We did have guys at PAX, didn't we? I thought they would be able to get at least some new information (especially concerning the final civilization(s)).

Stockholm confirmed as a city state at about 6:50 in this (http://v.youku.com/v_show/id_XMTYwOTIyODEy.html) video. Looks like someone smuggled a video camera in.

New feature mentioned here

Okay, the url seems to turn into smiley faces when i paste it in :crazyeye: but its from a new video on "Viddler", at 05:43- "Embarkation" After you've researched a certain technology, land units will turn into (from what I can tell) defenceless civillian transport ships when they enter a water square. I'm guessing they will be defenceless so that there is still a purpose to having dedicated transport ships; i.e. because they can defend themselves.

With the one unit per tile thingy, I would imagine the idea is that in a naval invasion you would end up with large fleets of defenceless boats (spread out over an area), and it will be quite a challenge to defend them if the enemy has a strong navy...

Stockholm confirmed as a city state at about 6:50 in this (http://v.youku.com/v_show/id_XMTYwOTIyODEy.html) video. Looks like someone smuggled a video camera in.

It's good to have some info, anyway.

At 4:37 we hear Oda Nobunaga (confirmed: the speaker calls him Oda) talk Japanese. Nice. Same with Bismarck at 5:09 and Washington at 8:53 (but obviously not Japanese, though).

Stockholm, hm? That would seem to confim the "Vikings as city states" theory.

But other than that, no new information, at least not concerning civilizations...

I hope one of those last two pick is a Hebrew (Israel) civ, which in the top 3 of most influential and cultural civilizations of earth's history. Why sid hasn't included Israel shows his lack of understanding the big picture of history.

I hope one of those last two pick is a Hebrew (Israel) civ, which in the top 3 of most influential and cultural civilizations of earth's history. Why sid hasn't included Israel shows his lack of understanding the big picture of history.

Or his understanding of the modern world. Isreal is surrounded by people who want to whipe it off the face of the earth, A few years ago there was a map published of isreal without West Bank and Gaza Strip and many people got offended. It may be influancal, but he doesn't want to offend anyone.

Too much rumors in this thread ;).
If you look at the civilization 4 box, you would guess, that the sphinx is in as a wonder, but it isn't.
Also official links are missing.

If this goes on here in that way (all around, i mean), i'll just translate the german overview thread into english.

yeah but this is real gameplay not the box.

sorry if this was already said, but roads confirmed here (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=359099)
and apparently there is some penalty also with roads
post #4

With around 5 months to the release date, will the makers of Civ 5 be able to incorporate many of the fans' ideas?:(

I hope Civ 5 will allow for small industrialised islands like Britain and Japan. Previous versions have left small island nations as inevitably weak and insignificant due to limited productive capacity from land and limited resource access :eek:

Presumably City States will start of small and grow over time (pop wise) like regular cities? It would be bizarre to have these well established entities with significant populations and technology at the start of the game :crazyeye:

Important thing to note that I learned at the PAX demo: Though it's one unit per tile, combat is no longer all-or-nothing. Just because a unit loses a battle doesn't mean it's going to be destroyed; it takes a series of losses to kill something off.


from facebook

Things are shaping up quite nicely it seems. I'm excited about the strategic resource limitations. Been looking for that in CIV for a long time now. Now all we need is the ability to make installment loans to other nations (Give 1000 gold to foreign nation, and they pay you 12 gold for 100 turns after a 10 turn grace period.)

from facebook

Important thing to note that I learned at the PAX demo: Though it's one unit per tile, combat is no longer all-or-nothing. Just because a unit loses a battle doesn't mean it's going to be destroyed; it takes a series of losses to kill something off.
from facebook

This is an interesting point. It'll be interesting seeing naval expeditions experience this. I can imagine a knight auto-converting to a naval transport and sailing along with a frigate in the same hex for defense (transports are non-combat units, so they can occupy the same tile).

The enemy tries to prevent the knight unit from reaching landfall, but it takes repeated attacks to fully kill off the defending frigate and destroy the knight-transport. Can the defending naval units destroy the frigate in time? Or will the attackers survive just long enough to land the troops? Excitement!

Instead of having a large stack of naval forces, you have one or two that just take many hits to destroy. The granularity is not in the number of units, but in how long it takes to fully destroy each single unit.

Okay, the url seems to turn into smiley faces when i paste it in :crazyeye: but its from a new video on "Viddler", at 05:43- "Embarkation" After you've researched a certain technology, land units will turn into (from what I can tell) defenceless civillian transport ships when they enter a water square. I'm guessing they will be defenceless so that there is still a purpose to having dedicated transport ships; i.e. because they can defend themselves.

With the one unit per tile thingy, I would imagine the idea is that in a naval invasion you would end up with large fleets of defenceless boats (spread out over an area), and it will be quite a challenge to defend them if the enemy has a strong navy...

They did say "civilian ships". Presumably, they mentioned this specifically in reference to the 3 "layers" of units (air, land, civilian). This would indicate that your warships would be able to stack with these transports, protecting them.

I doubt you will be able to stack battleships on inflatable raft things because the rafts will be counted as what ever layer battle ships are

well, with all those new articles and videos released today, we sure have alot less to speculate about...

I've updated it with some new info from Pax East

Why don't they include Bulgarians? I CANT believe they do not include our civ!
If people knew a little about the history of Europe , they would be aware that:

We are one of the oldest still existing states in Europe /680-2010...!/ And also:
1/ There was a time when we were a bit stronger than Byzantium /IX century was one of the periods , i.e. during Simeon the Great 's rule /
2/ The Cyrilic alphabet used by us, Russians, Belarussians , etc......................was created in Bulgaria during tzar Boris I by St. Cyril and Methodius
3/ We "had an interesting interaction" with the Ottoman Empire which conquered us and ruled Bulgaria for 5 centuries
4/ Bulgaria does not have a military flag captured and kept by enemy hands
5/ Many cases of winning the battles BUT losing the war on the diplomacy table.......

All these (and many others) are reasons enough to include Bulgaria as a civ to select.
*If you ask about a Special unit: advanced version of the knight unit - we did have a good cavalry back in the medieval times
A more complex version of WHY BULGARIANS?? in this topic http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?p=9058712&posted=1#post9058712

Why don't they include Bulgarians? I CANT believe they do not include our civ!
If people knew a little about the history of Europe , they would be aware that:

We are one of the oldest still existing states in Europe /680-2010...!/ And also:
1/ There was a time when we were a bit stronger than Byzantium /IX century was one of the periods , i.e. during Simeon the Great 's rule /
2/ The Cyrilic alphabet used by us, Russians, Belarussians , etc......................was created in Bulgaria during tzar Boris I by St. Cyril and Methodius
3/ We "had an interesting interaction" with the Ottoman Empire which conquered us and ruled Bulgaria for 5 centuries
4/ Bulgaria does not have a military flag captured and kept by enemy hands
5/ Many cases of winning the battles BUT losing the war on the diplomacy table.......

All these (and many others) are reasons enough to include Bulgaria as a civ to select.
*If you ask about a Special unit: advanced version of the knight unit - we did have a good cavalry back in the medieval times
A more complex version of WHY BULGARIANS?? in this topic http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?p=9058712&posted=1#post9058712

Here we go again... :rolleyes:

Here's an interesting new big of information:

Finally, our presenters displayed how the defense of cities will be handled. Gone is the old way of stacking units into cities that would fight off invading forces. Instead, cities will now have health points that must be completely depleted before being taken over. Players will still be able to put units into the cities, but this will now absorb the units into the city and boost its hit points instead of allow the unit to battle invaders.

http://www.gamernode.com/previews/89...iew/index.html

EDIT: sorry, i see you already got this

I Just Cant Wait

I've updated it with some new info from Pax East

In the "design" section there is no update about LUA used as script language.
It's a valuable info for modders imo. ;)

Lang said:
Here we go again?

...care to elaborate?? :)

Lang said:
Here we go again?

...care to elaborate?? :)

We've already had a ton of these "Why isn't my country in Civ?" discussions. They tend to generate more heat than light.

Why isn't BAbylon on the list?!! I always used to play as Babylon in civ2...

I agree,,,,,,Babylon is amazing

I think Israel should be a civ.
Just because Bulgarian thinks Bulgaria should be a civ.

By the way, gratz on the junior mod, bite. Seems your thread is very appreciated here.

please drop the discussion of any civilizations not included in the anticipated release of Civ5 - its not on-topic for this thread and we currently discourage (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=358777) such discussion as a matter of policy

please drop the discussion of any civilizations not included in the anticipated release of Civ5 - its not on-topic for this thread and we currently discourage (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=358777) such discussion as a matter of policy

THANK you! finally... :)

According to Steam, Civ5 to be released Sept. 1, 2010. (http://store.steampowered.com/app/50100/)

Warning: This poster is SEVENTEEN! Respond at your own risk!

Is this a joke?

In the "design" section there is no update about LUA used as script language.
It's a valuable info for modders imo. ;)

The only place I can see it referenced is in the comments section from someone who said they herd it at Pax East, I'll wait till a game publication confirms it before adding it.

Is this a joke?

Did you see the link? It's legit.

Augustus not Julius Caesar confirmed by Gameshark

Stackable civilian units as well !

September 1 release makes me happy (if it's true). The earliest possibly fall release date, yay!

Stackable civilian units as well !

This possibly means that transports (as they are not combat units as per form)
can be stacked, too! :)

Off course ! explicitly said in the article.

Newegg is listing Civ5 as a pre-order with a release date of 9/22/2010.

No date on Amazon yet? :hmm:

I'd be pretty sure those differing release dates are due to differing definitions of autumn. Some say it starts on the 22nd, some say it starts on the 1st, so they've most likely just put in the earliest date in the given time period. In one of the interviews from PAX East, Dennis Shirk was specifically vague about the release date, just repeating the 'Fall 2010' mantra when pressed. I think it was the Gamer Reaction one.

Something's stated about a flanking bonus in the GameShark article as well.

:) this game would be great as with the machine running it... any news about the system requirements?? i'm worried with laptop not able to run it...:confused:

:) this game would be great as with the machine running it... any news about the system requirements?? i'm worried with laptop not able to run it...:confused:

His first post. Welcome to Civfanatics, reilord!

I feel horrified that Augustus is in instead of Julius. Julius is one of two leaders having been in all four vanilla versions (Gandhi being the other.) What are they thinking.

What about Montezuma, hasn't he been in every vanilla version too? And Elizabeth? And Alexander?

Monty was in an EP for Civ III.

Monty was in an EP for Civ III.

Nope:

http://forums.civfanatics.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=248469&stc=1&d=1270401334

Oops. My bad. What's up with how he looks, though?

Oops. My bad. What's up with how he looks, though?

back then he was in because the aztecs were a great civilaztion now he is in because firaxis wants to make some really exotic guy to spice things up and he is the best choice becausse he still led a pretty powerful civilaztion

A lot of other civs could fill the "exotic" niche. But Monty's still my favorite leader from Civ 4.

5 months, 1 week, 2 days and 21 hours! I'm exploding in anticipation!

I'm getting a little tired of having Elizabeth I as the stock leader for Englandin every Civ game. It'd be interesting if they branched out with someone more obscure like Henry VII or William I

It's probably off topic, but I just thought of something and I just HAVE to share it with you...
What if instead of one unit per tile and ranged_2tiles_archers they would keep stacking to a limit and during the battle game would zoom into a field representing 2 tiles (ex. defenders on a hill on the right side and attackers on a grassland on the left side) with the hex grid "Heroes of might and magic"- chess style and stacked units are placed in formations. :groucho: :mwaha:

What do you think about that good people? Wouldn't it be cool :D :drool:

From the world hex grid zoom into battlefield hex grid... AWESOME!!!

That would keep it more realistic (which people are afraid of lacking in civ5 with those new mechanics being presented) and still no "stacks of doom" (lets say 5 units per tile, which would fall into formations during the battlefield zoom one unit per tile... well hex, where archer could bombard across the battlefield all they want.)

Please don't shut me down hard... be gentle :scared:

It's probably off topic, but I just thought of something and [...] and during the battle game would zoom into a field representing 2 tiles (ex. defenders on a hill on the right side and attackers on a grassland on the left side) with the hex grid "Heroes of might and magic"- chess style and stacked units are placed in formations. :groucho: :mwaha:

What do you think about that good people? Wouldn't it be cool :D :drool:


Well, I guess this would be a cool feature which would make the said frontier wars more intense.

However, from what I've heard from the developers, this would not match what they want to accomplish in CIV5. They want to make it "less military", with emphazising other ways of victory. Your proposal would enhance the focus on the military aspect of the game. It would make Civilization a small version of "Total War". Maybe I would like this preemphasis, but it may not fit in the main idea of the developers.

Nope:

http://forums.civfanatics.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=248469&stc=1&d=1270401334

Now THAT brings me back! :eek:

It's probably off topic, but I just thought of something and I just HAVE to share it with you...
What if instead of one unit per tile and ranged_2tiles_archers they would keep stacking to a limit and during the battle game would zoom into a field representing 2 tiles (ex. defenders on a hill on the right side and attackers on a grassland on the left side) with the hex grid "Heroes of might and magic"- chess style and stacked units are placed in formations. :groucho: :mwaha:

What do you think about that good people? Wouldn't it be cool :D :drool:

From the world hex grid zoom into battlefield hex grid... AWESOME!!!

That would keep it more realistic (which people are afraid of lacking in civ5 with those new mechanics being presented) and still no "stacks of doom" (lets say 5 units per tile, which would fall into formations during the battlefield zoom one unit per tile... well hex, where archer could bombard across the battlefield all they want.)

Please don't shut me down hard... be gentle :scared:

Sounds like the Total War series.

Don't worry about what people think is "realistic." People conveniently gloss over what is blatantly unrealistic, and only complain about "realism" when it's just something they want in the game. Happens in every genre. My favorite is when RPG player complain about non-grid inventories, because it's "unrealistic," but conveniently ignore realism when it comes to carrying around a spare set of armor, 5 other swords, etc.

If I got into what's actually not realistic about the Civ series... well... I'd need to start a new thread, at the least.

If I got into what's actually not realistic about the Civ series... well... I'd need to start a new thread, at the least.

I feel the same way...
I'm not stuck on realism either. I just very much like the idea, wasn't thinking about realism in the first place. ;) Just thought that those who need realism would like it. :dunno:
I was just thinking of a way to make everyone happy without being unreasonable (some people want every battle to zoom into total war style skirmish).
I realize that it sound like more war oriented which isn't the direction developers are going for, as Schalke mentioned... It would sure enhance the focus on the military aspect of the game, I see Schalke's point.
Still it could be AWESOME!

No religion?! no espionage?! :'(

No religion?! no espionage?! :'(

No caravan units?

I think the new features actually decrease the emphasis on war (please hold laughter).

No longer will you be able to spam out military units, the resource limitations will keep your military growth in check. War will now become a serious decision...'do I commit my forces to this campaign? will it leave me undefended on other fronts?' and once the decision is made to go to war, then the new features of one unit/hex, no 300 last man standing fights etc... work there way in.

So I like the new control features for the military, but I also like how they are limiting the military aspect of the game. Diplomacy, city state alliances, technology become more and more important as you cannot possibly defend your city against 5 opponents with only 3 axemen and two archers.

A question though: if air units are stackable (at least to an extent I have read), are naval units? I always thought of the "fleet" in a tile, not spread out over hundreds of miles of ocean. You never see ships alone in modern navies. Otherwise, I am very keen to learn more about the other aspects of civ V, such as tile working, roads, diplomacy...

I think the new features actually decrease the emphasis on war (please hold laughter).

No longer will you be able to spam out military units, the resource limitations will keep your military growth in check. War will now become a serious decision...'do I commit my forces to this campaign? will it leave me undefended on other fronts?' and once the decision is made to go to war, then the new features of one unit/hex, no 300 last man standing fights etc... work there way in.

So I like the new control features for the military, but I also like how they are limiting the military aspect of the game. Diplomacy, city state alliances, technology become more and more important as you cannot possibly defend your city against 5 opponents with only 3 axemen and two archers.

A question though: if air units are stackable (at least to an extent I have read), are naval units? I always thought of the "fleet" in a tile, not spread out over hundreds of miles of ocean. You never see ships alone in modern navies. Otherwise, I am very keen to learn more about the other aspects of civ V, such as tile working, roads, diplomacy...

that's a really interesting point of view that I hadn't thought of but does make a lot of sense.

I think the new features actually decrease the emphasis on war (please hold laughter).

No longer will you be able to spam out military units, the resource limitations will keep your military growth in check. War will now become a serious decision...'do I commit my forces to this campaign? will it leave me undefended on other fronts?' and once the decision is made to go to war, then the new features of one unit/hex, no 300 last man standing fights etc... work there way in.

So I like the new control features for the military, but I also like how they are limiting the military aspect of the game. Diplomacy, city state alliances, technology become more and more important as you cannot possibly defend your city against 5 opponents with only 3 axemen and two archers.

A question though: if air units are stackable (at least to an extent I have read), are naval units? I always thought of the "fleet" in a tile, not spread out over hundreds of miles of ocean. You never see ships alone in modern navies. Otherwise, I am very keen to learn more about the other aspects of civ V, such as tile working, roads, diplomacy...

Now that I think it, it actually makes lots of sense and adds another dimension to the game.
About the naval units, I don't think they'll be stackable. All they've done is leading to smaller scale so we could expect bigger maps also with more details. And because the ammount of units has been reduced, it could work with no lag. But those are just thoughts. I hope it would be fall already or we could get somekind of demo game to test it. :D

Excellent point. Now you are going to have to work hard to get alliances up if you want to go to war. You will have to secure other nation's loyalties to ensure you don't get backstabbed. No longer will you be able to spam units and conduct 3 front wars.

I see ciV as a game with a lot of hard decisions. Diplomacy will be key here.

City States are going to throw a spanner in the whole works though. Oh the possibilities! ;)

IIRC, the hard cap for a military unit requiring resource x can be pushed away via techs ( and quite possibly policies ). It seems the axe rush got axed itself !

Just FYI, gamespot set 31 December this year as the release date. Don't know about the accuracy though;)

Okay, was it just me that noticed the Vikings in the trailer video?

Okay, was it just me that noticed the Vikings in the trailer video?

nope, but as it is possible that they are just there to represent barbarians or are just a tease, so since they have not been confirmed or even hinted as a playable race they have not been included in the list.

I'm glad they're keeping .xml file format for modders, its the only one i can read, understand and edit just hope there is a lot more in .xml for me to play with (and cry on here cuz i killed my game lol)

I hope they have plans for the late game when it comes to Barbarians be nice to have them bugging you from start to finish.

Going to miss espionage. the BTS espionage was a little to much for me (didn't want to see every city) but I still liked causing trouble maybe we could start a mod wish list soon ;)

Anyone got news about the "UN" in civ5? be good to see more powers given to them and enabled in every game style not just diplo victory.

Think the new map looks awesome, think I will upgrade he graphics card just for the map.

Shouldn't it be Napoleon instead of Napolean? (Yes, I'm a wise ass)

In my opionon from what i heard i think civ4 is better then civ5 unless they add more feautures and improve it or something

shouldn't it be napoleon instead of napolean? (yes, i'm a wise ass)

248786

It is time that the Civ franchise received a dose of new thinking and fresh ideas. It was getting stale. Civ 4 will always be there for those that prefer it's style of game play and features. I for one, will be looking forward very much to the changes I see coming in Civ V. This series is too much of a cash cow and a signature product for it to be allowed to fall on its face. I'm confident that what I will end up buying, I will probably enjoy very much.
Unlike Spore, say, where there was much promise, but no real legs to stand upon in the finished product, because there was nothing dictating the minimums the designers had to satisfy.

Okay, was it just me that noticed the Vikings in the trailer video?
Stockholm is already confirmed as a city state, which seems to indicate that that's how the vikings/norse will appear.

Shouldn't it be Napoleon instead of Napolean? (Yes, I'm a wise ass)
I tried to avoid mentioning it, but now that you've began, there are more errors: the German leader is Bismarck, not Bismark; the Russian leader is more commonly known as Catherine; and the Chinese leader is usually known as Wu Zetian (although, being a Chinese name, it varies).

It is time that the Civ franchise received a dose of new thinking and fresh ideas. It was getting stale. Civ 4 will always be there for those that prefer it's style of game play and features. I for one, will be looking forward very much to the changes I see coming in Civ V. This series is too much of a cash cow and a signature product for it to be allowed to fall on its face. I'm confident that what I will end up buying, I will probably enjoy very much.
Unlike Spore, say, where there was much promise, but no real legs to stand upon in the finished product, because there was nothing dictating the minimums the designers had to satisfy.

I'd be cautious about too many new ideas. Civ is a very particular type of strategy game, totally different from the total war series, or red alert for instance.

The problem is always going to be 'how do we bring something new to a formula that works, without breaking it'. Its now in its 5th iteration, I'm not sure how many more "improvements" can be made. Its kind of like microsoft office, I can't justify paying more money for the newest version... its just like the old one, maybe a new skin?

This certainly seems to be an improvement over civIV, from what I can tell but clearly we have to play it to know. They are changing resource management, movement, military, cultural expansion... all the while keeping that simple working civ formula. Can't wait for more info!

Stockholm is already confirmed as a city state, which seems to indicate that that's how the vikings/norse will appear.

Hmmmm Stockholm was not really a Viking city as it was founded considerably late compared to other cities (14th or 15th century maybe?).
But yeah, point taken. It wouldn't really make sense to have a Viking civilization and then a separate Stockholm.

I've heard that Siam is set in stone to be the 18th civ. Source?

Hmmmm Stockholm was not really a Viking city as it was founded considerably late compared to other cities (14th or 15th century maybe?).
But yeah, point taken. It wouldn't really make sense to have a Viking civilization and then a separate Stockholm.

Venice is confirmed as a city-state and Rome is also confirmed as a civ.

I've heard that Siam is set in stone to be the 18th civ. Source?
To my knowledge, it's only a theory based on what might be a misunderstanding. So no, I wouldn't say it's "set in stone".

Venice is confirmed as a city-state and Rome is also confirmed as a civ.
That's actually a valid point...

so no more xbows and knights, etc?

so no more xbows and knights, etc?What? Please clarify.

so no more xbows and knights, etc?

Where did you hear that? As far as I know, crossbows and knights have neither been confirmed nor denied. Plus, I remember seeing some concept art for a Camel Archer somewhere, so it's likely that knights will be included.

I've never heard anything about such a change either, and it would be a really odd (insane) decision not to include two of the most famous and important units.

Stockholm is already confirmed as a city state, which seems to indicate that that's how the vikings/norse will appear.


I tried to avoid mentioning it, but now that you've began, there are more errors: the German leader is Bismarck, not Bismark; the Russian leader is more commonly known as Catherine; and the Chinese leader is usually known as Wu Zetian (although, being a Chinese name, it varies).

And you used "too" instead of "to" when describing system requirements.

I thought they weren't adding units that weren't on the list...didn't read the title

Venice is confirmed as a city-state and Rome is also confirmed as a civ.

Well, yes, but Venice as a city state and Rome as an empire didn't really overlap. In fact, Venice only really dates back to just before the empire fell - it was likely founded by refugees from Attila's campaigns into northern Italy.

Hey bite, you know what might be a good idea, maybe every time some new info is confirmed, you change the title by adding the date in brackets, so if you got new info today the title would read 'Civ 5 Confirmed Features - 10/04/10'

Hey bite, you know what might be a good idea, maybe every time some new info is confirmed, you change the title by adding the date in brackets, so if you got new info today the title would read 'Civ 5 Confirmed Features - 10/04/10'

I agree.

Would Firaxis unveil something in E3? I guess it does IMO, can't wait. :lol:

Well, yes, but Venice as a city state and Rome as an empire didn't really overlap. In fact, Venice only really dates back to just before the empire fell - it was likely founded by refugees from Attila's campaigns into northern Italy.

That's the point:

Venice (confirmed city state) -> after the Roman Empire
Stockholm (confirmed city state) -> after the Vikings

So that doesn't exclude the Vikings as a civilization, even though I highly doubt it

I believe that the Siam, or Thai, leader is King Naresuan the Great. Considering that we have been told that Siam elephants will be used in the game, I note that at the battle of King Naresuan and Minchit Sra at Nong Sarai he used elephants to wage war. Also, a movie has been made for him, it is titled King Naresuan.

was the king from Anna and the King based on a real Siamese king?

was the king from Anna and the King based on a real Siamese king?

Mongkut, yes.

I'm still sceptical about the "Siamese elephants" mention from the Italian article. I won't consider anything confirmed until we have more proof, at least another mention would suffice.

I'm still sceptical about the "Siamese elephants" mention from the Italian article. I won't consider anything confirmed until we have more proof, at least another mention would suffice.

The way I figure it... We're probably getting Siam/Khmer and Persia as the final civs.
The "quechua language" reference might have been a mistake when referring to the language Montezuma speaks.

I would rather have inca then siam. siam is a civ for an expansion and come on siamese elephants come on thats like making the songhai special unit a songhai swordsman replaces swordsman.

I would rather have Inca than Siam. We already have quite a few Asian civs and only two civs from America (And of those two only the Aztec is 'native').

I think Persia will be in the game because they are in every version of civ 2 and because of what I read in the kijk.

I also think that Inca will be in the game instead of Siam for the reasons stated above.

I would rather have Inca than Siam. We already have quite a few Asian civs and only two civs from America (And of those two only the Aztec is 'native').

I think Persia will be in the game because they are in every version of civ 2 and because of what I read in the kijk.

I also think that Inca will be in the game instead of Siam for the reasons stated above.

It should be noted Persia and Siam were confirmed by the same source, whereas Quechua language was confirmed by a seperate source.

Please stop using 'will' for 'should' or 'deserves to'.

I hope Spain will be in the release. The first global empire, the 3rd larger empire, etc... I think that Spain should be within the 18 most important civilizations in history.

@J-man:
Persia wasn't in CivRev, so it wasn't in every version of Civ. :p

They also wasn't in the cellphone version of civ4 but interestingly enough the Huns were.

Cellphone version? I did not know such a thing even existed.

I love the fact that with the modders we have in this commnity, we will be swimming in new civs with new UUs, UBs, and leaders within a couple weeks of release!

Yes that is always nice.
On a more related note, haven't seen any new information in a while :(, has anyone else?

Cellphone version? I did not know such a thing even existed.

Civilization IV: War of Two Cities (http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=Civilization+IV+War+of+Two+Cities&aq=f&aqi=g-m2&aql=&oq=&gs_rfai=)

I considered getting it but never did. Maybe I should.

Civilization IV: War of Two Cities (http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=Civilization+IV+War+of+Two+Cities&aq=f&aqi=g-m2&aql=&oq=&gs_rfai=)

I considered getting it but never did. Maybe I should.

The one I was referencing was CIV IV: Defenders of the Gates

Sounds a lot like Civ4, when comparing Leaders, Map Improvement and AI. I like the idea of the new combat system and the use of hexes in replacement of squares. Barbarians seems to be a bit cheesier and with more complex strategic options this looks like a great and new Civ experience.:)

It seems like they're dumbing the game down and simplifying things to fit on the console without modification (why would they remove Religion and Espionage?). I understand they have to take out some content so that we buy it later in the expansion pack, but I'm gonna go with "full steam in the wrong direction" with this one. But maybe they'll fix it all with PC expansion packs, just like Civ IV. I can understand them coming out with a base release that doesn't intimidate the average person.

The combat changes I think will be better (Civ never had a thorough combat system), since that's what people like the most anyway. So hopefully, we'll see the return of the good from Civ IV, mixed with select features from the new release.

Oh, and damn them for adding more useless graphics...My computer was doing so well...
On the other hand, the style of graphics looks like it left that cheesy, vibrant, vector graphic look they brought in Civ IV for photorealism. I think that's a good change.

I hope they didn't come so far to leave behind the spirit of the game now.

Yes that is always nice.
On a more related note, haven't seen any new information in a while :(, has anyone else?

not at the moment after the deluge of info we have seamed to hit a drought

not at the moment after the deluge of info we have seamed to hit a drought

Given how mixed our reactions have been to the revealed info, they probably decided it was best not to continue on the same information leaking path.
Maybe they'll wait till things are more polished to start showing things off, or wait until they have some more unarguably (like things you wouldn't have to actually try in game first to realize they're good) information to reveal in order to avoid possibly scaring off people, or lowering expectations.

It's probably a wise decision. It wasn't that good an idea to start showing us beta-ish graphics (like the cities, where several buildings are submerging beneath the ocean in nearly every coastal screenshot revealed.) That ends up leaving many of us going "...Well that looks like crap. I'm not playing this."
Except in one situation where some gamers preferred the original look (I'm looking at you, Windwaker.)

I've seen mostly positive feedback on what's shown, even more than I thought given the big changes they're doing. There will always be negative feedback from some and those will always be louder than those that are happy with the changes.

Also, most people realize that there will be changes to the game up til the release, including graphical updates from the "pre-alpha"-versions shown. I still think it looks great so far.


I'm guessing they're saving up some new info and updates for E3 in June and that it has nothing at all to do with opinions voiced here.

it probably also has to do with the lack of opportunities to show it off as we get closer to some of the bigger events like e3 in June you see some more be released. Unless of course they want to prove me wrong and release some more info now :)

[QUOTE=bite;9107309]it probably also has to do with the lack of opportunities to show it off as we get closer to some of the bigger events like e3 in June you see some more be released. QUOTE]

Good point!

The one I was referencing was CIV IV: Defenders of the Gates

Yeah, after a little research i realized that. But from what i've seen about Defenders of the Gates, it seems the huns were more or less the standard Civ barbs. And Persia wasn't in War of Two Cities either.

Yeah, after a little research i realized that. But from what i've seen about Defenders of the Gates, it seems the Huns were more or less the standard Civ barbs. And Persia wasn't in War of Two Cities either.

Yes and yes:yup:, Persia is also absent in this game and the Huns do act as the barb civ but unlike other barbarians from other games, the Huns are specifically mentioned and have there own leader and unique unit (nomadic horseman if I remember correctly), which makes them one of the most complete barbarian civ in the entire series.

Why are so many posters concerned with what the civilizations and their leaders will be called ? For myself, I'd be perfectly happy to have an opponent called Oggbad (nicknamed "the fiend"), the ruler of Amnesia (a country frequently forgotten), just as I like to call myself Bert of the Bertish Empire whatever civ and leader I'm playing as.
Referring to Ginger Ale's screenshots, I have questions about city boundaries: for example, in the "Two Cities" shot, each shows its own boundary, but what happens when these meet? Do they remain separate so that one can see which tiles belong to each city, or do they merge into one big splodge? Also the boundaries are irregular, so what is the mechanism for expansion? The screenshots do not show a tile mesh: will there be an option to show this ? I like to be able to count distances, not guess them.

The balance between tiles is not the same (forest and mountains take longer to take over than grassland or plain), you can spend gold to speed up this process.

While it's interesting to try to figure out details of upcoming CIV V such as "will there be a Viking civ to play"? or "will Ivory be a resource"? I'm more intrigued by the game play comments that have been made by Jon Shafer.

What do we know about Jon Shafer? First of all, he's an accomplish CIV modder -- that speaks well for him. Secondly, he's studied History academically -- that's probably a plus too. Thirdly, he's really young -- not a bad thing, but his programming chops are newly earned. He joined Firaxis in 2005 and seems to have worked on CIV III Conquests and then all the flavors of CIV IV. Finally, if Sid trusts him with a project as important to Firaxis as CIV V is, that probably is an endorsement we should accept.

Jon said in several interviews (Eurogamer, GamePro) that he really liked playing Panzer General (A DOS game, published in 1994 - or perhaps he meant Panzer General II, a Windows game, published in 1997 -- both are great classic games) and admired the game mechanics of that game. He also said he felt he wanted to move CIV away from the current simpleminded tactics of "build a SOD and then go capture cities". He wants to get the fighting out of the cities and into the countryside. The one military unit per hex, and the ranged fire are conventions straight from PG, so I think we can also expect concepts such as units exerting control into adjacent hexes and units taking damage and being forced to retreat rather than simply get destroyed. If you imagine a game with many of CIV IV's non-military conventions coupled with a PG style military game, perhaps that's what we should be expecting.

It seems like they're dumbing the game down and simplifying things to fit on the console without modification (why would they remove Religion and Espionage?). I understand they have to take out some content so that we buy it later in the expansion pack, but I'm gonna go with "full steam in the wrong direction" with this one. But maybe they'll fix it all with PC expansion packs, just like Civ IV. I can understand them coming out with a base release that doesn't intimidate the average person.

The combat changes I think will be better (Civ never had a thorough combat system), since that's what people like the most anyway. So hopefully, we'll see the return of the good from Civ IV, mixed with select features from the new release.

Oh, and damn them for adding more useless graphics...My computer was doing so well...
On the other hand, the style of graphics looks like it left that cheesy, vibrant, vector graphic look they brought in Civ IV for photorealism. I think that's a good change.

I hope they didn't come so far to leave behind the spirit of the game now.

From the Eurogamer interview, I'd say dumbing down for the console is not really what they are doing. Rather it seems they are trying to maintain the current level of complexity:

"Eurogamer: When you add a new feature to Civ, are you aware that it's a pretty dense game anyway, and something has to be taken out?

Jon Shafer: With Civ V, we've recognised the need to keep the complexity the same as Civ IV. Of course, you can't just keep adding things, it wouldn't be manageable for the players. We want to keep the hardcore players, but we also have to keep expanding the number of players who're going to enjoy Civilization."

Game Informer confirms a icon notification system like total war

Warning! Semi-long critical post.

While I welcome the initiative to take on the SoD problem then going to the other extreme and allowing ONLY 1 unit per tile/plot is going to cause more problems than it solves in the long run IMO. I am certain that a better solution could be found with just a minimum of extra thought.

To begin with then it sounds like an unwelcome return to the days where you could sign Open Border agreements and then block any friendly units from entering and exploring your territory with a few single units in a few tight spots.

Another consequences of the "only 1 unit per tile/plot" concept is that armies will now require more tiles/plots to be able operate properly, making semi-accurate recreations of historical battles almost impossible on any but the largest of maps. Lets just hope that ciV is at least going to be able to handle much larger maps much more effeciently than ever before.

It also seems to play havoc with the need to plan for Naval operations, since land units now simply transform themselves into naval transports whenever they have to travel across water (now wouldn't that have made D-Day a lot easier). And before anyone claims that it might have been done to help the AI then surely the hierarchical AI planning structure is designed to allow the AI to be able to plan ahead for contingencies such as large scale naval operations? However - playing along with the "1 unit per tile/plot" concept limitations then - assuming that Fighters stationed on Carriers (and in cites?) are going to be represented by some kind of Promotion for each Fighter then I don't see any reason why transport type ships shouldn't be able to function in the same manner when carrying land units.

Sadly, if it is hardcoded that only 1 unit can exist in each tile/plot then there goes the claim that ciV will be more modable than ever before. And even if it is not hardcoded then it is going to require an almost impossibly massive amount of work for any modder to make ciV function with multiple units per tile/plot (rewiring the AI alone to handle this would probably be a years-long project).


Cities with HPs sound like a reasonable enough concept, but the fact that you cannot garrison even a single unit inside a city sounds like a major blunder to me. Unless I am misunderstanding how this is going to work then while you can make a unit 'join' the city to bolster the city's HP then none of the specific defensive abilities of the unit come into play, but perhaps cities actually work like units now and units assisiting them are added like some kind of Promotion? It is still a bit unclear to me exactly how this is going to work.


On top of all that then the exclusion of Religions and Espionage is another piece of bad news, and while I would agree that both of these features was never implemented all that well in previous versions of Civ, it strikes me as defeatist to cut them out entirely instead of rethinking and implementing them in renewed versions.


And yes, most of these omissions can probably be modded in. Just don't forget that not only will someone have to mod in the mechanisms themselves, but someone will also have to come up with some comprehensive code to make the AI aware of - and how to handle - those modded mechanisms properly.


All in all then many of the changes to ciV leaves me with he impression that the goal has been to move ciV closer towards being a warsimulator rather than a nationbuilder game. And perhaps the slogan should not be "The most moddable version of Civ ever", but rather "The version of Civ requiring the most modding ever" - and that is assuming that all parts that are going to be desired to be modded are even modable at all and not blocked by hardcoding.


Before I end up sounding ALL negative about the changes then I DO like the change to Hexagonal tiles/plots, the creeping culture concept, the implementation of proper ranged support (which would also work with more than 1 unit per tile/plot btw ... with reduced range ofc), the City States concept (although I think that it could be expanded by adding a medium sized Kingdom status as well for neutrals with more than 1 city) and the hierarchical AI planning levels (in fact that sounds pretty close to how I would have done it).

It has been stated that friendly units can move through each other.

It has been stated that friendly units can move through each other.
That still doesn't prevent blocking - in fact that just adds another annoying point.

Friendly units can then move past your front line defences and end up in a tile/plot preventing you from being able to reinforce/support your frontline properly.

Unless of course the 1 unit per tile/plot rule is actually 1 unit per nation per tile/plot?

1 unit per nation per tile/plot?

Heard a rumor from my friend about that, couldn't name a source (Or in other words, I have no idea if this is even close to the truth so don't quote me on it) though so I didn't submit it as information. Makes sense though.

That still doesn't prevent blocking - in fact that just adds another annoying point.

Friendly units can then move past your front line defences and end up in a tile/plot preventing you from being able to reinforce/support your frontline properly.

:confused: you'll sure be able to do the same.


Unless of course the 1 unit per tile/plot rule is actually 1 unit per nation per tile/plot?

Heard a rumor from my friend about that, couldn't name a source (Or in other words, I have no idea if this is even close to the truth so don't quote me on it) though so I didn't submit it as information. Makes sense though.

That was mentioned in a spanish magazine, but we only have a google translation :/.




Another thing from an older article (http://blogs.mercurynews.com/aei/2010/03/10/gdc10-6-changes-to-civilization-5/) i haven't seen yet here:
Meanwhile, the AI will constantly be working in the background working toward one of the major Civ goals such cultural victory, space race victory or diplomatic victory.

Confirmed...maybe :).

I saw that in a differnent article also I think :hmm:

:confused: you'll sure be able to do the same.
Yes ofc, but the point is that it shouldn't be possible to block your 'friends' like that at all (by accident, stupid AI or deliberate maliciousness).

It is a major step backwards from cIV.

I don't think they'll revert back to this.

Hmm, I am not sure I follow you ... they won't revert back to what?

To the way of cIV?
Or is there new information that they already abandoned the "only 1 unit per tile/plot" mechanism and that is the mechanism they aren't likely to revert back to? :)

Guys, a thought.
Each civ has its own colored borders, yes?
I took this into consideration, and while looking over the screencaps, I saw 4 cities using the far east asian city set with different border colors.
Mongolia, China, Japan, ???.

India ?

Sorry for being unclear. They will not revert back to the civ 3 style of blocking friendly/neutral units.

India ?

India would more likely use the middle eastern city set.

I figure the 4th asian civ is probably either the semi-confirmed Siam, or maybe the Khmer empire (which could have been mistranslated as Siam.)

No, I'd probably go with India like valdredge. Of course it is quite possible I'm completely off here. ;)
Congratulations valdredge on first post!

What do we know about Jon Shafer?
Jon said in several interviews (Eurogamer, GamePro) that he really liked playing Panzer General (A DOS game, published in 1994 - or perhaps he meant Panzer General II, a Windows game, published in 1997 -- both are great classic games) and admired the game mechanics of that game. He also said he felt he wanted to move CIV away from the current simpleminded tactics of "build a SOD and then go capture cities". He wants to get the fighting out of the cities and into the countryside. The one military unit per hex, and the ranged fire are conventions straight from PG, so I think we can also expect concepts such as units exerting control into adjacent hexes and units taking damage and being forced to retreat rather than simply get destroyed.
---

That's amaizing, as PG and CIV are the only 2 games I ever played.
The 1 unit per hex thing does not seem to fit to me, but maybe it is just a matter of getting used to it.

I'm looking forward to another great CIV game !!

@Ddude97 - Thanks :-)
I lurk on the forums for the past 5 years, but I admit I got quite excited seeing the Civ5, which got me out of mysilent browsing ^^

Awesome glad you were recruited. :goodjob: Has anyone seen anything new, even just repetition of stuff we already know? :confused:

I have a Gameinformer that says there will be an Icon notafacation system

Could we have the source? (I'd like to read this article if I haven't already)
Believe I've heard that somewhere else too, but forgot to inquire about. :goodjob:

It's not on the website and I only have a hardcopy and mo scanner. They sell it at gamestop if you REALLY want a 1 page review that only really has few new things

If it is at all possible. list these new things so that I may ffed on this information, whether that makes it confirmed or not, I still want to know!

It's not on the website and I only have a hardcopy and mo scanner. They sell it at gamestop if you REALLY want a 1 page review that only really has few new things

I've got the issue too, and they also said that players will be able to upload, download, and comment on mods within the game. :eek:

Heard that somewhere, don't know where.

I like the references, very academic of you. ;)
no really, great job! :goodjob:

I just don't understand why did they had to take out religions and spies, how will I have my continental-Island-fundamentalist-terrorist-nation. With no religions or spies that just means that i am stuck on the darn island :cry:

I just loved to take down huge empires by critical resources prevention in the middle of their war with other nations, balancing the power of my enemies while chanting to my self "Nothing is true - Everything is permitted".:p

I like the references, very academic of you. ;)
no really, great job! :goodjob:
[/COLOR]".:p

occupational hazard :)

I'm pretty sure the vikings/scandinavia are in it. They're in the trailer after all.

Aren't all nations and leaders confirmed already?

No, I don't belivethey are all, Augustus isn't confirmed I think....
No vikings aren't confirmed (that we currently know of) in civ 5, being in the trailer means next to nothing.

No, I don't belivethey are all, Augustus isn't confirmed I think....
No vikings aren't confirmed (that we currently know of) in civ 5, being in the trailer means next to nothing.

Augustus was confirmed.
All's been confirmed except for the final two civs, though various claims have been made (Inca, Siam, Persia), though so far no source has yet to claim Vikings.

No, I don't belivethey are all, Augustus isn't confirmed I think....
No vikings aren't confirmed (that we currently know of) in civ 5, being in the trailer means next to nothing.

Well the OP claims that the pyramids are in it because they are seen in the trailer, so I was kinda going off of that.

I doubt they'd put vikings in the trailer if they were irrelevant.

Well the OP claims that the pyramids are in it because they are seen in the trailer, so I was kinda going off of that.

I doubt they'd put vikings in the trailer if they were irrelevant.

They could be a city state, not an actual Civ.

I'd still bet money on the Vikings being in, and I would probably make some good money, given that most people don't see it happening.

That feeling is mostly based off of two things:

1) The trailer. So far, everything else seen in the trailer has been confirmed, including the Ottomans before we ever had confirmation they'd be in the game. True, we have no confirmation on the Wonders, but I think it's a fairly safe assumption that the Pyramids of Giza & the Hagia Sophia are in the game (though why it has minarets still baffles me).

2) It's not the first time the Vikings have premiered in a Civ game, and frankly, they'd present a unique opportunity to show off the new AI, especially the parts concerned with naval warfare. So far they only have Elizabeth to show off the 5 AI aspects of navel consideration, which seems unusually small.

The reason a lot of people don't think they're in the game is because they don't want them to be in the game. I'd personally argue Spain over them, but that's a personal opinion, which I'm keeping a bit of a crowbar separation away from my predictions on the game.

I'm also 100% positive that the Incas are not in the game, because Quechua is not a dead language. :wallbash: There are over 10 million people in the world who still use it as their native language. It should have been obvious from the beginning that that article that mentioned the Quechua language was wrong, and was referring to Nahuatl, of which there are no speakers today that speak a dialect even similar to the one from Montezuma's era. I'd extrapolate, but I think the point is made.

I'd also reasonably guess that the Italian article was wrong on many things, but that's a personal bias against their form of "journalism." Though I wouldn't be surprised if Persia was the 17/18th Civ along with the Vikings.

Of course, we have no way to know this until we get some more proof, but I'd make a gentleman's bet on the Vikings being in, and a reasonable assumption on the Persians, though neither is enough to warrant them being "confirmed."

/end rant

I personally believe that Persia is the most likely, and that the Vikings will be a city-state. I have no preference.

There is no Middle East Civ. The middle east is the cradle of civilization, there has to be a middle east civ. My money is on Persia, it seems like they are choosing later civilizations instead of early ones.

Wasn't Stockholm mentioned being a city-state?! If so, the Vikings are out.

@jahg84 = I do agree, there has to be a Mid East civ but there already are the Ottos and Arabia, so I don't think your argument helps for Persia. I always thought of Persia as a more "ancient" civ than a "later" civ.
@Loppan Torkel = Yes I do belive it was, thank you for reminding/ mentioning.

There is no Middle East Civ. The middle east is the cradle of civilization, there has to be a middle east civ. My money is on Persia, it seems like they are choosing later civilizations instead of early ones.

The Arabs, Ottomans, and Egyptians are not middle eastern?