Just read the Gamepro article, and I have to say that I am a little dissapointed. Inspired by 19th Century and Panzer General; one-unit-per-tile; only one leader per civ...

I'll be back after NCIS to elaborate a little, but I just had to get it out there.

One leader per civ???

NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO.........

Now that means all the leaders I don't like will be back!

Oh well. Hope there's some good stuff in there too.

I thought we knew about one unit per tile and one leader per civ. Also the Panzer General thing.

^No, the one leader per civ wasn't really confirmed yet so far as I know until this article.

I'm not too bummed about the one leader per civ thing, but that might be just me. I always like a civilization to have it's own characteristics, not the characteristics of it's leader. Also, when picking the leader, I felt like I was assuming their role. I don't want to be Napoleon or Elizabeth, I want to be Mattigus.

I'm probably crazy, too.

I can sympathize with the disappointment, but consider this. We tend to think of sequels like "what would happen if the re-made Civ4". We're thinking improvements to existing game. Sometimes a sequel is a ground-up rebuild.

So it feels weird that there's only one leader / civ or one unit / tile, but these things mean very little without the context of the game a as a whole.

My advise is to withhold judgment until the game can be played, or at least seen.

I do understand why people wouldn't care if there were one or fifty leaders per civilization, but to me, having different leaders does allow for a civ to be represented for its different aspects. For example, with India in Civ4, it was no longer just the stereotypical "let's all have peace!" with Gandhi - now you could have the slightly less pacifistic Ashoka. Or, for example, my greatest annoyance in Civ3 was that it was always Mao for the Chinese (especially since I'm strongly anti-communist and I also have felt it was a severe injustice to the rest of China's 4000+ year history to have so modern a leader), but in Civ3, I now had an alternative.


Then again, due to the fact that the new leaders' artwork seems like a lot of... work, I guess there isn't much I can argue against that.

Oh well. Guess I'll have to resort renaming Mao to Emperor Taizong or something again.

I'll go ahead and continue to google "civ5 gamepro scans" every 30 seconds.

I'll be back after NCIS

My opinion of you just doubled. :goodjob:

Enjoy NCIS and then regale us with tales from this magazine. :)

First off, I know that some may require proof... well, I work long hours and commute a great distance (from DC to Baltimore) and I will have to go to bed soon. Others that read the article will be able to confirm the details and some may even provide pictures.

As far as my dissapointments, I am still very skeptical exactly how one unit per tile is going to work. That seems well fitted for a more focused game, but for the epic time frame of Civ, it could be a bit displacing. Panzer General is mentioned a lot in article as Schafer's inspiration. Soren Johnson is quoted in the article stating that the "current system is not very compelling-big stacks of units smashing into cities." I have previously speculated that cities would hold a garrison, but there was no mention as to how city defense will work. They go on to state that the new system is designed to bring comat "out of the cities". To me, that is a big part of Civ.

I am also skeptical about the management of units. I can imagine that it would get pretty crazy and overwhelming. I am also worried about the scale of the maps. To me, this type of system would work best on more focused maps. If the scale of Civ IV maps is anything to go by for Civ V, it seems to me that the map could get pretty crowded. With an Earth map, I can see France and Spain each being filled with units for one epic battle. On the plus side (depending on how you look at it), there is at least two moves per unit (which is for tactical reasons). As the article demonstrated, a spearman can move to the front lines as your warriors clash with the enemies.

As far as leaders, it is a minor annoyance only having one leader per civ, but I just enjoyed the diversity. Some would be happy to know that Mao has been replaced as the Chinese mainstay. The leaders (and nations) mentioned in the article are:

Washington (America)
Bismark (Germany)
Napolean (France)
Oba Nobunaga (Japan)
Harun al-Rashid (Arabia)
Wu Zetein (China)
Mongolia? (Genghis Kahn)
Caesar (Rome)
Gandhi (India)

That is half of the 18 total. They also mentioned City-States, offering Singapore as an example of one. It is unclear whether they will have leaders (which would be nice for modders...), but they state that City-States offer bonuses when gifted and will play a major part in diplomacy. If you are friends with one, it may give pause for another civ to attack it. That is certainly interesting, yet still needs more details.

That about covers the basics of what the article covers. I don't really want to take too much away from Gamepro (though, not out of love, just out of courtesy), but there are more details about some of the above aspects. The magazine also give a rundown of the history if Civilization (the game). I will reserve further judgement until I learn more and get a chance to try some of it, but, at this stage, I am just a bit dissapointed with what has been shed... especially the one unit per tile. I think the system would be great for scenarios (like ones that focus on particular wars), but I am uncertain just how it will fit in with the overall Civ experience!

This is all news to me, except the one unit/tile rule. I do not know what it means to be inspired by Panzer General, as I have never played that game. But the fact that it is inspired more by the 19th century will be cool - that is a wonderful era to play in Civ, I think.

As far as leaders, it is a minor annoyance only having one leader per civ, but I just enjoyed the diversity. Some would be happy to know that Mao has been replaced as the Chinese mainstay. The leaders (and nations) mentioned in the article are:

Washington (America)
Bismark (Germany)
Napolean (France)
Oba Nobunaga (Japan)
Harun al-Rashid (Arabia)
Wu Zetein (China)
Mongolia? (Genghis Kahn)
Caesar (Rome)
Gandhi (India)

That is half of the 18 total. They also mentioned City-States, offering Singapore as an example of one. It is unclear whether they will have leaders (which would be nice for modders...), but they state that City-States offer bonuses when gifted and will play a major part in diplomacy. If you are friends with one, it may give pause for another civ to attack it. That is certainly interesting, yet still needs more details.

YES!!! YES!!! YESSSSSS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!


(Sorry if you like Mao)
Well, although, this still means some civs will get other leaders some people may not agree with, such as Gandhi for the Indians. I still think multiple leaders would be more interesting, but oh well.

Some of those choices do look really interesting and good, such as Nobunaga for the Japanese and Harun al-Rashid for the Arabians.

This is all news to me, except the one unit/tile rule. I do not know what it means to be inspired by Panzer General, as I have never played that game. But the fact that it is inspired more by the 19th century will be cool - that is a wonderful era to play in Civ, I think.

My only problem with that is that Civ is about more than one era. I am worried about how it will affect the rest of the game. For me, I am not that enthusiastic about 19th century warfare. Perhaps because I am American? I don't know, I like the classical periods, middle ages, discovery and modern (along with pre-modern... ie, WWII) the best.

My only problem with that is that Civ is about more than one era. I am worried about how it will affect the rest of the game. For me, I am not that enthusiastic about 19th century warfare. Perhaps because I am American? I don't know, I like the classical periods, middle ages, discovery and modern (along with pre-modern... ie, WWII) the best.

Thats true. It is about much more than just the 19th century. They are all important eras in the development of Civilization. And I imagine playing a game based too much on one era would get boring after a while. Since CivII I have always wanted to see some sort of in-game option to 'hold' development within a certain era - whichever one the player wanted. But you have to admit, we (Americans) had a fairly good run in the 19th century - towards the latter part anyways, lol.

Ugh, disappointing. Why only have one leader per civilization? Sure, Civ3 was a good game with only one leader but to go to multiple leaders and then back again seems like a huge step backwards. LAME.

And the choice of Wu Zetian over Qin Shi Huang is ridiculous, period. Maybe if they had the sense to keep multiple leaders they could throw Wu in there for some flavor, but clearly that won't be happening.

I really hope this is some sort of farce, otherwise my anticipation for this game will have been severely soured.

As far as leaders, it is a minor annoyance only having one leader per civ, but I just enjoyed the diversity.

This is probably a necessary change since now each civ/leader has its own unique characteristic (no more mix and match Aggressive/Spiritual/Commerce). I'll GLADLY take a smaller number of truly different and interesting civs over a larger number of choices that share so much in common. Quality over quantity.

I do hope they keep Unrestricted leaders, though.

Ugh, disappointing. Why only have one leader per civilization? Sure, Civ3 was a good game with only one leader but to go to multiple leaders and then back again seems like a huge step backwards. LAME.

And the choice of Wu Zetian over Qin Shi Huang is ridiculous, period. Maybe if they had the sense to keep multiple leaders they could throw Wu in there for some flavor, but clearly that won't be happening.

I really hope this is some sort of farce, otherwise my anticipation for this game will have been severely soured.

To be fair, the article did say, "At the moment, each civilization has just one leader..." I hope that means that they still may make it in, or at least would still be able to be modded in. I guess we'll see!

Mongolia? (Genghis Kahn)
Caesar (Rome)


What do you mean by Mongolia? (Genghis Kahn). Did the article just mention Mongolia and you are guessing Genghis or they mentioned Genghis without specifically adding his country?

Also Caesar - I am assuming Julius, not Augustus (who was in IV). I just hope he's not just called "Caesar" in game!

EDIT: I am pretty excited with this news overall though. I had almost completely quit playing Civ because I got bored with the style of ware-fare in III and IV. Looking forward to the fall now.

What do you mean by Mongolia? (Genghis Kahn). Did the article just mention Mongolia and you are guessing Genghis or they mentioned Genghis without specifically adding his country?

Also Caesar - I am assuming Julius, not Augustus (who was in IV). I just hope he's not just called "Caesar" in game!

It mentioned Genghis, but not the country. And, yes, it did just say Caesar. The basic assumption, of course, would be Julius (that would be fine by me as I usually chose him) but it could technically be any emporer of Rome.

BTW, missing from the article, but I assume would still be in are England, Spain, Greece, Russia and Egypt. I am curious to see who would be leading those civs and what other civs made the cut.

This all sounds fine to me, bring it on.

funny side note. In the winter olympics, one of the male Japanese figure skater in the top of the finals (I forget which place) is a direct descendant of Nobunaga Oda. The skater's name was something Oda, and the commentators mentioned the relation. How awesome is that?!? Being related to such an important person to ones countries history. Like being related to G. Washington.

I confess that my hope is the shift to 1 leader per civ-at least for Vanilla-is inline with an attempt to bring in a "1 bonus for civilization, 1 bonus for leader" approach, similar to what we saw in CivCol. I'm also hoping that City States will replace Goody Huts-with the City States granting some kind of longer-term, in-game bonus (access to unique units & buildings, bonuses to commerces & yields, gold per turn etc), depending on how they integrate them into the empire.

Aussie.

Ugh, disappointing. Why only have one leader per civilization? Sure, Civ3 was a good game with only one leader but to go to multiple leaders and then back again seems like a huge step backwards. LAME.

And the choice of Wu Zetian over Qin Shi Huang is ridiculous, period. Maybe if they had the sense to keep multiple leaders they could throw Wu in there for some flavor, but clearly that won't be happening.

I really hope this is some sort of farce, otherwise my anticipation for this game will have been severely soured.

http://www.waterstones.com/waterstonesweb/displayProductDetailsZoom.do?sku=4643468 (http://www.waterstones.com/waterstonesweb/displayProductDetailsZoom.do?sku=4643468)


Ah man, I dont know how to add images properly...

Well, here is the link:
http://www.waterstones.com/waterstonesweb/displayProductDetailsZoom.do?sku=4643468

I confess that my hope is the shift to 1 leader per civ-at least for Vanilla-is inline with an attempt to bring in a "1 bonus for civilization, 1 bonus for leader" approach, similar to what we saw in CivCol. I'm also hoping that City States will replace Goody Huts-with the City States granting some kind of longer-term, in-game bonus (access to unique units & buildings, bonuses to commerces & yields, gold per turn etc), depending on how they integrate them into the empire.

Aussie.

I'm not sure if you get an actual bonus, or if they were just referring to the "diplomatic" bonus of befriending them (or incorporating them into your empire). City-States definitely need more explanation!

Oh yeah, should have clarified that. I realise it might not be the case, I just hope that *is* how it works. Would be far, far less random than Goody huts-& might be a darned sight more challenging than barbs if some city-states are more aggressive than others!

Aussie.

Ugh, disappointing. Why only have one leader per civilization? Sure, Civ3 was a good game with only one leader but to go to multiple leaders and then back again seems like a huge step backwards. LAME.

Many people theorize its due to how much more animated (and thus work intensive) the leaders are.

My prediction: Egypt will not have Cleopatra, and Empress Wu will replace her as the token hot female leader. Because she's asian.

My prediction: Egypt will not have Cleopatra, and Empress Wu will replace her as the token hot female leader. Because she's asian.

:lol::lol::lol::lol::lol:

Sorry, I'm only laughing because I'm Asian.

But, yeah, either Wu will be the token hot female leader... Or the token ugly fat old female leader. We'll see. :lol::lol::lol::lol:

Yeah... not too enthused about single-leader civilizations. One of the best advances in IV over previous installments was the idea that you could have different playstyles for each civilization, different parts of history, different figures. But now it seems they're going back to the idea of "you play as the nation, not as the leaders." Disappointing.

Cool to see Haroun al-Rashid and Oba Nobunaga, though. Both interesting figures and new faces, at that.

Overall I like the news that I have heard. I hope to get the magazine soon.

Were there any new screenshots?

:lol::lol::lol::lol::lol:

Sorry, I'm only laughing because I'm Asian.

But, yeah, either Wu will be the token hot female leader... Or the token ugly fat old female leader. We'll see. :lol::lol::lol::lol:

Catherine actually could take the title of token hot female leader. She was fat and old in Civ3, hot in Civ4, and super-hot in CivRev. If you follow this trajectory, she's definately on target.

Also, I just convinced my uber-conservative friend that the American leader for Civ5 is Eleanor Roosevelt. He's freaking out right now.:lol:

Also, I just convinced my uber-conservative friend that the American leader for Civ5 is Eleanor Roosevelt. He's freaking out right now.:lol:

HAHAHAHA! now thats funny!:goodjob::lol::lol::lol:

I confess that, when it comes to City-States, my ideal is that they be something like the Minor Races of Birth of the Federation. Is anyone familiar with this game & what I'm talking about?

The one leader per civ is a bit disappointing, but it isn't as if further expansions won't come out. And my favorite LHs in civ4 were made not be Firaxis, but by individuals in this forum.

I am also skeptical about the management of units. I can imagine that it would get pretty crazy and overwhelming. I am also worried about the scale of the maps. To me, this type of system would work best on more focused maps. If the scale of Civ IV maps is anything to go by for Civ V, it seems to me that the map could get pretty crowded. With an Earth map, I can see France and Spain each being filled with units for one epic battle. On the plus side (depending on how you look at it), there is at least two moves per unit (which is for tactical reasons). As the article demonstrated, a spearman can move to the front lines as your warriors clash with the enemies.


I have a hunch that maps will be much larger and the minimum distance between cities will be greater. This will give room for large sprawling battles on the landscape. This will also help balance the increased unit movement.

It's a good decision to go back to one leader per civ, at least for the vanilla version. It became too much of "Leaders" instead of "Civilizations" in civ4 and even if diversity is good and fun, I think they could focus on other aspects to gain more in quality gameplay. I got the sense civ4 was watered down because of the leaders and the many, pretty boring characteristics of them.


I have a hunch that maps will be much larger and the minimum distance between cities will be greater. This will give room for large sprawling battles on the landscape. This will also help balance the increased unit movement.This is what I also hope for. That they go back to a larger game and if it's easier to do this with one-unit/hex I'm for it.

Maybe they cut back the number of total leaders to cut back on the number of traits, cause some traits were lacking compared to others.

I have a hunch that maps will be much larger and the minimum distance between cities will be greater.

On one of the screenshots we have so far you can see 2 cities -
my guess is they are 6-7 tiles away from each other...

hm, IF that is MINIMUM distance, that MAY be okay...
but I cannot be sure, of course...

EDIT:

on another, the distance is 4, only, meaning three tiles btw the two cities...

I´m all for fewer leaders if that instead means we will get more civilizations. Perhaps a few new ones that has yet to be seen in a Civ-game like *cough* Atlantis *cough*, Sweden, Brazil or Argentina?

One leader per civ truly is a step back :(

I heard from a friend that in the article in swedish pc gamer it said that the leaders will speak in their own language... He didnt say much more about it and it sounds a bit strange to me. If anyone has the new swedish PC gamer please confirm this and give us more facts :) (I would have bought it myself but I am not currently in sweden right now)

I heard from a friend that in the article in swedish pc gamer it said that the leaders will speak in their own language... He didnt say much more about it and it sounds a bit strange to me. If anyone has the new swedish PC gamer please confirm this and give us more facts :) (I would have bought it myself but I am not currently in sweden right now)

Yes, I have bought that PC Gamer (I´m Swedish), and it is true. They even had to resurrect the dead Inca language for this game...

I don't think one leader per civ is a bad thing... if it's true that the leaders will speak in their own language, then this is not surprising- it would take a LOT of time making several leaders per civ. Now we will instead have (hopefully) very well done, but few leaders...

Yes, I have bought that PC Gamer (I´m Swedish), and it is true. They even had to resurrect the dead Inca language for this game...

So that would mean the Incas are confirmed.

Yes, I have bought that PC Gamer (I´m Swedish), and it is true. They even had to resurrect the dead Inca language for this game...

What dead language? (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quechua)

The languages of the Incas, the Mayas and the Aztecs are still widely spoken.

So that would mean the Incas are confirmed.

new info, well spotted :king:

Yes, I have bought that PC Gamer (I´m Swedish), and it is true. They even had to resurrect the dead Inca language for this game...

Is there any other new info in the magazine?

And if we can belive the trailer and this new info (cant see why we cant) we have 12 of 18 civs confirmed

Washington (America)
Bismark (Germany)
Napolean (France)
Oba Nobunaga (Japan)
Harun al-Rashid (Arabia)
Wu Zetein (China)
Mongolia? (Genghis Kahn)
Caesar (Rome)
Gandhi (India
Inca
Vikings
Egypt

and i would guess an african civ also (dont count egypt as african, they are just egypt :)). I would be suprised if russia wasnt in the game.

What dead language? (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quechua)

The languages of the Incas, the Mayas and the Aztecs are still widely spoken.

quecha, I think it was called...

Is there any other new info in the magazine?

And if we can belive the trailer and this new info (cant see why we cant) we have 12 of 18 civs confirmed

Washington (America)
Bismark (Germany)
Napolean (France)
Oba Nobunaga (Japan)
Harun al-Rashid (Arabia)
Wu Zetein (China)
Mongolia? (Genghis Kahn)
Caesar (Rome)
Gandhi (India
Inca
Vikings
Egypt

and i would guess an african civ also (dont count egypt as african, they are just egypt :)). I would be suprised if russia wasnt in the game.

New info? I don´t know exactly what info you all have. :p

But the article mostly talks about the new combat system, the hexagonal grid, the city states and the improved diplomacy. But that is old news, I suppose...

the article mostly talks about the new combat system, the hexagonal grid, the city states and the improved diplomacy. But that is old news, I suppose...

ehem, anyways, could we just know what is written, anyways?

Just use synonyms or different word order - in case you are afraid of legal rights...

New info? I don´t know exactly what info you all have. :p

But the article mostly talks about the new combat system, the hexagonal grid, the city states and the improved diplomacy. But that is old news, I suppose...

I meant the info from the author of the thread and the inca info you just gave us :)

Yes, I have bought that PC Gamer (I´m Swedish), and it is true. They even had to resurrect the dead Inca language for this game...

So they found the city of Gold?

Great, they got rid of Mao only to iclude a token female:( . There's nothing that qualifies her over Tang Taizong or Han Wudi except boobs (which ar geenerally smaller on asian chicks anyway).
Also probably Julius Caesar instead of Augustus :rolleyes:
Ang goddamnded Gandhi:mad:
Civ4 made me hope for Asoka (or Chandragupta) Mrurya, the trailer made mehope for Nehru.
Well, not dealbrakers but still kind of disappointing.

ehem, anyways, could we just know what is written, anyways?

Just use synonyms or different word order - in case you are afraid of legal rights...

Ok, I can write a summary of the article tonight (I´m at work now) if you want! :pat:

Great, they got rid of Mao only to iclude a token female:( . There's nothing that qualifies her over Tang Taizong or Han Wudi except boobs (which ar geenerally smaller on asian chicks anyway).

Not token at all. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wu_Zetian) She was probably one of China's greatest leaders and certainly one of the most ruthless and most manipulative. Granted, I'd like to see Tang Taizong though.

Ok, I can write a summary of the article tonight (I´m at work now) if you want! :pat:

:)... what time zone will be that "tonight"? :)

Not disappointed at all! Harun al-Rashid for the Arabs! Great! :goodjob:

And I honestly like Gandhi and am happy he is back. I'm delighted to see the Incas are back too. Await confirmation of Russia and Persia.

Wu Zetein is a better choice than Mao for China. So happy with that too. China should be represented by an emperor/empress rather than a revolutionary.

:)... what time zone will be that "tonight"? :)

I think "tonight" will happen in roughly the same time in Sweden and Hungary... :p

If he's a at work now, I'd venture Europe.

Edit: get in!

:mad: after seeing this thread, my disappointment even increased. well, now i am sure civ5 will be much simpler than civ4. the "simple game rules" approaches we heard about is most probably decided for an expectation on increased sales.

why did i call civ5 simple? well, it really seems like a step back from civ4 in means of parameters. It seems more like a board game (according to the limited info we have) for 11yo boyz. what simple new rules we have?

1 leader per civ
1 unit per tile and no SoD
unique bonus for each civ, not like a combo of 2 traits (it was mentioned somewhere but not officially condirmed yet, am i right?)


:sad: and what else? can it continue like the following or am i really pessimistic on this civ5 issue?

* each civ can assign only 1 type of GP; arabs only priest, russians only scientist, english only merchant, french only artist, etc.
* limitations for social policies like; america cannot pick SP, arabia cannot pick free religion, france cannot pick police state etc.

Yes you are overly pessimistic.

1 leader per civ

This is most likely to save time and expense on animations and voice acting. It has been said that leaders speak in their own language.

1 unit per tile and no SoD

...Which to me sounds like it will demand more of the player in terms of tactical thinking, not less.

unique bonus for each civ, not like a combo of 2 traits (it was mentioned somewhere but not officially condirmed yet, am i right?)

I fail to see how this makes anything simpler.

:sad: and what else? can it continue like the following or am i really pessimistic on this civ5 issue?

* each civ can assign only 1 type of GP; arabs only priest, russians only scientist, english only merchant, french only artist, etc.
* limitations for social policies like; america cannot pick SP, arabia cannot pick free religion, france cannot pick police state etc.

You've got no basis for making any of those guesses. Not even a sliver. So, cheer up!

Not token at all. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wu_Zetian) She was probably one of China's greatest leaders and certainly one of the most ruthless and most manipulative. Granted, I'd like to see Tang Taizong though.

I wouldn't really call her one of the greatest leaders. If she were the leader of a smaller nation with a shorter history than China maybe she's be qualified to represent it in civ, but she is chinese and her competition is too strong.

1 leader per civ is not really causing so much more simplification, you still have 18 civs to choose from. Unique leader traits is rather less simplification (18 traits instead of 8 (or how many there is in CIV)) 1 unit per tile is both simpler and more complex, if you play in low difficulties it is simpler but the right position of units could give you a huge edge

Well, one problem with one leader per civ is being clearly demonstrated in this thread... the rampant arguments about who should have been picked.

Theres no reason to be disappointed Thorburne! thx for sharing the information

This is most likely to save time and expense on animations and voice acting. It has been said that leaders speak in their own language.

you reduced leader to simple terms. if there will be 1 leader per civ, that means

* totally less leaders and thus less strategies possible
* no more discussions like "cyrus or darius benefits more from immortals" or "lizzy or vicky is better for CE", or "gandhi or asoka benefits more from shrines" etc.

if 1 leader per civ is true, then most posters would scream for "unrestricted leaders" option in civ5.players like having many different strategies possible. it increases game replayability.

...Which to me sounds like it will demand more of the player in terms of tactical thinking, not less.

If 1unit per tile is true, then i suppose an approach like in the old "Realms" game is required which includes number of soldiers in each troop. otherwise, 1unit per tile will be just like a chess game.


I fail to see how this makes anything simpler.

unique bonus for civ means less correlation. as each leader combo had 2 traits, 1UB and 1UU there were many possible correlations in civ4. An example for correlation is aggressive shaka and ikhanda. so let's see what bonuses will be given to civs and discuss that later then. But i still feel there will be less correlations.

yes, i said i feel pessimistic but all the info given up till now forces me to think so. i am just not satisfied with hexes. what new options we will have? they will remove some of the existing (like religion and SoD) and change tiles to hex. we know these. And what will be added instead then? From civ3 to Civ4 GP and healthiness etc. were added. Civ5 should add new parameters or it would disappoint hardcore players.

For example, with India in Civ4, it was no longer just the stereotypical "let's all have peace!" with Gandhi - now you could have the slightly less pacifistic Ashoka.

I beg you to differ. Gandhi in Civ 1 was a pretty bold leader, not your regular pushover :D

http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pub/images/civ1.png

</kidding>

If 1unit per tile is true, then i suppose an approach like in the old "Realms" game is required which includes number of soldiers in each troop.

That is what we're hearing. Front lines and the use of diverse units being a must.

That is what we're hearing. Front lines and the use of diverse units being a must.

yeah but have u played "realms" game? in that one, each troop had ~1000soldiers. after each war some of them died, just like in north and south. and when you trained a new troop, the city pop decreased by that number.

in the old "north and south" (in which you can tickle the photographer's back :P) you could combine units. it was useful when one of them lost half the soldiers in a battle. i used to play these 2 games in 91/92. especially realms was great.

i suppose civ5 1unit per tile could be good if armies in that tile had number of soldiers. healing the unit after the battle just like u did in civ4 was not reasonable.


and just came to my mind now; when a unit is defeated in the battle it might retreat back with a percentage.
50% dead
25% retreats and is healthy
25% retreats but needs to heal

I never played Realms. But my point is that this new Civ system doesn't sound less complex than the old.

I never played Realms. But my point is that this new Civ system doesn't sound less complex than the old.

Yes, and I muss admit I'm worried, too. If I wanted a simple game, I wouldn't be here -- it is the complexity of Civ that makes it what it is. This does not sound good at all.

Uh. Can we talk about a multicore version of Civ IV again?

My disappointment with Civ V is growing-if the German article is anything to go on. Removal of religions represents a *huge* step backwards in terms of both Diplomacy & the shape of your empire. Although simple in its application in Civ4, Religion was one of the *best* features-after civics! Can't believe that they're going to remove it, & its absence could mean the difference between me shifting to Civ5 or staying loyal to Civ4!

Aussie.

Yes, and I muss admit I'm worried, too. If I wanted a simple game, I wouldn't be here -- it is the complexity of Civ that makes it what it is. This does not sound good at all.

I said, it doesn't sound like it will be less complex. To me, it sounds like there will be more strategy involved. (Or, technically, tactics in regard to units.)

My disappointment with Civ V is growing-if the German article is anything to go on. Removal of religions represents a *huge* step backwards in terms of both Diplomacy & the shape of your empire. Although simple in its application in Civ4, Religion was one of the *best* features-after civics! Can't believe that they're going to remove it, & its absence could mean the difference between me shifting to Civ5 or staying loyal to Civ4!

Aussie.

That is always the trouble when going from a previous, fully patched/modded and twice expanded version of Civ. You will have to lose a lot going back to a "vanilla" version of the latest version. I´m sure we will lose espionage, warlords, corporations and random events as well.

But just as Jesus threatens to return, maybe religion will make a messianic return of biblically epic proportions in an expansion pack!

Danielos. I can handle losing Warlords, Espionage (actually *no*. If you've got a perfectly good espionage system from the last iteration, why drop it?!?!) & random events-but religion was in Civ4 from the get-go, & should be in Civ5 too. There is no *logical* reason why they should remove something which actually *improved* the vanilla game so much!

Aussie.

Religion was the Big New Thing in Civ 4 the way culture was The Big New Thing in Civ 3. I think it's madness to get rid of it.

religion was an important parameter for economy, culture, happiness, science (priest assigning and monasteries) and diplomacy. so with which new parameter they will overcome the lack of religion, i really wonder.
else than these effects on game overall, i don't care about religion being in the game. just put another parameter in the game which does everything that civ4 religions did, then it is ok for me. But I really don't think they plan to put sth instead of it. Well, maybe they will put it on EP as most guys said.
if they will never put it in the game again because of complaints, then they really need to put sth for this lack or at least, some of the existing parameters should be improved. Culture, espionage, corps etc.

I gladly trade "religion" for "social policy".

For me religion was not that exciting as a gameplay factor,
but well, maybe it could have stayed in the game a different way
(maybe it does, just not that much diplo influencing)

Actually I can do without religon the way it was in Civ4. It was a good idea and added flavor but it could greatly constrain your diplomacy options and shrines (especially if you had more than one) could become a game breaker and let you expand like crazy while keeping the science slider at 100%.

Religion should be improved, not kicked out.

Great, they got rid of Mao only to iclude a token female:( . There's nothing that qualifies her over Tang Taizong or Han Wudi except boobs (which ar geenerally smaller on asian chicks anyway).
Also probably Julius Caesar instead of Augustus :rolleyes:
Ang goddamnded Gandhi:mad:
Civ4 made me hope for Asoka (or Chandragupta) Mrurya, the trailer made mehope for Nehru.
Well, not dealbrakers but still kind of disappointing.

Wu instead of Mao :):):)
Gandhi instead of Asoka:(:(:(

:mad: after seeing this thread, my disappointment even increased. well, now i am sure civ5 will be much simpler than civ4. the "simple game rules" approaches we heard about is most probably decided for an expectation on increased sales.

why did i call civ5 simple? well, it really seems like a step back from civ4 in means of parameters. It seems more like a board game (according to the limited info we have) for 11yo boyz. what simple new rules we have?

Let's see.


1 leader per civ

So far..., it is very much possible that multiple leaders will make their return in an expansion. It basically seems to be a matter of how much time the art teams need for each leader.


1 unit per tile and no SoD

That is going to make combat involve a lot more choices and thus more complicated, rather than simpler. Chess is one of the hardest most complicated strategy games out there.



unique bonus for each civ, not like a combo of 2 traits (it was mentioned somewhere but not officially condirmed yet, am i right?)

So we are basically getting 18 different traits. That is double the number in vanilla Civ4.

new info, well spotted :king:

:dance::dance::dance:ME SO HAPPY. Now all I need to hear is that the Turks are in and I am complete. But seriously, 1 leaderhead pre civ? I really hope they add leaders in expansion packs. Or else I'm going to be playing Civ V with mods forever.

I, for one, never really cared which leaders were available. I do, however, care about the possible trait combinations and such that comes with it. I hope that this flexibility will prevail even if it's not tied to specific leaders.

So the only thread in this entire forum about the Gamepro article and the new stuff we learned about this game is also about how dissapointed we all are and how awful this new game will be? This is absurd.

I don't want Stalin!! I want Catherine. The young version.

So we are basically getting 18 different traits. That is double the number in vanilla Civ4.
Well, i meant that each lader has 2 traits. as i said before, i can't say much before seeing the bonuses. SMAC approach was fine. each faction had a bonus and disadvantage.

I don't want Stalin!! I want Catherine. The young version.
I prefer Stalin politically and I want him get good bonuses. In civ4 he should get PHI/ORG, PHI/CHA or CHA/ORG which would match with his character.

But I admit I also like Cathy. I want her slap me :)

But I admit I also like Cathy. I want her slap me :)

What?!?! Has she been slapping people behind my back? I thought we had something special Cathy!

Ok, on topic. All this did is make me want more info. I know a lot of people are disappointed now, but we know so little about the game, that I think we are jumping the gun over whether or not we're disappointed with Civ5.

On religion: I liked the idea of religion in Civ4, but felt it was lacking in it's implementation, especially with spread. It felt overly forced and building missionaries often felt like a waste of resources, and if you founded a late religion, there was little point trying to spread it. I would play many games where 3-5 cities would have no religion by endgame. I would rather wait and have a better implementation of religion in an EP, rather than have another broken one in Vanilla. I'd even be OK if it didn't appear at all if it was nothing or Civ4 religion system for Civ5.

If 1unit per tile is true, then i suppose an approach like in the old "Realms" game is required which includes number of soldiers in each troop. otherwise, 1unit per tile will be just like a chess game.
You wouldn't argue though that chess is a simple game to play, would you? It has a set of rather simple rules but a tremendous amount of interaction, even over the course of a few moves. I think it's that what makes a game complex, not the amount of units.

Jaca

But just as Jesus threatens to return, maybe religion will make a messianic return of biblically epic proportions in an expansion pack!

Sorry, but I'm with the Buddhists on this one: Let's just reincarnate religion from game to game, shall we?

I wonder why so many people are disappointed by only one leader, maybe they add leader in Expansions. But the news of leaders speaking is something I am really interested in. Hope they get native speakers or at least capable voice actors. Also so far I'm happy with the civ choise, I'm right now waiting for the confirmation of Russia, Greece and Persia.

On Wu Zeitian - there are problems about evaluating her effectiveness as a leader. The main thing one has to remember is that in classical Asia - at least in theory, anything unorthodox - including having a woman as ruler - was considered bad, bad, bad, period. It's a conservative climate. Think of the Japanese code of honor, or the Confucian heiarchy in China. Of course in reality things weren't that rigid, and change always happened, but I think you guys get my point here.

Basically, the problem with Wu was that since she was a female ruler, contemporary and subsequent accounts of her tend to be extremely negative. It is hard to figure out exactly what she was really like, since basically all the Chinese historians were more or less like "She's a woman! Bad bad bad!".

Although this in and of itself could be used against her in terms of her inclusion in Civ5, since it's so hard to figure out exactly what she did bad or good.

However, even though I would have prefered Taizong or QSH or one of the other Chinese Emperors to Wu, I'm still so happy that Mao is out and replaced by an Asian girl (or... old hag, if that's what they choose to do... but that's still better than Mao for me).

:woohoo:

Although I have no problems with communists, I am happy that Mao is replaced. I just think that China needed some fresh leader change, since Mao was in every civ game so far. I also support Stalin or Peter over Cathy (yes I am one of those weirdos that don't have a crush on Cathy, but I did like Theodora over Justinian). Not that I don't like her, it's just that Russia needs a man to lead it. Also it would be awesome if Stalin would speak with a Georgian accent. We have Wu as the female Chinese leader and we will probably get Elizabeth for Britain, I wonder which civ will alo get an female leader? The one with the biggest chances are Spain and Egypt or they could add a female Viking leader.:lol:

Can somebody upload some scans from the magazine?

I don't really have a problem with one leader... I prefer modeling traits by the civ to the leader. Really, I don't even care a whole lot about who the leaders are - sure, Joan of Arc never led France, but that didn't cause me to never play a Civ3 game with France in it.

In the end, there are probably a couple hundred other things I'd care about before leader choice. For that matter, in the only psuedo-completed scenario I made for Civ3, I left most of the leader names blank as it really was not a major concern.

I somewhat agree with Quintillus. I don't believe there should be any leaders in the traditional Civ sense, where you pick one leader at the start, with or without unique traits, and that's your character for the rest of the game.

What I'd like to see instead are leaders that change over time and in response to player actions. Starting out as Rome, you'd get somebody like Cincinnatus for example, and as time progresses this would change to the Gracchi or Sulla and then finally to the Caesars, if your government changed from republic to empire. Switching to communism in Russia would see Lenin and Stalin take power from Czar Nicholas, and similarly with China and Mao. Under democracies some sort of election might even determine it, along with political parties.

This would not have to be purely for flavor, as different leaders could still have different priorities (militarist Stalin vs. pacifistic Gandhi) and possibly even different trait bonuses. But for it to work, the 3D artwork for every leader would have to be abandoned in favor of 2D or photographs as in Civ 2, since it would be too demanding on the developers, and I don't think they're willing to go that direction.

One leader/civ kind of sucks. I hope they at least allow multiple leaders to be modded in.

Look, I'll be the first to admit that religions were probably *too* powerful as they were introduced in Civ4 (indeed, a great deal of my modding was centered around trying to implement more *negatives* to religion-especially under certain religious civics), & I'll also be the first to admit that they can-& should-be improved. Removing them, though, is like throwing the baby out with the bathwater!

I really don't care about the only one leader per Civ thing. That's not a big deal to me at all, as long as each Civ is very unique.

Regarding some of the leader choices: I liked Saladin for Arabia and I didn't really mind Mao for China since he made China a modern power. I also liked Togugawa for Japan. I do think Washington for America and Bismarck for Germany are the right choices though. But I'm not too concerned about the leader choices (more concerned about the Civs than leaders)

Only thing I'm disappointed about so far is the lack of religions, but hopefully they have other exciting additions that make me forget about religion.

1 leader per civ, disappointed, 1 unit per tile, disappointed,
also stalin really? I mean the russians tried to wipe his memory from history for a reason.
and one last rant, bring back religion!

I somewhat agree with Quintillus. I don't believe there should be any leaders in the traditional Civ sense, where you pick one leader at the start, with or without unique traits, and that's your character for the rest of the game.

What I'd like to see instead are leaders that change over time and in response to player actions. Starting out as Rome, you'd get somebody like Cincinnatus for example, and as time progresses this would change to the Gracchi or Sulla and then finally to the Caesars, if your government changed from republic to empire. Switching to communism in Russia would see Lenin and Stalin take power from Czar Nicholas, and similarly with China and Mao. Under democracies some sort of election might even determine it, along with political parties.

This would not have to be purely for flavor, as different leaders could still have different priorities (militarist Stalin vs. pacifistic Gandhi) and possibly even different trait bonuses. But for it to work, the 3D artwork for every leader would have to be abandoned in favor of 2D or photographs as in Civ 2, since it would be too demanding on the developers, and I don't think they're willing to go that direction.

The thing is, a civilization's reputation is built by the person who leads it. Look at America, for example, Bush was the president, and America was the worst thing to happen to this world... Obama is president now and everybody sings the praises. At least, as far as I have seen, anyway!

The thing is, a civilization's reputation is built by the person who leads it. Look at America, for example, Bush was the president, and America was the worst thing to happen to this world... Obama is president now and everybody sings the praises. At least, as far as I have seen, anyway!

if u lived outside USA, you would see that nobody praises him. Everybody can see that he is a figure to recover american image after simultenaous 2wars in the gulf.

You wouldn't argue though that chess is a simple game to play, would you? It has a set of rather simple rules but a tremendous amount of interaction, even over the course of a few moves. I think it's that what makes a game complex, not the amount of units.

Jaca
Yeah chess has a good strategy. But I like civvin', I don't want chess or a board game.
Oh, i really hope they bring numebr of soldiers in each troop implementation. otherwise, the game would be much board game-like.

I firmly believe that this idea about leaders speaking their own language is completely ridiculous and terribly wrong. I hate it with passion.

Because it will made modding new civilizations in so much harder, if modders would like to have consistency and to reach level of vanilla civilizations.

Oh, and hands off from Stalin. Russian here, who probably knows way more about him than that antisoviet propaganda most of you heard tells about him and that time. We don't try to erase his memory from history, that is just not true.

Don't want to expand on this subject, because it is totally offtopic and bound to erupt into flame-fest with terribly unbalanced numbers on sides, thus I just stated my point and that's all.

I firmly believe that this idea about leaders speaking their own language is completely ridiculous and terribly wrong. I hate it with passion.

Because it will made modding new civilizations in so much harder, if modders would like to have consistency and to reach level of vanilla civilizations.

Oh, and hands off from Stalin. Russian here, who probably knows way more about him than that antisoviet propaganda most of you heard tells about him and that time. We don't try to erase his memory from history, that is just not true.

Don't want to expand on this subject, because it is totally offtopic and bound to erupt into flame-fest with terribly unbalanced numbers on sides, thus I just stated my point and that's all.

You do realize that many players never use any mods, right? Never should the developers feel limited in their creativity because of modders. Actually, I would have prefered if they went even farther and had real actors perform the different leaders instead of animations.

You do realize that many players never use any mods, right? Never should the developers feel limited in their creativity because of modders. Actually, I would have prefered if they went even farther and had real actors perform the different leaders instead of animations.
These players basically hurt themselves. Not that it is wrong thing to do, but still.

It has been said that Civilization 5 will provide unprecedented modding capabilities. Necessity to craft animated and voice-overed leader to gain consistence with vanilla civilizations contradicts this statement.

Even ignoring modding issue: this feature is not “creativity”. This is redundant eye- and ear-candy. I hope it is possible to turn it off in game options.

Civilization was and, hopefully, will continue to be bastion of “substance” in deep sea of meaningless “style”. If I wanted to look upon animated leaders, I'd watched South Park, there are lots of them in there. Or, well, something. Like news. With live actors. Awesome.

But if I launched Civilization game, that means that I like to play it. Possibly without meaningless interruptions.

These players basically hurt themselves. Not that it is wrong thing to do, but still.

It has been said that Civilization 5 will provide unprecedented modding capabilities. Necessity to craft animated and voice-overed leader to gain consistence with vanilla civilizations contradicts this statement.

Even ignoring modding issue: this feature is not “creativity”. This is redundant eye- and ear-candy. I hope it is possible to turn it off in game options.

Civilization was and, hopefully, will continue to be bastion of “substance” in deep sea of meaningless “style”. If I wanted to look upon animated leaders, I'd watched South Park, there are lots of them in there. Or, well, something. Like news. With live actors. Awesome.

But if I launched Civilization game, that means that I like to play it. Possibly without meaningless interruptions.

It is called atmosphere and immersion. I realize that is is entirely subjective, but I sure prefer a Civ 5 game that looks and sounds like a modern game instead of a Civ 5 game that looks and sounds like Civ 1, but to each their own...

Atmosphere and immersion are critical factors when it comes to the success of the product with the wider market beyond the fans here and on other similar sites. Reviewers pay a lot of attention to the eye and ear candy when rating games, a great game with excellent balance will get marked down if its graphics and sound disappoint.

Without likely success in that wider market the game will not get made. I can put up with a lot of fluff (animated leaders, throne rooms, fancy 3d graphics, wonder movies, etc etc) if their existence guarantees I get to play yet another iteration of the Civ franchise. I might even enjoy some of them when no one is looking! :mischief:

Oh, and hands off from Stalin. Russian here, who probably knows way more about him than that antisoviet propaganda most of you heard tells about him and that time. We don't try to erase his memory from history, that is just not true.So the long tradition of free speech in Russia gives you more insight into the subject than people of the west whos information is government-controlled and often subject to nationalistic frenzy? :hmm:

Anyway, as a Russian, wouldn't you rather have Peter I or Ivan IV?

I firmly believe that this idea about leaders speaking their own language is completely ridiculous and terribly wrong. I hate it with passion.

Because it will made modding new civilizations in so much harder, if modders would like to have consistency and to reach level of vanilla civilizations.


It just means that modders will have such an easier time (comparatively) adding all the English speaking 'civs' to the game....like New Zealand :p

I'm also quite indifferent to the whole 'speaking their own language' thing. It just seems a lot of work for something that I always found meaningles. In Diplomacy I'm always more interested in what people are saying and not how.

But to each their own, that's just my opinion.

Yeah... not too enthused about single-leader civilizations. One of the best advances in IV over previous installments was the idea that you could have different playstyles for each civilization, different parts of history, different figures. But now it seems they're going back to the idea of "you play as the nation, not as the leaders." Disappointing.

Cool to see Haroun al-Rashid and Oba Nobunaga, though. Both interesting figures and new faces, at that.

I agree. If you wanted to play ancien regime France, you could play Louis XIV. If you wanted to play revolutionary France, you could be Napoleon. If you wanted to play golden age England, you could be Elizabeth I. If you wanted to play ra-ra! British Empire, you could be Victoria (or Churchill...). Etc etc I suppose that you can still pretend and just change the leader's name when you choose the civ, but it was also nice to encounter states of different historical times as well.

I firmly believe that this idea about leaders speaking their own language is completely ridiculous and terribly wrong. I hate it with passion.

Because it will made modding new civilizations in so much harder, if modders would like to have consistency and to reach level of vanilla civilizations.

Sorry, but that sounds so much like the argument that television has to be dumbed down to the lowest common denominator audience. I refuse to accept that a modable game should not have polish above that of which modders are likely to be able to emulate with their own skills. It is after all just candy for the senses as you later point out. There would be a real issue if modding was not possible to meet an equal level of game play.

I'm also quite indifferent to the whole 'speaking their own language' thing. It just seems a lot of work for something that I always found meaningles. In Diplomacy I'm always more interested in what people are saying and not how.

But to each their own, that's just my opinion.

Computer games are a visual and auditive medium just like movies. We strive for the best possible visual and sound experience when watching a movie, so why not in games?

Computer games are a visual and auditive medium just like movies. We strive for the best possible visual and sound experience when watching a movie, so why not in games?

I'm not saying that its not great, it's just not very high on my list of priorities. There are other things I enjoy a lot more, some even have to do with graphics, for example zooming in real close and watching my Empire.

And perhaps the high-quality diplomacy changes make me fear that I'll have to buy a new laptop to enjoy Civ V everywhere I want. :)

So the long tradition of free speech in Russia gives you more insight into the subject than people of the west whos information is government-controlled and often subject to nationalistic frenzy? :hmm:
Exactly. You've probably tried to sound sceptic, but, ironically, that's just about right.

Anyway, as a Russian, wouldn't you rather have Peter I or Ivan IV?
Ivan III (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ivan_III_of_Russia), then Peter I, then Ivan IV. Last one is very controversial and myth-ridden.
Update: whoops, sorry, misread your question — thought you just wanted to ask my opinion on who is better between these two, not excluding Stalin. Correcting myself: no, I'd rather not. Stalin all the way. No one is more worthy. No one is better at presenting both heroic and tragic history of my home country. Joseph Stalin is way, way better choice than yet another monarch no one except us Russians know/care about.

I think, though, that he should not be identified as "Stalin of the Russians", but "Stalin of the USSR".
Redundant complication. USSR was direct evolution of Russian civilization. Just as United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland is direct evolution of English civilization (I already hear wailing of angry scots, welshmen and irishmen, Mel Gibson style, irrelevant now though). No one suggests that Winston Leonard Spencer-Churchill should be identified as “Churchill of British”.

Oh, and speaking about butchering tyrants — just ask any Indian, what do they think about Churchill and his actions in India.

I agree. If you wanted to play ancien regime France, you could play Louis XIV. If you wanted to play revolutionary France, you could be Napoleon. If you wanted to play golden age England, you could be Elizabeth I. If you wanted to play ra-ra! British Empire, you could be Victoria (or Churchill...). Etc etc I suppose that you can still pretend and just change the leader's name when you choose the civ, but it was also nice to encounter states of different historical times as well.
I really don't understand how u came to this conclusion. guys (including me) opposing 1leader/civ is not opposing just because of the name. so replacing the name is just not enough. I liked to have different strategies with each civ. Like I said before, we will not be able to discuss whether

* darius or cyrus benefits more from immortals
* boudica/brennus for gallic
etc etc.

The names are not that much important for me. The persian leader could just be Xerxes of Darius or Cyrus. But having 2 is fine. The problem for me is to have less leaders, less strategies. So less leaders to play and less taste, less replayability.
In BTS we had a combo of (11:2)-3=52 leaders. It seems we start with 18 now.

If they will add more multi-leaders in EPs, it is ok for me. But I really doubt this. If they don't make leaders and civilizations as different parameters in the source code of vanilla, it will be harder to add later. Or at least the coders will just get indolent to add leader parameter later on. That is my issue. I am a programmer, that's why I know. I am not a phyton programmer but doesn't matter the language. I would be glad if i had free time to work on it.

Redundant complication. USSR was direct evolution of Russian civilization. Just as United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland is direct evolution of English civilization (I already hear wailing of angry scots, welshmen and irishmen, Mel Gibson style, irrelevant now though). No one suggests that Winston Leonard Spencer-Churchill should be identified as “Churchill of British”.

about Stalin; he was a soviet leader though he had georgian origin. and thus he was a russian leader. why? if u know about his life you would understand this to be true.

when lenin, stalin, sverdlov and many fellows began political life, there was Russia. So they were Russian. As a nationality, Stalin was a Russian citizen of Georgian minority. So their organization had many parts/offices in different regions but a united illegal political party organized all the activities. And their aim was to found a union of republics rather than seperating Russia into many states. If Stalin was a political activist who tries to grant independence to Georgia and if he succeeded this, then he wouldn't be called a Russian leader already.

Stalin worked in the central committee of this organization and so from the beginning till the end he was an activist who was trying to make a revolution in Russia. The republic is founded as a union of states. But we know that Russians are the dominant part of it. And Stalin was a Russian leader with the origin of a non-dominant partner of the union.

Is this clear? So there is no reason not to accept him as a Russian leader. He just worked on politics of Russia.



Similarly Che Guevera can be considered as a Cuba leader. He was not of Cuba in origin but he moved there and joined the rebels. Played an important part on the revolution. So what he did is more important than his origin.



I also accept UK to be a direct evolution of English. I don't think scots would oppose this. Why they asked for independence is already a proof of this. They wouldn't riot if they didn't feel the empire was dominantly english.
This is roughly similar to Russia-USSR. Not the same but similar. English was the dominant nation of British Empire. Then scots and Eire departed.

This is just like Turks and Ottoman Empire case. Ottoman Empire was dominantly Turkish though it had many minorities.

about Stalin; he was a soviet leader though he had georgian origin. and thus he was a russian leader. why? if u know about his life you would understand this to be true.
Stalin identified himself as “Russian of Georgian origin”. Russia is and always was multiethnic country without any signs of nationalistic tendencies shown by its' titular nation, Russians. USSR was built on advancement of Russian principles, with equality of nations, fifteen official languages and all that.

Cases of “leader of one national origin governs completely different country” are very common through all world history. Just think about intertwining bloodlines of European monarchs, including Russian Catherine II of German origin. Peruvian ex-president Alberto Fujimori (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alberto_Fujimori) may serve as another modern example.

Stalin identified himself as “Russian of Georgian origin”. Russia is and always was multiethnic country without any signs of nationalistic tendencies shown by its' titular nation, Russians. USSR was built on advancement of Russian principles, with equality of nations, fifteen official languages and all that.

Cases of “leader of one national origin governs completely different country” are very common through all world history. Just think about intertwining bloodlines of European monarchs, including Russian Catherine II of German origin. Peruvian ex-president Alberto Fujimori (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alberto_Fujimori) may serve as another modern example.

i see we agree on this matter then?

now back to topic, is there anybody who hasn't noticed this thread
which includes some articles.
http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=355785

one thing that worries me is the combat. I've never played Panzer General, but it seems to me wargames have their own small niche of gamers. And it worries me they are taking inspiration from that. Us hardcore guys of course want more strategic combat. but I also want the game to sell well. If the average gamer doesn't like it the game could bomb. I see a lot of civ like games free on the internet, and I know competition is fierce. I just don't want to see the Civ TBS franchise die. Or the genre itself to die to free internet games.

personally I'm ok with single unit combat (assuming they implement it well), I just hope casual gamers aren't put off by it.

P.S. anyone else disappointed elvis isn't in it? :)

Correct me if I'm wrong here. Its been so long since I played Vanilla cIV but didn't the original version only have 1 leader per civilization and we got more in the expansions?

No, we had Asoka/Gandhi, Kublai/Genghis, Napoleon/Louis, as far as I remember. I know there's more, I'm just not entirely confident if I'm right.

There was also Washington/Roosevelt, Elizabeth/Victoria, and Peter/Catherine.

oops. mistake.

[...] English was the dominant nation of British Empire. Then scots and Eire departed.

This is just like Turks and Ottoman Empire case. Ottoman Empire was dominantly Turkish though it had many minorities.
Just to clarify, Scotland is still part of the United Kingdom. They haven't departed. Furthermore, the Act of Union of 1707 was a parliamentary act, passed democratically, creating the UK without war or violence.

Just to clarify, Scotland is still part of the United Kingdom. They haven't departed. Furthermore, the Act of Union of 1707 was a parliamentary act, passed democratically, creating the UK without war or violence.

Keeping it that way without war or violence was the trick though. ;)

*cough* Jacobites *cough*

Just to clarify, Scotland is still part of the United Kingdom. They haven't departed. Furthermore, the Act of Union of 1707 was a parliamentary act, passed democratically, creating the UK without war or violence.
this is a form.
yes. there are categories of seperation. being autonomious, being a member of a federal union, being a vassal of an empire etc. in each of these, you are still a part of the larger union.

but at least scotland is a seperate state with its own parliament and president.
if u say scotland is a part of UK still, this is just a form. And according to that form, the queen is still accepted as the monarch of not only UK but also many other countries.

Yes, but during most international meeting Scotland is represented as part of the UK. Just like on maps and so on. All German Federal States have an own Parliament and President but they are still part of the Federal Republic of Germany, just like Scotland is part of the UK.

Yes, but during most international meeting Scotland is represented as part of the UK. Just like on maps and so on. All German Federal States have an own Parliament and President but they are still part of the Federal Republic of Germany, just like Scotland is part of the UK.

what the international community thinks is more important than their form; formally.

most of the world see scotland as a state itself, rather being a part of UK formally, which means UK isn't practically "recognized" by most countries. england and scotland are their contacts instead of UK.
queen has a superior political power and that is sth different. Her power is not only on UK members but also other commonwealth members.

OTOH, noone in the world sees Bavaria as a seperate state and noone sees California as a seperate state, noone sees any Indian state as a seperate state.

So scotland, california and bavaria are in the same situation as "form" but practically they are considered and recognized much differently. That'S why I said it is a form.

Uhh.. the people of Scotland are still represented in the UK Parliament the same as any other Brits, and still subject to UK law. Sure, they have their own Scottish Parliament, but that's really more like state/local government.

As you say, no-one thinks that California isn't part of the US just because it has its own state legislature, state senate and governor.

Unlike say Somaliland or southern Sudan, which aren't effectively governed by the central/national government (ok, thats generous for Somalia). There you would have a case, that they are part of the parent only in "form".

And Scotland is not like say pre-independence (Dominion status) Canada or New Zealand, which were "British" but were governed entirely on their own (and had no representation in the UK Parliament).

But its hard to think of examples of real sub-national separation, so the empire/nation-state model of civ (and now in ciV with a few independent city states) seems like a fairly realistic model.

Most people don't see Scotland as state, in contrary they see Scotland a part of the UK. It's important whether the international community sees Scotland as something special or not. And the UK is very important in the UN the UK has a representation and not England or Scotland, in the European Union the UK is member not England and Scotland. There isn't a Scotish Army as well, there are the British Armed Forces. But really what are we arguing, it's all up to the person whether it sees Scotland and England as independents or as the larger UK. ;)

Wait,
If Washington is the unique leader for America, then who's that Jefferson in the screenshots?

Nevermind, I guess it is Washington.

if u lived outside USA, you would see that nobody praises him.

Actually, he's increasingly regarded with fear and/or derision (http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/obama_administration/obama_approval_index_history) in America as well.

But never mind that; I want to ask what the article has to say about other matters besides leaders and war. What about city management? For example, will we be able to ship food?

I think Scotland would be fine if city-states are small civs, rather than just cities. Most of the audience don't perceive Scotland as part of England (or even the UK). Most Americans are surprised to hear Scotland is not independent.

No-one I think has mentioned Carthage for a city-state. It's a good candidate. There's no way Carthage is important enough to be a normal civ in the game so long as we're talking 18-40 civs. But I guess it may well get in the game because of its history in the franchise.

Actually, he's increasingly regarded with fear and/or derision (http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/obama_administration/obama_approval_index_history) in America as well.

But never mind that; I want to ask what the article has to say about other matters besides leaders and war. What about city management? For example, will we be able to ship food?

It didn't say anything about that! The way they are going, I am beginning to not have any hopes for much. Apparently, they aren't making a sequel to Civ... they are making one for Panzer General!

I think Scotland would be fine if city-states are small civs, rather than just cities. Most of the audience don't perceive Scotland as part of England (or even the UK). Most Americans are surprised to hear Scotland is not independent.


I wouldn't assume that. You might be surprised to hear that people all over the globe flock to American universities because they are among the best and most financially available in the world. You'd be more likely to find Americans that don't even know what Scotland is, as opposed to ones thinking that it is independent.

It didn't say anything about that! The way they are going, I am beginning to not have any hopes for much. Apparently, they aren't making a sequel to Civ... they are making one for Panzer General!Quit being narrow minded, crying wolf about the sky is falling chicken little. Wait till you get your hands on the game. You are welcome to have an opinion, but you are doing the exact same kneejerk reaction that happened when Civ IV was in production. The Civ 3 fans did the exact same thing you are now pretty much. Yet Civ IV was and is a great game. So instead of being pessimistic about it, why not have a bit of faith in them? They have proved 4 times so far that they know what they are doing. Thats a pretty good track record so far. Infallible? Not at all. Skilled, intelligent, and trying to evolve the Civilization series? Yes.

Quit being narrow minded, crying wolf about the sky is falling chicken little. Wait till you get your hands on the game. You are welcome to have an opinion, but you are doing the exact same kneejerk reaction that happened when Civ IV was in production. The Civ 3 fans did the exact same thing you are now pretty much. Yet Civ IV was and is a great game. So instead of being pessimistic about it, why not have a bit of faith in them? They have proved 4 times so far that they know what they are doing. Thats a pretty good track record so far. Infallible? Not at all. Skilled, intelligent, and trying to evolve the Civilization series? Yes.

Until I see solid proof of this game working the way they are saying, I just can't see it going over well! With all of the talk about being inspired by Panzer General and 19th century combat and diplomacy, that, to me, says that they are taking away from the very essence of Civilization... that of the spanning of time! With the removal of Religion and espionage, as well as the the reduction back to 1 leader per civ, they are taking a step backwards, not evolving the franchise further. And the narrower focus, as I mentioned, is making it seem like they want to focus it on ONE era! This is all very dissappointing!

Yes, not a whole lot of information has been released, and what has been released leaves us with more questions then before. But they really need to release some very good information in order to win me back. So far, the only thing that I like is the hexes and the graphics (though they still need some tweaking) and I am interested in the City-State feature. Beyond that, I am far from impressed. Bring me back my Civilization!

I wouldn't assume that. You might be surprised to hear that people all over the globe flock to American universities because they are among the best and most financially available in the world. You'd be more likely to find Americans that don't even know what Scotland is, as opposed to ones thinking that it is independent.

I'm not assuming. I'm a Scot who went to undergrad at a US college. It's my experience. ;)

Well you are one of millions, I for one welcome the new changes. Multiple leaders for each civ didn't bring anything very special to the table. It woulda been far more interesting to have included more civilizations. Stacks of doom was a horrible system, and while one unit per hex may be imperfect it sounds vastly better then SoDs. Religion was a gimmick at best in 4. No information I have seen said espionage was gone. Regardless it should be a good game. And if its not perfect that okay, cause I still have Elemental coming this year too. :)

Drago, the IGN article confirms the removal of both religion & espionage for a focus on diplomacy-yet I don't see how diplomacy can work well if it completely ignores the important roles of religion, ideology & espionage in international relations. Take a look at the religion related polls, & you will see *hundreds* of people who feel the same way. Now I'm not saying that Civ4 religion was perfect-far from it-but we don't abandon something as groundbreaking as religion just because the first time it was attempted it came out a little gimmicky. Instead, you should try & focus on how to make religion a strategy just as important as war, culture, economics & technology-with all the pros & cons.
As for 1-unit-per-hex, I'm also glad to see the end of SoD's, but I'm still not convinced that such a severe, hard cap is the way to go. Why not 1-unit per type-per hex? Or a soft cap which imposes severe penalties for having more than 3 or 4 units in a single hex?

Aussie.

As for 1-unit-per-hex, I'm also glad to see the end of SoD's, but I'm still not convinced that such a severe, hard cap is the way to go. Why not 1-unit per type-per hex? Or a soft cap which imposes severe penalties for having more than 3 or 4 units in a single hex?

Aussie.

Because that would get in the way of it being a tactical level hex wargame. I'm starting to become a little confused as to whether I will see Civ 5 or Civ Reboot.

That is not necessarily bad, but it would certainly reduce my interest ( a first for the Civ franchise dating back to the original.)

Ah well, I'll have Elemental and SOTS 2.

SoD's sucked. Glad to see the back of them and greater tactics in unit placement and movement.

It is too bad they have chosen to take espionage out, this is news to me. I am really looking forward to the improved diplomacy and the focus on the 19th century (although I can completely understand why others are not). However, it seems like removing espionage (and religion) will, potentially, remove major elements of diplomacy.

Soren Johnson is quoted in the article stating that the "current system is not very compelling-big stacks of units smashing into cities." I have previously speculated that cities would hold a garrison, but there was no mention as to how city defense will work. They go on to state that the new system is designed to bring comat "out of the cities". To me, that is a big part of Civ.


Soren is back on the Civ team? I thought he was off Sporing it up over at EA...

What's the reference in the first post to '19th Century', is that a Civ like game? I'm turning crazy things up with google over that term :)

I came into this during Civ III. I was hooked, and have loved Civ IV and every expansion since. I've even gone into modding, somewhat.

I'm giving them the benefit of the doubt until there's been a proper vetting of a finished product. In August I'll be reading previews, looking at screenshots, and looking for some developer diaries before I get too worried. They've earned that by putting out such a lasting appeal game.

As far as the new hex combat, it could be incredible. Or it could stink. I think that it's right to make the game something other than just siege to siege to siege combat. For instance, now defending your coast might be practical, the enemy can't unload more than one unit on a tile per turn so they'll be incentive to have ships near your coast.

Soren is back on the Civ team? I thought he was off Sporing it up over at EA...

What's the reference in the first post to '19th Century', is that a Civ like game? I'm turning crazy things up with google over that term :)

19th century as in that period of earths history...