Computer Bild Spiele is a German computer gaming magazine (which gave the first massive informations about Civ 4). Now this magazine gave some informations about Civ 5 (but not as massive as some years ago for Civ 4).

I don´t know what of the following is known yet, but I tell you some of these informations here:

1. Tech trading is abolished.
2. Alliances give special boni (per example the possibility for a quicker research of a technology)
3. Cut-out of religions as known in Civ 4 confirmed
4. Cities can grow bigger than in former versions of the civ series as they there are 3 tiles for a city in every direction to be worked on.
5. New leader Wu Zeitan ( approximately for China)
6. New "Civilisation tree": This tree has a lot of astles, called "Social Policies". These astles contain certain paths, one of them is the path of "Tradition". Each of these astles gives a civ a certain advantage (per example special units). A civ can follow one of these paths strictly and make a deep progress in that tree on that path, but the civ can also follow parallel several different paths but doesn´t make such a deep progress in each of these paths.
7. New battle system one unit per tile confirmed:

a) New troops must leave a city at once, as there is only one unit per tile
b) Distance fighters (archers, artillery and so on) can shoot over the front units, lakes and other tiles
c) One philosophy is to form front lines for battles far away from the cities.

8. City States confirmed.

Some of this info has been quasi-confirmed. Unfortunately I'm still left wanting more info like:
-what type of religion will be present?
-what do they mean by city states?

I'm still interested to see how they plan on implementing the 1 unit per tile idea, but still keep the game enjoyable.

Indeed. "Cut-out of religions as known in Civ 4 confirmed" could imply that there are no religions at all, or that they're just much different than they were previously. Maybe the latter is just wishful thinking on my part, but I simply cannot believe the developers would abandon one of the best features of Civ 4.

Danke für die Infos!

I'm going to take a lot of convincing when it comes to no religion. The Civ Tree sounds nice and complex, which is a relief.

Stoping tech trading is good, it is always the first thing I turn off anyway. It just ends up with everybody on the same level anyway.

1. worst idea ever.
2. sounds good.
3. don't like this one, either.
4. good stuff.
5. i just googled and she looks like a good addition.
6. okay
7. not a big fan.
8. i haven't looked at any of the city-state threads yet, but okay.

Looks good. Thanks for the information. I especially like the no tech trading. Perhaps game will unfold more realistically. There will certainly be a greater willingness for the AI to ally to gain tech bonuses. Should make things very interesting. :)

What? No tech trading? That better be a ****ing mistake because that's a joke. Hex tiles are a huge change but could be very good, 1 unit per tile is a drastic change that will frighten many but it could be nice, but no tech trading turns Civ on its head :(

It doesn't follow any kind of logic either...

What? No tech trading? That better be a ****ing mistake because that's a joke. Hex tiles are a huge change but could be very good, 1 unit per tile is a drastic change that will frighten many but it could be nice, but no tech trading turns Civ on its head :(

It doesn't follow any kind of logic either...

CiV has been in development for 2 years now. I am very confident that they know what they are doing. No tech trading will be excellent. It should slow the pace of progress a bit and hopefully units and buildings won't become obsolete so quickly. Also, it will force you to tech very differently than usual and will create some difficult choices. In my opinion it'll be great.

What? No tech trading? That better be a ****ing mistake because that's a joke. Hex tiles are a huge change but could be very good, 1 unit per tile is a drastic change that will frighten many but it could be nice, but no tech trading turns Civ on its head :(

It doesn't follow any kind of logic either...

I suppose that is why they invented the research deals. Instead of trading directly for tech, civs now have to cooperate to discover a paryicular tech. A good change, I believe.

Except for the religions being 'cut-out', everything else seems good, especially kicking Mao out of the game at last. Although like Gaius Octavius I really really really hope they still keep religions in, even if in a modified (or even really downplayed) version... Just as they don't get way down to the temple+cathedral system in Civ3.

CiV has been in development for 2 years now. I am very confident that they know what they are doing. No tech trading will be excellent. It should slow the pace of progress a bit and hopefully units and buildings won't become obsolete so quickly. Also, it will force you to tech very differently than usual and will create some difficult choices. In my opinion it'll be great.

i strongly disagree. i know there's supposed to be a different tech system, but i don't see how getting rid of trading techs will be even remotely close to mediocre. i like trading techs, not just because it's realistic, but because it's just fun to get stuff by trading for it.

Actually I like no tech trading. Tech-whoring was always kinda lame, and unrealistic. The difficulty in learning a something new is not in some secret formula, but in figuring out how to actually adopt and use some new practice or way of thinking. It makes no sense for leaders to suddenly go "ok, I'll teach you liberalism if you teach me aesthetics". "I demand that in tribute you instantly teach me... democracy!"

I hope some kind of diffusion mechanic (lower costs for non-first to learn) is in though.

i like trading techs, not just because it's realistic, but because it's just fun to get stuff by trading for it.

Which is exactly what I hate about it :).

We need a game play demo here, guys. Screenshots are nice, but this is the 21st century.

i strongly disagree. i know there's supposed to be a different tech system, but i don't see how getting rid of trading techs will be even remotely close to mediocre. i like trading techs, not just because it's realistic, but because it's just fun to get stuff by trading for it.

My first thought is that with the potentially different tech system, it may not be as realistic or make as much sense to exchange techs anymore. Additionally, it will create much more depth to the game by not being able to trade techs (or for that matter have the AIs all trading techs behind your back).

You will no longer be able to beeline to a specific tech and then backfill with trades to catch up in other areas. It sounds like you will now have to be much more careful in how you research to maintain your competitiveness. It also opens up new avenues for cooperation with other civs.

All of this is good in my book. I didn’t really think about the tech system/trading being super broken before reading this thread, but it just kinda clicks now. The old way was just that – old and stale.

I agree that tech-trading as represented in the game is not that realistic, but it is fun, and it gives you something else to discuss in diplomacy. I just hope that the new diplomatic options compensate for the fun that is lost by not having tech-trading. I'm fairly optimistic, though. Joint research sounds interesting. I hope it's actually something like "let's jointly research optics" and then each civ gets to research the tech at 50% or 75%, not like the research treaties in GalCiv2, which just gave flat bonuses to all research and could only be negotiated one time.

4,6,and 7 are the only ones I care about. The rest won't have an affect on MP. Matter of fact, tech trading is always turned off in MP games as it is. Lol, chalk 1 up for another victory over the SP lugs!

I'm liking these changes and the direction CivV is taking. It's very different to CivIV, and it feels to me that V is going to be a greater jump from IV than IV was from III - that could just be me though. I can't wait to try out these radical gameplay changes. Have to say I'm a little apprehensive about losing religions, but we'll have to wait for further updates to see what's really happening there.

As a fan of the Civ franchise since it practically started, I'm sure that the developers know what they are doing and will make this into an awesome sequel. Have faith people!

Sounds great, we can't make progress just treading on old ground, every new version of Civ should be something new.

No tech trading will work, if bonuses are granted if your neighbors know the tech.

I'm worried about the one unit-per-tile feature... So now we have to defend cities with just one unit?

To the OP: Can you post the article url? Would be nice to check it out...

1. Tech trading abolished.

Great. Tech trading was always one of the most abused aspects of the game. Not being able to rely on dealing for techs makes the decision of how to tech through the tree very, very different and much, much more interesting. People will cry because it takes away a huge crutch, but it's a great change for the gameplay experience.

4. Cities can grow bigger than in former versions of the civ series as they there are 3 tiles for a city in every direction to be worked on.

Another good change. With a reach of 3 hexes in any direction plus the increased importance of tactical terrain/unit movement (because of 1 unit per hex), city placement gets much more interesting.

6. New "Civilisation tree": A civ can follow one of these paths strictly and make a deep progress in that tree on that path, but the civ can also follow parallel several different paths but doesn't make such a deep progress in each of these paths.

This is the most exciting news, for me. Sounds awesome. Having more ways to customize your Civ and access unique strategic/playstyle opportunities is always good. I wonder if this supplements, replaces or is unrelated to the Social Policies/Civics/Government.

Great. Tech trading was always one of the most abused aspects of the game. Not being able to rely on dealing for techs makes the decision of how to tech through the tree very, very different and much, much more interesting. People will cry because it takes away a huge crutch, but it's a great change for the gameplay experience.



Another good change. With a reach of 3 hexes in any direction plus the increased importance of tactical terrain/unit movement (because of 1 unit per hex), city placement gets much more interesting.



This is the most exciting news, for me. Sounds awesome. Having more ways to customize your Civ and access unique strategic/playstyle opportunities is always good.

Exactly. There is a great deal of whining and gnashing of teeth over change because people will have to adapt their strategies. This is a good thing. I want a new game instead of Civ 4.5

People just want to do what they've always done. Don't fear change.

-what do they mean by city states?


"These are small, AI-controlled civilizations. They never grow big and doesn´t desire to win." Think minor civs in RoM that don't war.

So it sounds like city-states could be rather peaceful entities, or at least some of them. If we are allowed to ally with city-states to increase our research output (there have been rumors of both increased research with allies and city-states playing a role in diplomacy), that would be really exciting. Imagine in the early or mid game, uniting an array of peaceful city states in the undeveloped country side as a loose federation. If they last long enough without being attacked (and dragging you into a war with the attacking empire or something), one-by-one they start defecting and joining your empire. Very cool.

You may be able to attack the city states that are allied with your rivals, without actually starting a war with the major empire. They might get pissed off, and maybe even attack, but they might just let you get away with it too.

Great. Tech trading was always one of the most abused aspects of the game. Not being able to rely on dealing for techs makes the decision of how to tech through the tree very, very different and much, much more interesting. People will cry because it takes away a huge crutch, but it's a great change for the gameplay experience.

Exactly. There is a great deal of whining and gnashing of teeth over change because people will have to adapt their strategies. This is a good thing. I want a new game instead of Civ 4.5

I wonder how the higher difficulties will play out, because if they keep the research bonuses, how could you possibly keep up?

Tech trading isn't a crutch. It can be vital on the highest difficulties.

I wonder how the higher difficulties will play out, because if they keep the research bonuses, how could you possibly keep up? Tech trading isn't a crutch. It can be vital on the highest difficulties.

Hopefully it means the game will rely less on opponents receiving huge bonuses to production/research/etc and more on actual AI decision-making. The research cooperation should compensate for this, too - it will force civs to actually work together and form strategic partnerships rather than just going around dealing techs all over the place. As others have noted, tech trading is often turned off in multiplayer for a reason.

The new changes to technodiplomacy interest me at the very least. A system of joint research projects seems much more natural and realistic than a simple "I learned fusion. Hey Monty, teach me what that laser thingie is you're using and I'll hook you up with 5 hours of private tutoring from Einstein" instant tech-learning. I usually disabled tech-trading because it simply represents a catchup gimmick, OR the human with a tech lead manipulating the other civs.

This new strategy seems to involve more complicated diplomacy than Civ 4 in that you must stay friendly if you want your cooperative research to be remunerative. Sign me up for this.

I'm worried about the one unit-per-tile feature... So now we have to defend cities with just one unit?

To the OP: Can you post the article url? Would be nice to check it out...

That's exactly what they're trying to achieve. Since you can only have one unit in your city you CAN'T rely on that one unit to defend your city. The only option you have is to go out of your city and find some good defensive position between your enemy and your city and defend from there.

I really like this change! I mean how many battles were actually fough inside a city? The majority took place on some battlefield. The article specifically mentions that the idea behind this is to make cities themselves more vulnerable. You have to rely on your army in the field to keep your cities safe.

And there's no link yet as it's only in the print version.

That's exactly what they're trying to achieve. Since you can only have one unit in your city you CAN'T rely on that one unit to defend your city. The only option you have is to go out of your city and find some good defensive position between your enemy and your city and defend from there.

I really like this change! I mean how many battles were actually fough inside a city? The majority took place on some battlefield. The article specifically mentions that the idea behind this is to make cities themselves more vulnerable. You have to rely on your army in the field to keep your cities safe.


I guess and even hope that this also shall allow blitz conquests, once you now defeat the enemy his battle front can you now quickly conquer his whole nation. Rather then slugging it out over cities with gigantic stacks in it, in a war you known you have already won.

I like this change because I always thought that civ4 was too static. History is full of massive and big changes in territory in what would in civ terms be no more then a few turns. Things like the raise of the roman empire, The fast creation of the massive mongol empire, napoleon his quick raise and collaps and especially WWII where quite impossible to happen in a normal civ game in the time scale they did happen.

I think I might not like Civ 5 after all.

I guess and even hope that this also shall allow blitz conquests, once you now defeat the enemy his battle front can you now quickly conquer his whole nation. Rather then slugging it out over cities with gigantic stacks in it, in a war you known you have already won.

I like this change because I always thought that civ4 was too static. History is full of massive and big changes in territory in what would in civ terms be no more then a few turns. Things like the raise of the roman empire, The fast creation of the massive mongol empire, napoleon his quick raise and collaps and especially WWII where quite impossible to happen in a normal civ game in the time scale they did happen.

But then you have no mechanism to reverse those changes as also happened quite often in history. So I would be careful in demanding the ability to conquer a lot of land quickly.

Since you can only have one unit in your city you CAN'T rely on that one unit to defend your city. The only option you have is to go out of your city and find some good defensive position between your enemy and your city and defend from there. I really like this change! I mean how many battles were actually fough inside a city?
Sorry, I have a totally different opinion. The heavy fortification of cities was a key element in many ancient and medieval wars, and this often lead to days, weeks or even months of siege. All these historic scenarios now will be impossible in Civ5, from the historic battles of Troj, Jerusalem, Constantinople to hundreds of other historic scenarios.

Further: What will be the use of building city walls in Civ5 that only can hold one defensive unit? What will be the use of building Castles that can hold only one archer unit but no knights or vice versa? Sorry, but from a historical background this new one city - one unit concept smells like nonsense, as the dumping of Religions to "improve diplomacy" smells like nonsense. I know Civ was never meant to be a history simulator, but IMHO so far it provided the best taste of history of all computer games. Now the say Civ5 will orientate on 19th Century, but then they should not call this Civ. Lets name it "Panzer War" or something like that, but do not try to sell me this as a Civ. A Civ that does not care about real history anymore IMHO would not deserve that title. I am so sorry that I have to write this.

We can always mod the game.

We can always mod the game.

Amen.

I really like this change! I mean how many battles were actually fough inside a city? The majority took place on some battlefield. The article specifically mentions that the idea behind this is to make cities themselves more vulnerable. You have to rely on your army in the field to keep your cities safe.

As a Panzer General veteran, I can say that this new system definitely has its perks, especially in the later eras since now we'll get proper fronts, artillery that has a proper support role and zero stacks of doom. The only drawback is that the system may not work so well in the earlier eras. The map will have to be a lot bigger than in earlier games, or we'll either have archers that fire their bows as far as howitzers or artillery that reaches overseas.

Sorry, I have a totally different opinion. The heavy fortification of cities was a key element in many ancient and medieval wars, and this often lead to days, weeks or even months of siege. All these historic scenarios now will be impossible in Civ5, from the historic battles of Troj, Jerusalem, Constantinople to hundreds of other historic scenarios.

Further: What will be the use of building city walls in Civ5 that only can hold one defensive unit? What will be the use of building Castles that can hold only one archer unit but no knights or vice versa? Sorry, but from a historical background this new one city - one unit concept smells like nonsense, as the dumping of Religions to "improve diplomacy" smells like nonsense. I know Civ was never meant to be a history simulator, but IMHO so far it provided the best taste of history of all computer games. Now the say Civ5 will orientate on 19th Century, but then they should not call this Civ. Lets name it "Panzer War" or something like that, but do not try to sell me this as a Civ. A Civ that does not care about real history anymore IMHO would not deserve that title. I am so sorry that I have to write this.

No need to apologize for your opinion. I can see where you're coming from, but for me Civ games aren't so much a simulation of history. Of course there is a strong historical element but it should always come second to interesting gameplay choices.

It's hard to find a combat system that works equally well in ancient and modern wars, so I'm fine with a system that offers enjoyment, even if it can be unhistorical.

I thought about the siege/castle thing too, but if we're honest you were never able to truly besiege an enemy town in any Civ game, since Armies don't need food or supplies. And sieges lasting for decades also doesn't strike me as being historical.

So there have always been these huge asymmetries between the game and history and there always will be in future incarnations.

1. Tech trading is abolished.
2. Alliances give special boni (per example the possibility for a quicker research of a technology)
3. Cut-out of religions as known in Civ 4 confirmed
4. Cities can grow bigger than in former versions of the civ series as they there are 3 tiles for a city in every direction to be worked on.
5. New leader Wu Zeitan ( approximately for China)
6. New "Civilisation tree": This tree has a lot of astles, called "Social Policies". These astles contain certain paths, one of them is the path of "Tradition". Each of these astles gives a civ a certain advantage (per example special units). A civ can follow one of these paths strictly and make a deep progress in that tree on that path, but the civ can also follow parallel several different paths but doesn´t make such a deep progress in each of these paths.
7. New battle system one unit per tile confirmed:

a) New troops must leave a city at once, as there is only one unit per tile
b) Distance fighters (archers, artillery and so on) can shoot over the front units, lakes and other tiles
c) One philosophy is to form front lines for battles far away from the cities.

8. City States confirmed.


1. I agree. Finally. Some bonuses OK, but trading?? It NEVER happened (for some realist fans)
2. Great
3. Well - we'll see about that yet. Religions are ok.
4. This is OK - but let us see it in practice. To few cities on the map may be bad consequence.
5. I couldn't care less.
6. Great. A little refresment on concepts.
7. G R E A T !!!!!
If they make Panzer General style warfare - it will be - FABULOUS!!
Then we'll have it all! IMHO - PG warfare style (slightly modified) is IDEAL for a CIV game.

8. sympa

Sorry, I have a totally different opinion. The heavy fortification of cities was a key element in many ancient and medieval wars, and this often lead to days, weeks or even months of siege. All these historic scenarios now will be impossible in Civ5, from the historic battles of Troj, Jerusalem, Constantinople to hundreds of other historic scenarios.

Further: What will be the use of building city walls in Civ5 that only can hold one defensive unit? What will be the use of building Castles that can hold only one archer unit but no knights or vice versa? Sorry, but from a historical background this new one city - one unit concept smells like nonsense, as the dumping of Religions to "improve diplomacy" smells like nonsense. I know Civ was never meant to be a history simulator, but IMHO so far it provided the best taste of history of all computer games. Now the say Civ5 will orientate on 19th Century, but then they should not call this Civ. Lets name it "Panzer War" or something like that, but do not try to sell me this as a Civ. A Civ that does not care about real history anymore IMHO would not deserve that title. I am so sorry that I have to write this.

We don't know anything about the actual siege mechanics (except range bombardement), so why should we already rant about possible historical imprecision?
Why shouldn't walls and a castle give that much of a bonus to city defense that one unit suffices to defend even against a "large" army?

Who knows, maybe they changed the way city defense works in a sense noone would have expected. All of it depends on the context and we have only acquired a few (in my opinion very intriguing) infos about the upcoming "war system".

I, for one, am exceedingly exited! :)

Why shouldn't walls and a castle give that much of a bonus to city defense that one unit suffices to defend even against a "large" army?
Because in an ancient and medieval context it would be utter nonsense to defend a fortified city from inside with only one single unit, no matter if this unit is an archer unit (wide range attack) or sword unit (melee range) attack. The concept of fortifying cities and building Castles at that times based around defending a limited number of valuable fighters of all classes against the often almost unlimited numbers of attacking hordes. If this is not possible anymore in Civ5 then it is probably just is not good enough for ancient and medieval scenarios anymore. The only working expansion of the "One Tile- One Unit" I could think of would be if fortified cities actually could get larger than one tile. However, so far we did not see this yet.

Because in a historic context it would be utter nonsense to defend a fortified city with only one single unit, no matter if this unit is an archer unit (wide range attack) or sword unit (melee range) attack. The ancient and medieval concept of fortifying cities and building Castles bases around defending a limited number of valuable fighters of all classes against the often almost unlimited numbers of attacking hordes. If this is not possible anymore in Civ5 then it is probably just is not good enough for ancient and medieval scenarios anymore. The only working expansion of the "One Tile- One Unit" I could think of would be if fortified cities actually could get larger than one tile. However, so far we did not see this yet.

Well, in a historic context it would also be utter nonense to be able to defend a very small city with an army a few times the size of the cities population (which would be resembled by an exceedingly large stack of units). To me the new arrangement seems a bit more "historically correct" then the old one.

Once again: we don't know anything about the actual siege mechanics (as well as city defense) involved. Why not wait a little longer before predicting civ's downfall?

It could be that the walls/castles/ other defense-boni not only count for the one City-tile but for the all the controlled tiles of said city. Then you still have your various defenders against a big Army.

OTOH alot of the famous open-field battles of old were fought to keep the enemy away from the cities as that usual spelled doom for all. The turtling up in cities and waiting till the enemy is on open land to collateral him to death as it is common CIV-tactic is historically not accurate. The Greek defeated the Persians not thanks to city-walls and turtling up but with victorious land and sea battles.

alot of the famous open-field battles of old were fought to keep the enemy away from the cities.

I have nothing agains open-field-battles. But I am against a game mechanism forcing the defender into the open, invalidating city walls, castles etc. and showing the invader every unit that is waiting on a plate, so that there is hardly need for espionage anymore. Is this still Civilization or do we now get "Panzer General Battle Chess" under the Civilization brand?

Because in an ancient and medieval context it would be utter nonsense to defend a fortified city from inside with only one single unit, no matter if this unit is an archer unit (wide range attack) or sword unit (melee range) attack. The concept of fortifying cities and building Castles at that times based around defending a limited number of valuable fighters of all classes against the often almost unlimited numbers of attacking hordes. If this is not possible anymore in Civ5 then it is probably just is not good enough for ancient and medieval scenarios anymore. The only working expansion of the "One Tile- One Unit" I could think of would be if fortified cities actually could get larger than one tile. However, so far we did not see this yet.

Maybe they will have a city defense unit that encompasses more than just one unit type (like warrior or archer).

I think it is a little premature to bash this new system when we don’t have all the details.

I have nothing agains open-field-battles. But I am against a game mechanism forcing the defender into the open, invalidating city walls, castles etc. and showing the invader every unit that is waiting on a plate, so that there is hardly need for espionage anymore. Is this still Civilization or do we now get "Panzer General Battle Chess" under the Civilization brand?

You are neglecting that you still have to manage your Empire to have your Units a thing you didn't need to do for PG ;). So we might get the fighting closer to Battle chess, more on a tactical lvl than massive stacks but how it plays out is still to be seen. Additional if we can get rid of this absolute overpowered and in some things downright idiotic spy-system we have now thats a bonus.

I have nothing agains open-field-battles. But I am against a game mechanism forcing the defender into the open, invalidating city walls, castles etc. and showing the invader every unit that is waiting on a plate

It has already been mentioned somewhere, that cities and forts itself will also get the ability to bombard units.
I guess, there'll maybe also be city buildings, which will improve this ability, so that a city itself could shoot more than one time at the attackers.

-> I think, it will be an interesting system.

Who knows, perhaps Castles, Barracks etc. enhance the number of allowed units in cities. The only thing we know is that the CBS wrote that you have to have an empty city if you are going to build units in it. We know nothing about the game mechanics of one unit per hex in context with cities.

It has already been mentioned somewhere, that cities and forts itself will also get the ability to bombard units.
I guess, there'll maybe also be city buildings, which will improve this ability, so that a city itself could shoot more than one time at the attackers.

Kind of like turrets in Spore, I guess? That's what I was thinking, at least.

My concern with 1 unit per hex is that, unless units can move an unlimited distance within your contiguous territory or something like in Slay, shuffling your units around near bottlenecks and front lines will turn into one of those annoying get-the-block-out puzzles every turn

I've just been watching some gameplay videos of Civ: Revolution and I think that, since it is said that the design of Civ V was influenced by that game, perhaps that something has gotten lost in translation with the whole 1UPT thing. You see, in Civ: Rev, there is no 1UPT limit, but instead there seems to be a 1 unit type per tile limit, with unit type being one of three categories; rock-paper-scissors, basically. (Can't remember what they actual types are, though I recall seeing them mentioned somewhere.) When you combine same-type units in one tile, they become an army of that type. So, you can throw a couple of archer units together and they become an archer army, but you cannot then add cavalry to that army. (At least, that's what I've understood from just reading and watching the videos a bit; haven't actually played the game.)

So, perhaps Civ V is gonna have something like that?

That could make moving/storing of units easier.

Right now we can only speculate, so let's hope Firaxis releases some hard facts soon!

In Civ Rev there is No Unit limit/tile. You can have as many Units from as many types as you want. So what ever else this 1Unit/tile is not from Civ-Rev.

Hmm some good news here, but also some seriously dodgy looking changes.

1)Well, removing tech trading will remove some of the cheesier options, but there are going to have to be a LOT more possible deals to make with AI civs if this is going to work. Civ 4 without tech trading reduces diplomacy to little more than hitting "no" every time the AI demands something for hundreds of turns at a time. Not just can't you trade tech, you also have nothing considered valuable enough to trade for any of the remaining options - e.g. triggering third party wars, so those get nixed as well.

2)Has some possibilities on fixing 1), but needs a lot more options than just a research bonus for allies.

3)Phrasing implies "religion" will be implemented as some unrelated system. Further simplification of diplomacy?

4)I like this one. Personally I prefer working on a small number of good cities than a sprawl of generic ones.

5)Couldn't care less.

6)This sounds promising - is this a component of the tech tree or completely separate? Sounds like the latter. "Astle" I'm assuming is a mistranslation of "aisle"/"path" or something similar.

7)I'm still very dubious about this one unit per tile thing - it has an awful lot of potential problems. Mainly it's the tedious micromanagement component. Unless units are vastly lower in number than previous games it's going to produce all kinds of pointless time wasting simply with finding tiles to store units. How do units move relative to each other? Shuffling units like a blocks puzzle would be mind rottingly dull and irritating. If I've got an occupied city surrounded by six units and build a unit, what happens? Is there any similar system to stack move? Are transports down to one unit each or what?

Return of artillery could be good, but please both provide a way of destroying opposing artillery, and teach the AI to use it, or we'll be back to the exploits of Civ 3.

8)Somehow I've a feeling city states is going to translate to "easy target", but could make things a bit more interesting.

I've a feeling Civ 5 is going to hinge on this change. Unless units are rare (e.g. a few per city) and individual units are much more sophisticated than in previous civs, it isn't looking promising.

I post the following text in all topics about the recent Civ V previews, sorry if it counts as spam

But if there's only one unit per hexagonal tile, there'll be a almost completely new combat system as you'll not be able to defend your city and therefore you must take out the enemy before it gets to the city?
And the text mentions that there's one unit per tile including cities, does this mean that there's a maximum of one unit per city or does it mean that you can't have any unit defending/sleeping in a city at all?
That's my two questions hope you can answer them

Not liking the removal of tech trading at all.

In Civ Rev there is No Unit limit/tile. You can have as many Units from as many types as you want. So what ever else this 1Unit/tile is not from Civ-Rev.

I read it in a Civ:Rev review. Must've misunderstood it then.

The review did say, though, that you could combine several archer units into one big archer army and that said army can get promotions and such. Sounds like a good addition to the 1UPT rule, to be able to combine same-type units into one larger unit. Of course, you should then also be able to separate them again later.

The review did say, though, that you could combine several archer units into one big archer army and that said army can get promotions and such. Sounds like a good addition to the 1UPT rule, to be able to combine same-type units into one larger unit. Of course, you should then also be able to separate them again later.

The system didn't work at all in Rev however. It just forced you to use nothing but armies since lone units were nothing but cannon fodder to them.

I'm worried about the one unit-per-tile feature... So now we have to defend cities with just one unit?
No, you defend cities with armies that keep enemy armies away from your city.

These armies can contain multitudes.

No, you defend cities with armies that keep enemy armies away from your city.

These armies can contain multitudes.

What's multitudes? But will you have at least one unit in your citys tile? Or will the city be undefended (if it weren't for the units outside the city)

What's multitudes? But will you have at least one unit in your citys tile? Or will the city be undefended (if it weren't for the units outside the city)
I read something about cities defending themselves somehow.

Multitudes is ... well, the easy English word that means much the same is "many".

Aha, but what do you mean by multitude armies if it's One Unit Per Tile?

Units will form lines, probably with depth, and backup defenders in case someone manages to bust through.

Enemies will try to break through your lines in order to attack your cities, or flank your armies and attack your archers.

My first thought is that with the potentially different tech system, it may not be as realistic or make as much sense to exchange techs anymore. Additionally, it will create much more depth to the game by not being able to trade techs (or for that matter have the AIs all trading techs behind your back).

You will no longer be able to beeline to a specific tech and then backfill with trades to catch up in other areas. It sounds like you will now have to be much more careful in how you research to maintain your competitiveness. It also opens up new avenues for cooperation with other civs.

All of this is good in my book. I didn’t really think about the tech system/trading being super broken before reading this thread, but it just kinda clicks now. The old way was just that – old and stale.

I completely agree. Tech trading is stupid, and boring. Joint research ventures with other civs are an excellent idea.

My first thought is that with the potentially different tech system, it may not be as realistic or make as much sense to exchange techs anymore. Additionally, it will create much more depth to the game by not being able to trade techs (or for that matter have the AIs all trading techs behind your back).

You will no longer be able to beeline to a specific tech and then backfill with trades to catch up in other areas. It sounds like you will now have to be much more careful in how you research to maintain your competitiveness. It also opens up new avenues for cooperation with other civs.

All of this is good in my book. I didn’t really think about the tech system/trading being super broken before reading this thread, but it just kinda clicks now. The old way was just that – old and stale.

I also agree, with tech trading out of the game i becomes much more realistic and like Öjevind Lång said Tech trading is stupid, and boring. Joint research ventures with other civs are an excellent idea. Indeed it's an excellent idea

For those not familiar with Panzer General. This is what the new CIV 5 combat system will look like. I know it sounds confusing to have one unit per city, but it makes for a much more tactical warfare.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ar9aeo1pNT4

One unit per tile can work one of 2 ways

1. Hard, Low cap on number of units (ie only 1 Military units allowed per each Barracks in your empire+3 for your capital, +1 for every modern 'Military instalation', etc.)

2. Units can combine and be of any "size" (Attacking a unit does not 'Damage it' Attacking 'Shrinks it')


Also units need to have a move of 2 at least and be able to move Through each other (if they are friendly)


Otherwise you have the "Puzzle problem" of large numbers of units clogging each other up and making for very complicated moves.


I personally favor #2, but I think they might be going with #1



Note: IMO, Civ warfare is already Too tactical, it needs to be less so.

One unit per tile can work one of 2 ways

1. Hard, Low cap on number of units (ie only 1 Military units allowed per each Barracks in your empire+3 for your capital, +1 for every modern 'Military instalation', etc.)

2. Units can combine and be of any "size" (Attacking a unit does not 'Damage it' Attacking 'Shrinks it')


Also units need to have a move of 2 at least and be able to move Through each other (if they are friendly)


Otherwise you have the "Puzzle problem" of large numbers of units clogging each other up and making for very complicated moves.


I personally favor #2, but I think they might be going with #1



Note: IMO, Civ warfare is already Too tactical, it needs to be less so.

Or they could make it so that you can have one unit per tile, with nothing else influencing it.

No tech trading? Then perhaps providence of weapons or cultural influences? The French Revolution was ignited after the American Revolution due to poor political climate and cultural influence (and one marquis de Lafayette).

The middle east is totally equipped with AK 47s and not muskets (perhaps a few riflemen, I don't know well enough).

Was the stirrup so much of a new discovery to the western cavalry- they didn't learned it from earlier civilizations like the mongols?

What about the United states trading arms with Japan, and how did Japan catch up so fast (industrially speaking) anyway? Not to recall The Last Samurai which is only a nice romance, but the Japanese did pay considerable amounts of money to be taught technology.

Religions and mythologies should remain a strong part of Civ, I'd think. I'm a secular guy though, and try to remain unbaised. Perhaps it's a political correction. I vote deeper religion (In establishing civilization culture and stability and whatnot). If my civ discovers polythiesm after another civ, there should be another polythiestic religion in the world, unless the first religion became imported. Maybe that is too much. I like too much. We'll have to see how the tech tree works anyway.

I agree with the majority on the 1 unit per tile issue.

Computer Bild Spiele is a German computer gaming magazine (which gave the first massive informations about Civ 4). Now this magazine gave some informations about Civ 5 (but not as massive as some years ago for Civ 4).

I don´t know what of the following is known yet, but I tell you some of these informations here:

1. Tech trading is abolished.
2. Alliances give special boni (per example the possibility for a quicker research of a technology)
3. Cut-out of religions as known in Civ 4 confirmed
4. Cities can grow bigger than in former versions of the civ series as they there are 3 tiles for a city in every direction to be worked on.
5. New leader Wu Zeitan ( approximately for China)
6. New "Civilisation tree": This tree has a lot of astles, called "Social Policies". These astles contain certain paths, one of them is the path of "Tradition". Each of these astles gives a civ a certain advantage (per example special units). A civ can follow one of these paths strictly and make a deep progress in that tree on that path, but the civ can also follow parallel several different paths but doesn´t make such a deep progress in each of these paths.
7. New battle system one unit per tile confirmed:

a) New troops must leave a city at once, as there is only one unit per tile
b) Distance fighters (archers, artillery and so on) can shoot over the front units, lakes and other tiles
c) One philosophy is to form front lines for battles far away from the cities.

8. City States confirmed.

hello friends.
most new gameplay changes seems to be for simplifying the game. (religion and espionage seems to be OUT. 1leader per civ.) well, i'm generally not satisfied with the game up till now.

still, i shall make my comments to these

1) :goodjob: because it wasn't reasonable. it also means a nerf to AI. i wonder how they will manage to make AI smarter in high levels, then.
2) very good
3) i am in wait-and-see mode for this one. let'S see how they will improve other dynamics. if they replace sth for it, it may be ok for me.
4) :mad: means less cities with higher rates. simplifies the game
5) they cannot fool me with names. new leader name, so what?
6) seems like good but i hope unique bonuses for civs aren't limited with only this one
7) seems bad
8) good

wanting to keep tech trading isn't fear of change or losing a crutch, but i'm not going to bother explaining why because that's already been covered in this thread. also, though there are elements of it in the game that aren't realistic, you can say that about pretty much anything in there.

The preclusion of tech trading limits one's strategic options, and renders the game far less interesting. There is less incentive to dissolve collaborative partnerships, as there is no way to catch other players "up to speed." Hence there will be less intrigue and backstabbing, and the correct strategy becomes simply to pick a research partner early and hope that you have picked the right partner. Without a mechanism for giving away technology, players become trapped into agreements that they might otherwise want to break.

Furthermore, precluding tech trading punishes the strategic choice of forgoing research in pursuit of other priorities (such as military production). Currently if I am granted a sufficient advantage in production (hammers), I have the option of emphasizing military production at the expense of technological research and leveraging that against my neighbors. I might extort technology from them, or I may offer my military services to them in exchange for technology. But to remove those options from me puts me at a disadvantage when I shouldn't be.

I play only epic multiplayer PBEMs, and both of these situations have occurred in my games. All the work being done to make Civ V prettier and its combat more engaging is pointless if the strategic game is less interesting. Reducing strategic options is a death knell for multiplayer Civ; tech trading is an integral part of the game, and removing it would be a big, big mistake.

Or they could make it so that you can have one unit per tile, with nothing else influencing it.

No they couldn't... If you have empires with 50-100 units then the micromanagment of them is going to be horrible if you cannot stack them (and you can't reasonably move as a 'block' because the terrain changes from one area to another.

If they have 1 upt, they need to have a very small number of units... (which is confirmed)

the only thing that concerns me is the lack of tech trading

Why? You can buy techs from your neighbor for 50 gold and 2 iron? It's like:
Ah! Can you sell us the knowledge of fusion so we can eliminate you with huge bombs?
Sure, but no less than a piece of iron!

Why? You can buy techs from your neighbor for 50 gold and 2 iron? It's like:
Ah! Can you sell us the knowledge of fusion so we can eliminate you with huge bombs?
Sure, but no less than a piece of iron!

:goodjob: I've disliked tech trading since the original game. At last they do away with that white elephant.

tech trading is a rather easier way of tech partnering. you could just trade techs like exchaning between dollars and euroes. i suppose they are just trying to make it more disciplined.

i liked the tech partnering that permanent alliances has. you decide a tech together and your additive beakers count for how many turns the tech learning will take.
but still that solution is not the best neither. that would help smaller countries much.

maybe they do sth like this, i expect this kind of a thing; when you pick a civ to tech partner, you get a 10-20% of that nations beakers added to your beakers (or whatever the news science learning way is) and your partner has 10-20% of your beakers similarly. still, it helps smaller allies more than the bigger ones but a rather more balanced partnering this is. this way, each player can make multi-partners as well.

We need a game play demo here, guys. Screenshots are nice, but this is the 21st century.

Exactly. I need to see how this plays before I pass any judgements on CiV. And remember, if you're worried that a feature that you love will be cut out, learn to code and start a mod team to put it back in.

..after a tech is first discovered its reseach cost should decrease for other civs ie -1% per 2 years

Personally in multiplayer I turn tech brokering off so only the one has researched the tech can trade it, or spys can steal it. Cutting units and cities will ofc take away the fun of stacks of doom, which in mutilplayer required a keen sense of logistics and tatical know how. Personally I loved modern navel war fair with carrier air support and making beach heads and the good old paratropper. I think Troops being able to make their own transports seems to make a mockery of oceans (being that it doesn't so much as offer a barrier to units, rather making them prone to attack) and also logistics. Plus isn't this now just a civ version of Panzer Genreal, as apposed to inspired by. Although all being said it might work well, not knowing the full facts and all.
The idea that u can trade hex tiles sounds good and also how the cites expands one hex at a time also sounds good too, perhaps because of this culture has a different effect in game hence the statement about the religions. I would hope they keep some sort of religion thou and also corperations. Although it would be cool to make some sort of hostile take over bid option (may be a silly option thou:P) Would also like to see global economy have a greater role ie banking being an entity in its self (perhaps City States could have a roll in this respect and perhaps do in a way)
Improvements to diplomacy and UN for example u could abolish the un and have alliances which have their own votes and names. Another thing i found daft is that of nuclear non proliferation not letting states make nukes, Personaly i would have it so that states would agree to down grade to set number and if a state refused then they would be kicked out of the alliance or UN and sanctioned by the rest if they so chosse to stay. A bit of point there i suppose:P

..after a tech is first discovered its reseach cost should decrease for other civs ie -1% per 2 years

In Civ IV, actually, research does cost less for subsequent civs after the first civ that researches it, and decreases in cost for each civ that knows the tech.

So it can be reasonably expected to be in Civ V.

Personally in multiplayer I turn tech brokering off so only the one has researched the tech can trade it, or spys can steal it. Cutting units and cities will ofc take away the fun of stacks of doom, which in mutilplayer required a keen sense of logistics and tatical know how. Personally I loved modern navel war fair with carrier air support and making beach heads and the good old paratropper. I think Troops being able to make their own transports seems to make a mockery of oceans (being that it doesn't so much as offer a barrier to units, rather making them prone to attack) and also logistics. Plus isn't this now just a civ version of Panzer Genreal, as apposed to inspired by. Although all being said it might work well, not knowing the full facts and all.
The idea that u can trade hex tiles sounds good and also how the cites expands one hex at a time also sounds good too, perhaps because of this culture has a different effect in game hence the statement about the religions. I would hope they keep some sort of religion thou and also corperations. Although it would be cool to make some sort of hostile take over bid option (may be a silly option thou:P) Would also like to see global economy have a greater role ie banking being an entity in its self (perhaps City States could have a roll in this respect and perhaps do in a way)
Improvements to diplomacy and UN for example u could abolish the un and have alliances which have their own votes and names. Another thing i found daft is that of nuclear non proliferation not letting states make nukes, Personaly i would have it so that states would agree to down grade to set number and if a state refused then they would be kicked out of the alliance or UN and sanctioned by the rest if they so chosse to stay. A bit of point there i suppose:P
try not to pick any unusual selections in civ4, i would suggest. playing default rules teach more. i believe, even a pick of AGG AI might make the game easier for some cases.
yet, your other comments are nice, similar to my view.

I like the idea that tech trading won't be a factor in Civ V. I usually played custom games of Civ IV with tech trading turned off, and it led to very interesting rounds. I played as a warmongering conqueror and the rest of the world was usually at peace because the other civs had to commit their whole economy to research just to try and catch up to me :-D Although that does make me suspect the AI in Civ IV wasn't very efficient at coping without tech trading.

Yes, the AI cheats horribly at tech trading, granting far more credit to each other than it would to you.

As such, shutting off teach trading makes the game easier. Bump yourself up a difficulty level or 3 when you do it for the same difficulty experience.

Yes, the AI cheats horribly at tech trading, granting far more credit to each other than it would to you.

As such, shutting off teach trading makes the game easier. Bump yourself up a difficulty level or 3 when you do it for the same difficulty experience.
You haven't worked much at mastering the tech trading game, have you? In my opinion, turning off tech trading in Civ4 makes the game much harder. Generally, when playing on harder difficulty levels, the player gets behind in tech, but after having met all the other civs and got Alphabet, it is a question of researching techs none else have, and trading that around, soon catching up with everyone else.

So in my view, removing tech trading from Civ5 makes sense because the tech trading in earlier civ editions gives the human player an unfair advantage.

You haven't worked much at mastering the tech trading game, have you? In my opinion, turning off tech trading in Civ4 makes the game much harder. Generally, when playing on harder difficulty levels, the player gets behind in tech, but after having met all the other civs and got Alphabet, it is a question of researching techs none else have, and trading that around, soon catching up with everyone else.

So in my view, removing tech trading from Civ5 makes sense because the tech trading in earlier civ editions gives the human player an unfair advantage.

Absolutly agree with TNO.

try not to pick any unusual selections in civ4, i would suggest. playing default rules teach more. i believe, even a pick of AGG AI might make the game easier for some cases.
yet, your other comments are nice, similar to my view.

Yah played normal settings the most, no tech brokering was a new idea and is mainly aimed at other players rather than the AI, however i could can see that to a degree this could make it easier i guess (agasint the AI atleast). However recently my friend has been learning to mod so we have been testing that out:)

-what do they mean by city states?

They sound very similar to "minor races" in galciv, from what I've read.

Basically a one-city civ that behaves a lot like an AI with the exception (in galciv at least) that they don't expand via settling or conquest. You can do diplo with them, trade with them, war with them, etc. You might protect them if an AI attacks if you have good relations/trade/whatever (and AIs might do the same vs you) or you might mow them down for an easily acquired extra juicy city as a warmonger.

You haven't worked much at mastering the tech trading game, have you? In my opinion, turning off tech trading in Civ4 makes the game much harder. Generally, when playing on harder difficulty levels, the player gets behind in tech, but after having met all the other civs and got Alphabet, it is a question of researching techs none else have, and trading that around, soon catching up with everyone else.

So in my view, removing tech trading from Civ5 makes sense because the tech trading in earlier civ editions gives the human player an unfair advantage.
Sure, except if you are way ahead of every other player in civ4 (which the person I was quoting was in the state of), with tech trading turned off the AIs who fall behind end up staying behind.

In general, tech trading being on helps the underdog in a given phase of the game. If you are dominating the AI in a phase of the game, it helps the AI: if the AI is dominating you (as it typical in a hard-difficulty setting in the ancient eras), it can help you.

@theniceone, the below is completely true.
Sure, except if you are way ahead of every other player in civ4 (which the person I was quoting was in the state of), with tech trading turned off the AIs who fall behind end up staying behind.

In general, tech trading being on helps the underdog in a given phase of the game. If you are dominating the AI in a phase of the game, it helps the AI: if the AI is dominating you (as it typical in a hard-difficulty setting in the ancient eras), it can help you.
tech trade is a balancing factor more than a simplifying or hardening one.
if u prefer favoring military and don't care about falling behind in tech (unless u fall very very behind in military techs), then it will be a factor which makes the game easy for you. and it is a factor which helps u during mid game on high levels especially deity.
after mid game, u already will pass them in tech (if u're on the right way) and you won't prefer to trade most of the techs. u won't give anyone space techs or industrialism if u want to make a rush. so tech trade will start helping AIs more. AIs will trade tech between eachother still, even if u don't do it with them.

but AI tends to tech trade in no-fair conditions. this is also another issue. they want a 13-15k tech plus maybe money in return for a 10k tech.

anyway, i still believe tech trading and brokering shouldn't be turned off. playing default is more correct. but we have to do this; pick unusual techs in mid game and trade it for as many AIs as we can in the same turn. don't forget, even getting a 5k tech in return for a 15k tech will help you because afetr you press enter to end turn, anyway that guy may take your 15k tech from another AI that you have given the 15k tech. so just try to get everyting u can in the same turn. techs like compass, music, divine right etc. are the ones that AIs don't pick usually. just get the "postponed" techs with these and then head to gunpwder and rush'em all with janissaries :)

As far as removal of religion, tech trading, etc. -- guess we'll have to go the mod route.. It would have been nice if the official version simply featured "check buttons" however in the options but I'll trust Firaxis..they have been good so far.

As far as removal of religion, tech trading, etc. -- guess we'll have to go the mod route.. It would have been nice if the official version simply featured "check buttons" however in the options but I'll trust Firaxis..they have been good so far.

Yes they have:) One good thing about no tech trading is it will mean a more even tech progression and more time in each era, maybe:P

Yes they have:) One good thing about no tech trading is it will mean a more even tech progression and more time in each era, maybe:P pleasepleasepleaseplease. . . ?

pleasepleasepleaseplease. . . ?
don't be so much optimistic :)
they say, religion was unbalanced and could turn into overpowered, still i don't agree this is true for all settings and difficulties.
the real reason should be getting rid of some of coding and/or getting rid of some personal/politics complaints. even if it will be in the game, i am sure they won't do it for free. in an EP maybe.

i also don'T think it will be possible to put in religion into the game by modding. modders also did sth similar to SMAC but w/o unit workshop, governments,terrafıorming etc. so it had no similarity to smac at all.

even if a modder can succeed including religion and/or similar features into the game, it would be idiocy to let everyone download it for free :) and as firaxis won't let another developer to earn money by an improvement/expansion on its game, it would not happen neither.

i also don't know if all the source codes are open to read/write. maybe some of them are hidden/locked. i also know well about programming but unfortunately not python. i have no time to learn it as well.

It is strange, but these negative changes remind me of what happened in civ3. They abolished events, a move entirely irrational. As if someone wanted every game in the series to have an advantage over the next one. Very bad reasoning in my view..

The elimination of religion is a good thing. I didn't like the idea of including religion.

The abolition of tech trading doesn't sit well with me. It just seems like it should be an integral part of the game.

One unit per tile: WTF?

A civilization without religion is like a tree without roots.

This is perhaps my favorite feature in Civ4 when going for a cultural win.

Of course, having another civ annoyed at you because you didn't subscribe to their religion was annoying, but more true to life. I really like what the mod community has done with religion here and even the ideology concept in Final Frontier.

A civilization without religion is like a tree without roots.

Civ3, civ2, civ1.

I always played with Tech Trading but was well aware of how massively it distorts the game. For one thing it makes the overall game pace so much faster as the whole world tends to move up the tech tree at at-least twice their own internal tech rate. The more players in the game the faster everyone progressed.

One solution which I've though might be workable is to trade a 'tech assistance' token between players which establishes a teacher/student relationship. You have to have completed the tech to be a teacher and it's effect is to cut the cost of the tech in half for the student but the student must still do research. This assistance could be tech specific and is a kind of asymmetric treaty between two Players, it can not itself be traded to a third party and automatically expires once the junior member acquires the tech in question, either side can terminate the agreement at any time as well. If espionage is allowed then a spy can 'steal' assistance covertly and their might be some way to allow assistance to occur spontaneously if their is a lot of trade between two Players.

Sorry, I have a totally different opinion. The heavy fortification of cities was a key element in many ancient and medieval wars, and this often lead to days, weeks or even months of siege. All these historic scenarios now will be impossible in Civ5, from the historic battles of Troj, Jerusalem, Constantinople to hundreds of other historic scenarios.

Further: What will be the use of building city walls in Civ5 that only can hold one defensive unit? What will be the use of building Castles that can hold only one archer unit but no knights or vice versa? Sorry, but from a historical background this new one city - one unit concept smells like nonsense, as the dumping of Religions to "improve diplomacy" smells like nonsense. I know Civ was never meant to be a history simulator, but IMHO so far it provided the best taste of history of all computer games. Now the say Civ5 will orientate on 19th Century, but then they should not call this Civ. Lets name it "Panzer War" or something like that, but do not try to sell me this as a Civ. A Civ that does not care about real history anymore IMHO would not deserve that title. I am so sorry that I have to write this.

Well, apparently the developers are changing the system so cities have hitpoints. I'm sure siege will be necessary. However, now you have to get out of your city and fight it out on the battlefield. I think its a great change. Also, who says walls and castles will be done the same way? Maybe walls will increase city HPs. Maybe castles will work like forts outside cities. Who knows? Don't assume.

However, despite my personal optimism, I do think that there is a possibility it won't work out. Therefore, you should accept that despite your pessimism there's a chance it will work out. I'd trust the developers, they haven't made a bad game of civ yet (Well, Rev was mediocre at best, but I'm not sure you can count it as a Civ.

7. New battle system one unit per tile confirmed:

a) New troops must leave a city at once, as there is only one unit per tile
b) Distance fighters (archers, artillery and so on) can shoot over the front units, lakes and other tiles
c) One philosophy is to form front lines for battles far away from the cities.

8. City States confirmed.



I love the idea of the new combat system with range mechanics and no unit stacking. Should make for some excellent battles with real players and realistic looking armies moving across the maps etc. Assuming the AI knows how to use it's units it will also be good against AI. I also like how they are moving to Hexagons and a more natural looking realistic world. Aside from that I really haven't read too much into the game but it's definantly on my radar.

Thanks for the info. Looking forward to all the new concepts they´ve implemented in CiV. I am especially interested in how the whole city states thing works.
The fact that only one unit is allowed on each hex, makes for some very different approaches to warfare, which is good :)

Great. Tech trading was always one of the most abused aspects of the game. Not being able to rely on dealing for techs makes the decision of how to tech through the tree very, very different and much, much more interesting. People will cry because it takes away a huge crutch, but it's a great change for the gameplay experience.

Just because someone likes a prior version's features when you don't does not make it a "crutch" or an "exploit" or anything else unfair. Personally I always turn off Technology Brokering, but leave on Trading. Is that a "crutch"? Because I like that feature? I would like to request (knowing that it won't happen) that everyone that thinks that something they don't like is a "bad" feature simply get over it and realize that others can like a feature just becuase they like it, not because it gives them a "great advantage" of some kind. IMHO Tech Trading always put me way behind the other Civs, so having it on was a handicap to me, not some "crutch", "exploit" or "cheat".

It's hard to find a combat system that works equally well in ancient and modern wars, so I'm fine with a system that offers enjoyment, even if it can be unhistorical.

I'm all for enjoyment, but I also realize (as you may as well) that one man's enjoyment is another man's disapointment.

The basic problem with a combat system that works well both in ancient and modern war is stacking. That is a great simplification, but lets go with it for now. In Ancient Times to win the war was to destroy the other guy's Army. One way to draw it out to fight was to move on his capitol or other major city. This resulted in exactally the stacks that many folks don't like, and with fighting orienting on cities (what other use was there for castles if not to defend nearby cities?) In the modern age armies are much larger and we have adopted the idea of Total War, war against an entire country and its peoples, not just against the enemy's Army. So we see the massive lines of troops across Europe and elsewhere in WWI, WWII, and Korea.

So here is my idea (cooked up in 30 seconds) on how to have a system that works for both. Have a stacking limit for a hex, lets say it is 10. Here is the clincher, units of different ages have different stacking values! Ancient units are 1 each, so you can stack 10, Iron Age are say 2, so you can stack 5, gunpowder 3, up to modern units which would be 10 so you can only put 1 in each hex. (Exact numbers not fixed for sure!) So at one stroke you have a system that allows the historical stacking and concentration of troops normal for its age, and the Main Line of Resistance of modern war. You could also work with stacking size to create special units. For example the stacking size of German Panzers or British Redcoats could be aranged so they could put 1 more of those special units in a hex than other nations, Pratorians could have a lower stacking to fit 1.5x as many, etc.

Problem solved! :king:

@RickInVA:

You, my good sir, deserve a cookie!!:goodjob: (the closest things I have to that are a :commerce: & a :food: )

EDIT: hat solution seems nice to me--now that I notice it, the strenghts of the units seem to more or less hint a reasonable stacking level. Say, you have axemen (5 str in Civ IV) & with a 40 units limit per tile you'd be able to group 8 of those. But then you have Infantry (IIRC, 20 str or something) so you'd be limited to 2 of them in the same tile.