View Full Version : GamePro Preview


dc82
Mar 03, 2010, 12:54 PM
GamePro (April 2010) has a great preview of Civ. A few things they mention:

Leaders/Civs
- (Germany) German leader: Otto von Bismark
- (China) China leader: Wu Zeitein/Zetein (two spellings in the article; SHOULD be Wu Zetian) (Mao and other previous Chinese leaders are out)
- (America) American leader: Washington (Lincoln and FDR are out)
- (Japan) Japanese leader: Oba Nobunaga (Tokugawa is out)
- (Arabia) Arabian leader: Harun al-Rashid (Xerxes and Saladin are out)
- Other confirmed leaders mentioned in the article (Genghis Khan, Washington, Caesar, Napolean, Gandhi)

Looks like one leader per civ a la Civilization Revolution?

City-states
- City-states: Can provide gifts of gold, bonuses; only one city but borders can grow. Confirmed is Singapore.

Terrain
- Hills provide defensive and line-of-site advantages
- Attacks over rivers are affected
- Wounded units can hide in trees and recover

Units
- Basic military units move two tiles in combat instead of one.

_random_
Mar 03, 2010, 01:42 PM
Units
- Basic military units move two tiles in combat instead of one.
This indicates that they might be going for a larger scale. Makes the whole "ranged attack" thing with archers a bit less absurd (not that it bugged me too much in the first place.)

Cashew
Mar 03, 2010, 02:04 PM
This indicates that they might be going for a larger scale. Makes the whole "ranged attack" thing with archers a bit less absurd (not that it bugged me too much in the first place.)

People are just dumb. Probably people will complain that it's unrealistic for an army to be able to move only as far as an arrow can shoot or some other crap.

Izanaki
Mar 03, 2010, 02:21 PM
I like that they're not going for modern leaders, especially the lack of Mao.

Although I must say Wu Zetian is an odd choice too. A very unremarkable leader, probably chosen just because she's a woman.

Mathalamus
Mar 03, 2010, 03:04 PM
why did they kick Mao out? hes a good modern leader.

why ddi they kick out Saladin, FDR, Lincoln, Tokugawa, Frederick, etc? in most cases these leaders are better than the ones that are confirmed.

Joecoolyo
Mar 03, 2010, 03:23 PM
Frederick, etc? in most cases these leaders are better than the ones that are confirmed.

He doesn't have kick-ass facial hair, unlike my friend Bismarck. :)

the Falcon
Mar 03, 2010, 03:25 PM
He doesn't have kick-ass facial hair, unlike my friend Bismarck. :)

Facial hair FTW! :cool:

Jawa'sRevenge
Mar 03, 2010, 03:48 PM
I like the non-modern leaders, although I do want multiple leaders...

Well, Wu Zetian is the only women to be Emperor/Empress of China, ever so that is impressive, she also started the Zhou (周) dynasty.

It still is an odd choice but it is not without grounds, and anyone is better than Mao.

cybrxkhan
Mar 03, 2010, 03:52 PM
I like the non-modern leaders, although I do want multiple leaders...

Well, Wu Zetian is the only women to be Emperor/Empress of China, ever so that is impressive, she also started the Zhou (周) dynasty.

It still is an odd choice but it is not without grounds, and anyone is better than Mao.


HEAR, HEAR! :beer:

But to make it look like we're not fanatical capitalistic anti-commies, I'll change that sentence a bit - any reasonably famous and/or important and/or influential/powerful Imperial leader is better than Mao.

(Also for those who may be a bit confused, the 'Zhou Dynasty' Wu Zeitian founded was NOT the 1000 years Zhou dynasty that ruled in the BC era; the one that Wu founded died with her, more or less)

phungus420
Mar 03, 2010, 04:35 PM
If they are dropping Mao, they will likely be dropping Stalin as well. That way there will be no disconnect between having those two monsters in, but for some reason not using Hitler. I still don't know who among those three is "worse".

mechaerik
Mar 03, 2010, 04:38 PM
He doesn't have kick-ass facial hair, unlike my friend Bismarck. :)

But from what i've seen, he doesn't have his pickelhaube. A pickelhaube would make him even cooler.

cybrxkhan
Mar 03, 2010, 04:39 PM
If they are dropping Mao, they will likely be dropping Stalin as well. That way there will be no disconnect between having those two monsters in, but for some reason not using Hitler. I still don't know who among those three is "worse".

If you measure in terms of people dead, ironically, Hitler is the "best". From what I know, estimates of those killed due to Stalin range about 20-25 million, and for Mao they range at least about the same (I've heard estimates as high as 100 million for Mao, but that's sort of ridiculous).

Again, the biggest difference between them is that Stalin and Mao still have mixed legacies, unlike Hitler, who is more or less in most people's minds like the devil incarnate.

Anyhow, if I remember correctly, they aren't dropping Stalin. He has been confirmed as a leader in another thread/article.

dc82
Mar 03, 2010, 04:41 PM
why did they kick Mao out? hes a good modern leader.

why ddi they kick out Saladin, FDR, Lincoln, Tokugawa, Frederick, etc? in most cases these leaders are better than the ones that are confirmed.

Check out the article if you have a chance, but apparently they've been replaced for a desire to heave leaders that focused more on diplomacy (vs war), a nod to Shafer's interest in 19th century diplomacy. Nobunaga was explained to be more of a diplomat that built up Japan. Wu Zetian promoted scholarship and the place of women in Chinese society. Same with Harun al-Rashid, who was less warlike and lead Arabia during a height in art and culture. They did want to keep some of the favorites though, including Napolean and Gandhi.

SmellyJelly
Mar 03, 2010, 04:43 PM
Please post a link to the preview...
Thanks!

Aussie_Lurker
Mar 03, 2010, 05:28 PM
Am I the only person who hopes that City-States will be identical to Minor Races from Star Trek: Birth of the Federation? That was such a cool element which I feel has been missing from Civ for too long!
I also note that there is no mention about religion in this article, which suggests the talk of its removal might be premature! At least I certainly hope thats the case!

Aussie

Mathalamus
Mar 03, 2010, 05:29 PM
Check out the article if you have a chance, but apparently they've been replaced for a desire to heave leaders that focused more on diplomacy (vs war), a nod to Shafer's interest in 19th century diplomacy. Nobunaga was explained to be more of a diplomat that built up Japan. Wu Zetian promoted scholarship and the place of women in Chinese society. Same with Harun al-Rashid, who was less warlike and lead Arabia during a height in art and culture. They did want to keep some of the favorites though, including Napolean and Gandhi.

peace isn't everything. i don't even think peace is a good qualifier for leaders, since it sounds so boring. you could end up having Chamberlain as the English leader.

Am I the only person who hopes that City-States will be identical to Minor Races from Star Trek: Birth of the Federation? That was such a cool element which I feel has been missing from Civ for too long!
I also note that there is no mention about religion in this article, which suggests the talk of its removal might be premature! At least I certainly hope thats the case!

birth of the federation? that's one of my favorite games. if it is like that, its too easily exploitable. ( bribe them 10 times then get them to join you) i hope its a bit more complicated.

removal religions is still bad. i often have fun utterly destroying a culture (razing cities) while representing Christianity.

cybrxkhan
Mar 03, 2010, 06:35 PM
peace isn't everything. i don't even think peace is a good qualifier for leaders, since it sounds so boring. you could end up having Chamberlain as the English leader.

Peace doesn't have to be 'boring'. To be honest, there is nothing like 'true', all-out total peace, and it's also very hard to get true, all-out total war either. Peace could mean cultural and economic development, so you have to be careful when you distinguish between when nothing happens at all and when a leader is helping their Empire prosper domestically. But even so, many of the more 'peaceful' leaders still had to deal with war and 'more interesting' stuff.

Aussie_Lurker
Mar 03, 2010, 06:38 PM
Well obviously, cybr, getting the City-States to ally with you should be almost as difficult as getting one of the major civs to ally with you. As much as I loved Birth of the Federation, the diplomacy engine was a bit on the weak side-for the reasons you mentioned ;)!

Aussie.

Thorburne
Mar 03, 2010, 06:45 PM
New troops must leave a city at once, as there is only one unit per tile

from CivFanatics Main page

I just don't get how this will work. How do you defend a city with one unit. Having all of your units on the map in there own tile will make the map tomorrow. Now when you create units, you will have to move them out to someplace on the map and clutter it up? What were they thinking with this decision? Is this really making it past testing?

cybrxkhan
Mar 03, 2010, 06:49 PM
Well obviously, cybr, getting the City-States to ally with you should be almost as difficult as getting one of the major civs to ally with you. As much as I loved Birth of the Federation, the diplomacy engine was a bit on the weak side-for the reasons you mentioned ;)!

Aussie.

Wait, I wasn't talking about Birth of the Federation... I don't even know what that is. :confused::confused::confused: ... :lol::lol::lol:

1morey
Mar 03, 2010, 06:50 PM
Hey people. Don't complain too much about what is or isn't going to be in the game. There is still room for expansion packs. :D

Aussie_Lurker
Mar 03, 2010, 06:51 PM
LOL. Sorry cybr, I thought that was your post I was responding to. That was meant to be directed at Mathalamus-my bad ;)!

Aussie.

Thorburne
Mar 03, 2010, 07:18 PM
Hey people. Don't complain too much about what is or isn't going to be in the game. There is still room for expansion packs. :D

Which is getting to be an excuse for developers and publishers... "don't like the core game, wait for the expansion...!"

Frantic men
Mar 03, 2010, 07:30 PM
I just don't get how this will work. How do you defend a city with one unit. Having all of your units on the map in there own tile will make the map tomorrow. Now when you create units, you will have to move them out to someplace on the map and clutter it up? What were they thinking with this decision? Is this really making it past testing?

They want you to think a LOT more on what units you use and what units you defend with.

Lets face it. You wont find 50 battalions of archers/warriors/riflemen/anything in a city (especially without it turning into a fort in itself):rolleyes:.

Anyways, I like the idea:D. It helps me concentrate on not massing 5000 unit armies all the time and actually building up and being diplomatic.:king:

Jewman
Mar 03, 2010, 07:39 PM
maybe there are going to be less units overall? a focus on training the armies you have and placing them strategically rather than massing and being head on.
Maybe production cost will be much higher for armies and whatnot?
i mean who nows, exactly how the game will work, we know very little about the economy and whatnot not to mention all sorts of other things

Thorburne
Mar 03, 2010, 07:47 PM
They want you to think a LOT more on what units you use and what units you defend with.

Lets face it. You wont find 50 battalions of archers/warriors/riflemen/anything in a city (especially without it turning into a fort in itself):rolleyes:.

Anyways, I like the idea:D. It helps me concentrate on not massing 5000 unit armies all the time and actually building up and being diplomatic.:king:

Regardless, they are going to have to show it soon.... I still don't see this working well and need to see proof that it does! Otherwise, I will have to either rely on mods, or just stick with Civ IV and pray that they return to form with Civ VI

Shiggs713
Mar 03, 2010, 07:56 PM
I don't get it. What stops you from tactical strategy in civ4? Yes in civ4, most the times battles are in the cities and such, but THE ONLY reason for that is a poorly implemented AI. Do you as a human sit your units in the city, wait till your defenses are 0% and then get catapulted to death, without even moving your units or anything... NO!

I'm sure all of us at some point have encountered an AI that arrives on your doorstep with some crazy doomstack. Genghis Khan comes to mind. There's been many times where Genghis plops up on my doorstep, declaring war. Usually I play my game in a way that I will usually be near the lead in technology, and have the best units, albeit, maybe not as many of them as the AI. When Genghis Khan shows up on my door with his 56 unit stack, I don't just sit there in the city and wait to get my defenses low. I will give up my cities that I can't reasonably defend. I will move my units to hills or forest or both if I can, and get the maximum kill ratio to my AI counterparts.

In a recent game as England, I was roleplaying, so I conquered south Africa. I had to attack Ethiopia to get it, and eventually they came coming back for it, with 10X the units I had. They were using oromo warriors and macemen, I was using Redcoats. I gave up my cities, try to block their routes to my cities, while taking defensive bonuses, making a defensive front, forcing them to attack across a river. Not even exaggerating at all, I had 6 redcoats, they probably had a combo of 40-50 oromo's and macemen. I killed at least half of em with the original 6, and once my hordes of redcoats from the homeland got there, it was just mop up duties, after a few more turns of sitting in the forest and watching them kill themselves, or them moving into the open plains, and me killing them then.

So the basic point of all this is to demonstrate that having a one unit per tile rule really doesn't solve anything. It just dilutes the fact that they never got the AI right in the first place.

Ahriman
Mar 03, 2010, 08:01 PM
If anything, 1UPT will highlight weak AI. Its easy to build an AI with stacks of doom; just stick everything in a stack and throw it at a city.

Its much harder to design an AI that will intelligently contest terrain, and will anticipate the use of counter-units ("I shouldn't move my horsemen there, because then its next to the enemy spearman unit it that will kill it next turn").

Oda Nobunaga
Mar 03, 2010, 08:06 PM
Interesting. If their leader choices involves turning away from warmongers, Shaka's odd of beating Mansa Musa (or Menelik) to the African slot becomes somewhat less likely.

Then again, Genghis is in.

jbadams
Mar 03, 2010, 08:16 PM
I like the non-modern leaders, although I do want multiple leaders...

Well, Wu Zetian is the only women to be Emperor/Empress of China, ever so that is impressive, she also started the Zhou (周) dynasty.

It still is an odd choice but it is not without grounds, and anyone is better than Mao.

That's really not impressive. It's more like trivia. "Aww, isn't that cute...she was the only female ruler of China. That makes her special."

spicytimothy
Mar 03, 2010, 08:44 PM
I'm so glad they finally changed the Chinese leader to Wu Zetian! She's definitely very deserving if you think about. It's hard enough to overthrow power as a man, but she was able to climb ALL the way to the TOP as a woman. Can't wait to see how they animate her.

cybrxkhan
Mar 03, 2010, 08:47 PM
As for Wu Zeitian, generally, from an East Asian standpoint(with the exception of Vietnam, since we've had a history of powerful women), a woman climbing to the top is basically nigh-impossible, period. The fact that she got to the top is insanely remarkable, and the fact that she was able to keep power for so long is even more insanely remarkable.

Of course, then again, having a woman represent such a patriarchal society is rather odd, and I would prefer a different great Chinese Emperor to her, but, eh, better her than Mao for me.

Snoopaloop
Mar 03, 2010, 09:08 PM
Anyhow, if I remember correctly, they aren't dropping Stalin. He has been confirmed as a leader in another thread/article.

I have been searching for this thread everywhere? Please tell me its not true.

cybrxkhan
Mar 03, 2010, 09:12 PM
I have been searching for this thread everywhere? Please tell me its not true.

It's according to a Danish article, from this thread here: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=354156

I do find it pretty interesting that Mao is kicked out while Stalin isn't... Maybe, maybe, they're switching Russia and China, in the sense that Russia keeps the dictator while China gets the, er, relatively 'young' female. :mischief: (that's assuming they make her young.)

cfkane
Mar 03, 2010, 09:26 PM
Shame. It looks like the option of multiple leaders for different civs has been taken out.

I always liked that feature in Civ4.

Infantry#14
Mar 03, 2010, 11:10 PM
As for Wu Zeitian, generally, from an East Asian standpoint(with the exception of Vietnam, since we've had a history of powerful women), a woman climbing to the top is basically nigh-impossible, period. The fact that she got to the top is insanely remarkable, and the fact that she was able to keep power for so long is even more insanely remarkable.

Of course, then again, having a woman represent such a patriarchal society is rather odd, and I would prefer a different great Chinese Emperor to her, but, eh, better her than Mao for me.

There are a lot of powerful female rulers in Chinese history. Usually they were the Empress Dowagers who put their relatives in high offices and ruled behind the throne when the reigning emperor was young. Wu Zetian was sort of exceptional, because she actually came out and declared herself as Emperor.

Off Topic:
I recall there is a biography of Empress Wu. The title of that book is: Empress Wu, The Chinese Empress who Schemed, Seduced and Murdered Her Way to Become a Living God. That author must really hate woman.


Other good candidates for Chinese Emperors should be Kangxi and Qianlong from Qing Dynasty, Taizong from Tang Dynasty, Wudi from the Han Dynasty, and Qin Shi Huang from Qin Dynasty. Second tier emperors should be Empress Wu, and founders of each Chinese dynasties.

Javier.707
Mar 03, 2010, 11:27 PM
I just don't get how this will work. How do you defend a city with one unit?

In depth. A single unit with support, and located at a choke point can only fight, at best, two units per turn. As long as you have a free hex to shuffle your units around, and put a fresh one in its place, while you heal the veteran one, you could stop a very large group of enemy units almost indefinitely. Look at the screenshots: see that city exactly on the isthmus? With a six-unit army, you could stop as many as 20 enemy units. And if that is the only access to your civilization´s territory, you have basically prevented invasion.
The thing is, while playing previous CIVs you never had to worry about rotations: you could attack/defend any unit or stack, and it made no difference from where -any side meant the same result-. In Civ V, you´ll have to remind that your army/stack, is no longer the same front to front, nor side to side. Now you have to take into account which side your deployed army is facing. A single exposed unit might mean the undoing of your entire defense. Hexes have actually made combat rather deep, not only tactically, but strategically: now the shape and terrain of your civilization as a whole has an impact on defense (not to mention attack). So, there are actually many, many ways to defend a city with only one unit on it. It´s just that you have to think "outside" the city, and not the city itself...
(That is, if the AI is good. If not, it´ll probably beeline the attack, and all you gotta do is cut them off and fight the reinforcements one at a time).

Try playing Panzer General 2 if you can get a copy. It´s gonna be great practice.

the Falcon
Mar 04, 2010, 12:19 AM
But from what i've seen, he doesn't have his pickelhaube. A pickelhaube would make him even cooler.

Pure awesomeness:http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/8d/Bismarck_pickelhaube.jpg

taillesskangaru
Mar 04, 2010, 12:55 AM
Interesting. If their leader choices involves turning away from warmongers, Shaka's odd of beating Mansa Musa (or Menelik) to the African slot becomes somewhat less likely.

Then again, Genghis is in.

And Oda Nobunaga.

Alter Ego
Mar 04, 2010, 01:25 AM
It's according to a Danish article, from this thread here: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=354156
As I wrote later in that thread, I'm pretty sure it's Bismarck, not Stalin, who appears in the article.

Chalks
Mar 04, 2010, 01:41 AM
I just don't get how this will work. How do you defend a city with one unit. Having all of your units on the map in there own tile will make the map tomorrow. Now when you create units, you will have to move them out to someplace on the map and clutter it up? What were they thinking with this decision? Is this really making it past testing?

The same way you defend your king in chess.

A city has a single primary defensive tile, but also 6 surrounding tiles that can be populated by defensive units. Intelligent distribution of ranged units and anti flanking tactics in the defensive formation could provide a very well defended city.

It will be different - but it would seem to be a difference that requires more thought and tactics which can only be a good thing.

Lucky The Fox
Mar 04, 2010, 02:43 AM
I'm just going to say that I will be really disappointed if multiple leaders per civ are out. It was one of my favourite improvements in IV and the leader selections, for the most part, were perfect.

eireksten
Mar 04, 2010, 03:19 AM
The same way you defend your king in chess.

A city has a single primary defensive tile, but also 6 surrounding tiles that can be populated by defensive units. Intelligent distribution of ranged units and anti flanking tactics in the defensive formation could provide a very well defended city.

Precisely :) It could also potentially make naval warfare a lot more important, as you'll need to worry about someone sneaking past your land based defense by sea.

Looking more and more forward to this game every day now! :)


edit: The one thing that dissappoints me, is the fact that they seem to use only one leader pr civ, and that the indian one will be Gandhi... I'd pick Asoka over Gandhi any day!

Chalks
Mar 04, 2010, 03:56 AM
Precisely :) It could also potentially make naval warfare a lot more important, as you'll need to worry about someone sneaking past your land based defense by sea.

Looking more and more forward to this game every day now! :)


edit: The one thing that dissappoints me, is the fact that they seem to use only one leader pr civ, and that the indian one will be Gandhi... I'd pick Asoka over Gandhi any day!

Yeah, the one leader per civ thing seems like a very odd cutback. Perhaps the new awesome leaders that they're banging on about really are quite awesome, and therefore costly to produce so they can't easily double up the work?

Very unfortunate certainly.

Danielos
Mar 04, 2010, 04:04 AM
I think they should make an exception when it comes to stacking military units of different themes though. You should be able to stack one land unit, one naval unit and one air unit in a city. I mean, should we have to have all naval units out in the sea because no city would have room for them. That is just silly... :(

fandamage
Mar 04, 2010, 04:06 AM
Yeah, the one leader per civ thing seems like a very odd cutback. Perhaps the new awesome leaders that they're banging on about really are quite awesome, and therefore costly to produce so they can't easily double up the work?

It probably has more to do with the fact that they're eliminating generic mix/match bonuses (Financial/Expansive/Creative/etc) and giving each leader/civ unique abilities. Even if there's just 2 unique attributes per civ, it's a big challenge to come up with 36 interesting and unique bonuses - then there's the testing and balancing, too.

I'd much rather have a smaller number of interesting/balanced civs than a larger number of more generic civs.

Dachs
Mar 04, 2010, 04:10 AM
I don't get it. What stops you from tactical strategy in civ4?
I got this far, then I started laughing uncontrollably and couldn't continue. Tactical strategy? :rotfl:

the Falcon
Mar 04, 2010, 04:33 AM
Yeah, the one leader per civ thing seems like a very odd cutback. Perhaps the new awesome leaders that they're banging on about really are quite awesome, and therefore costly to produce so they can't easily double up the work?

I don't think it's a bad thing at all. All leaders lived only a couple of Civ turns in real life anyway. They've only been in the game from the start so you can put a face on each civilization. As each leader is merely a personification of the civ it stands far, I think we can manage just fine with one leader per civ. KISS (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/KISS_principle).

Reims_empire
Mar 04, 2010, 04:43 AM
I'm really displeased with the leaders I hope it's a joke for me the leaders should be:

Germany:Bismark/Frederik
England: Victoria/Elisabeth/ Henri VIII
France: Louis XIV/Napoléon/ Jeanne of Arc
USA: Washington/ Lincoln/ Roosvelt
Japan: Tokugawa/Hirohito
Arabian:Saladin
India:Ashoka/Gandhi/ Akbar
China: Mao/ Qin Shi Huangdi/ Taizong
...

say1988
Mar 04, 2010, 05:27 AM
I think they should make an exception when it comes to stacking military units of different themes though. You should be able to stack one land unit, one naval unit and one air unit in a city. I mean, should we have to have all naval units out in the sea because no city would have room for them. That is just silly...
Obviously some naval and land/air units can stack (transports/carriers), and it would only be logical that air units can stack, to a limited degree (as in BTS).

Thalassicus
Mar 04, 2010, 07:49 AM
At the very least, it'd be nice to have multiple leaders for a purely visual aesthetic, even if they don't change how the civ itself is played.

Chalks
Mar 04, 2010, 08:30 AM
I don't think it's a bad thing at all. All leaders lived only a couple of Civ turns in real life anyway. They've only been in the game from the start so you can put a face on each civilization. As each leader is merely a personification of the civ it stands far, I think we can manage just fine with one leader per civ. KISS (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/KISS_principle).

Yeah, I know. It's not the end of the world or anything, but you know, it was kinda nice to be able to choose between multiple leaders. I don't feel the game gains from removing it at all.

Oda Nobunaga
Mar 04, 2010, 08:33 AM
And Oda Nobunaga.

What did you just call me?

(If the French PC-Jeux report is accurate, we may add "And Stalin" to that list. And that'S a major WTF - scrap Mao for Wu Zetian, then scrap Catherine for Stalin? What gives, Firaxis?)

EDIT: Fortunately, it appears to have been a case of Le Mistaken Identity, with Bismarck concept art being mistaken as Stalin's.

say1988
Mar 04, 2010, 10:38 AM
I don't think it's a bad thing at all. All leaders lived only a couple of Civ turns in real life anyway. They've only been in the game from the start so you can put a face on each civilization. As each leader is merely a personification of the civ it stands far, I think we can manage just fine with one leader per civ. KISS.
It adds variety without the work required to add more civs. And variety for people that like a civ. And my personal favourite, gives AI civ X multiple ways of playing without being random.

EmpireOfCats
Mar 04, 2010, 10:52 AM
Japan: Tokugawa/Hirohito

Hirohito is considered a war criminal by a lot of people. It was always amazing they let Mao in, given what happened during the Cultural Revolution, but Hirohito would really make a lot of Americans mad. And that's still their primary market.

The_J
Mar 04, 2010, 11:08 AM
Shame. It looks like the option of multiple leaders for different civs has been taken out.


They didn't say it.
It's said, that there'll only be one leader per civ, but not, that the option will not be programmed in.
Like said in the DLC thread, i see downloadable leaders coming :(.

martinwgc
Mar 04, 2010, 12:12 PM
It's a bit werid to see Wu Zetian as the Chinese leader. She is famous in China, but only because she's a woman. She didn't have much of an impact as an emperor in Chinese history.

The rulers that greatly impacted China would be:
Qin Shihuang
Han Gaozu/Liu Bang
Tang Taizong/Li Shimin
Ming Taizu/Zhu Yuanzhang
Mao Zedong

The second tier would be:
Han Wudi/Liu Che
Han Guangwudi/Liu Xiu
Sui Wendi/Yang Jian
Tang Xuanzong/Li Longji
Song Gaozu/Zhao Kuangyin
Ming Chengzu/Zhu Di
Qing Shengzu/Aixinjueluo Xuanye/Kang Xi

As for Wu Zetian, at best, she can be placed in the third tier. She's better than an average Emperor, but she's not even close to Qin Shihuang or Mao Zedong, who totally changed China.

Oh btw, putting Mao together with Hitler is a huge mock to the Chinese. Mao has made a lot of mistakes, like every great person. Of couse he's hated by a lot of people, like every great person, but there is no doubt that he's ranked in top five greatest leaders in Chinese history, dramatically improving China. If you want to talk about Chinese history, it's best to put aside your western-centric PoV.

Mathalamus
Mar 04, 2010, 12:22 PM
It's a bit werid to see Wu Zetian as the Chinese leader. She is famous in China, but only because she's a woman. She didn't have much of an impact as an emperor in Chinese history.

The rulers that greatly impacted China would be:
Qin Shihuang
Han Gaozu/Liu Bang
Tang Taizong/Li Shimin
Ming Taizu/Zhu Yuanzhang
Mao Zedong

The second tier would be:
Han Wudi/Liu Che
Han Guangwudi/Liu Xiu
Sui Wendi/Yang Jian
Tang Xuanzong/Li Longji
Song Gaozu/Zhao Kuangyin
Ming Chengzu/Zhu Di
Qing Shengzu/Aixinjueluo Xuanye/Kang Xi

As for Wu Zetian, at best, she can be placed in the third tier. She's better than an average Emperor, but she's not even close to Qin Shihuang or Mao Zedong, who totally changed China.

Oh btw, putting Mao together with Hitler is a huge mock to the Chinese. Mao has made a lot of mistakes, like every great person. Of couse he's hated by a lot of people, like every great person, but there is no doubt that he's ranked in top five greatest leaders in Chinese history, dramatically improving China. If you want to talk about Chinese history, it's best to put aside your western-centric PoV.

china was and still is western oriented (barely...). so we can talk bad about Mao.

Ahriman
Mar 04, 2010, 12:47 PM
Mao has made a lot of mistakes, like every great person.

Umm...

How many "great people" have:
a) Caused devastating famines causing millions of deaths (by pulling farmers off the land, destroynig farm tools and collectivization), "Great Leap Forward"
b) Destroyed most of the cultural heritage and antiquities of their country, and allowed purges and executions of anyone with an education, "Cultural Revolution"
c) Enslaved their population, shipping vast numbers of people off to labor camps where they were worked to death

Putting Mao together with Hitler, Stalin and Pol Pot is... about right.

Heck, even Mao himself didn't mind the comparison:
"This man Hitler was even more ferocious. The more ferocious the better, don't you think? The more people you kill, the more revolutionary you are."

If you want a great modern Chinese leader, take Deng, not Mao.

Thormodr
Mar 04, 2010, 12:58 PM
No Mao, Stalin, Hirohito or Hitler please. They are not needed and there are much more worthy historical figures that they can use.

Only having one leader per civ is fine. Hopefully they'll add more in the future. It'd be nice if they gave modding tools to help the modders in that direction but I'm not holding my breath.

I'd like a second leader for Mongolia myself as they are my favourite civ. I really enjoyed playing Kublai Khan in cIV.

say1988
Mar 04, 2010, 01:06 PM
For his role in history, putting him with Stalin sounds good. Putting him with Hitler and Pol Pot is just wrong.

All were brutal dictators, but Pol Pot and Hitler left their countries in complete and utter ruin.
Under Mao, China was unified, ending the civil war, and reigning in the various warlords that were only nominally under the rule of Kia-Shek. Got the PRC the China seat in the UN, established it as a nuclear power.

I would unquestionably say that, like the Soviet Union under Stalin, the Chinese state was far better off when Mao died than when he came to power, or for a long time before that.
Maybe the average person was worse off, and yes there were many problems, but 1976 China was sure better than 1949 China.

In contrast, upon Hitler's death, Germany was destroyed, occupied, and divided for 40 years. Far worse off than it had ever been since the end of WWI, even int eh darkest days of hyper inflation and the Great Depression.

The condition of the people and human rights are one thing to consider, but you must also consider the condition of the state as a whole.

martinwgc
Mar 04, 2010, 01:08 PM
Learn some modern Chinese history before you talk. Better off, learn it from somewhere other than New York Times or CNN.

TBH, you have no idea what you are talking about.

Umm...

How many "great people" have:
a) Caused devastating famines causing millions of deaths (by pulling farmers off the land, destroynig farm tools and collectivization), "Great Leap Forward"
b) Destroyed most of the cultural heritage and antiquities of their country, and allowed purges and executions of anyone with an education, "Cultural Revolution"
c) Enslaved their population, shipping vast numbers of people off to labor camps where they were worked to death

Putting Mao together with Hitler, Stalin and Pol Pot is... about right.

Heck, even Mao himself didn't mind the comparison:
"This man Hitler was even more ferocious. The more ferocious the better, don't you think? The more people you kill, the more revolutionary you are."

If you want a great modern Chinese leader, take Deng, not Mao.

martinwgc
Mar 04, 2010, 01:42 PM
This would be a fair statement of the deserved role of Mao and Stalin in history.

Before Stalin, the Sovient Union was an agricultural country, with a weak industry. The Sovient Union was just a 'second tier' country. Under his rule, the Sovient Union became an industrialized country, and it was capable of competing with US. Even today, although Russia is much weaker than the former Sovient Union, nobody still dare to underestimate the country. All of this is the impact of Stalin rule.

Before Mao, there was numerous invasions of western countries of China. All major powers had their 'country in a country' in China, and China wasn't even capable of making nails or matches.

After Mao, nobody even thought of putting a soldier in China any more. China became a nuclear power and an industrialized country, and eventually the world's factory like today. Chinese average life expectancy increased from 35 to 70. China had a permenant seat in the Security Council in UN. Mao set up the foundation of today's proporous China.

Of course, he made a lot of mistakes. But he didn't try to starve his people for fun, or try to exploit his people so that he can live the life of a king, like Kim Jing-Il. He doesn't know how to manage a country's economics, and he didn't realize it. He wanted to eliminate a class that live on profit rather than labor, but didn't realize selfishness is the pushing power for a society to progress. Everybody in China recognize that.

For all those human right fighters, what you really fail to realize is one common knowledge all the Chinese have: the people that got hurt the most in China during Mao's era is not the poorest, but rather, it's the richest. Mao despises all land owners, factory owners, bankers, and all rich people, and considers them living on other people's flesh and blood (in a sense he's right). He basically emilinated these classes and split land to peasants. He's more about equality than any of the human right fighters. What he failed to realize that complete equality eliminates the motivation for people to work. He intended to creat a society in which everyone is equally rich, but ended up with a socienty in which everyone is equally poor. The funny thing about the controversy on Mao is, he's pictured as a butcher bullying his people and exploiting the poorest of China, but as a matter of fact, the people that love him the most are the poor, and the people who hate his the most are the rich.
For his role in history, putting him with Stalin sounds good. Putting him with Hitler and Pol Pot is just wrong.

All were brutal dictators, but Pol Pot and Hitler left their countries in complete and utter ruin.
Under Mao, China was unified, ending the civil war, and reigning in the various warlords that were only nominally under the rule of Kia-Shek. Got the PRC the China seat in the UN, established it as a nuclear power.

I would unquestionably say that, like the Soviet Union under Stalin, the Chinese state was far better off when Mao died than when he came to power, or for a long time before that.
Maybe the average person was worse off, and yes there were many problems, but 1976 China was sure better than 1949 China.

In contrast, upon Hitler's death, Germany was destroyed, occupied, and divided for 40 years. Far worse off than it had ever been since the end of WWI, even int eh darkest days of hyper inflation and the Great Depression.

The condition of the people and human rights are one thing to consider, but you must also consider the condition of the state as a whole.

NBAfan
Mar 04, 2010, 02:00 PM
Learn some modern Chinese history before you talk. Better off, learn it from somewhere other than New York Times or CNN.

TBH, you have no idea what you are talking about.Sounds like you learned modern Chinese history from the New York Times and CNN.

Of course, he made a lot of mistakes. But he didn't try to starve his people for fun, or try to exploit his people so that he can live the life of a king, like Kim Jing-Il. He doesn't know how to manage a country's economics, and he didn't realize it. He wanted to eliminate a class that live on profit rather than labor, but didn't realize selfishness is the pushing power for a society to progress. Everybody in China recognize that.:wow:Those "little" mistakes caused millions of people to die.

I wish they would have more then one leader for the Civs.:( City states sound cool.

Atwork
Mar 04, 2010, 02:01 PM
oh lord....take the arguments about Mao/Hitler/Stalin to a different thread....

Aussie_Lurker
Mar 04, 2010, 03:30 PM
I'm with you Atwork, this is supposed to be a discussion of the admittedly limited game info in GamePro magazine, not another tiresome "Mao/Stalin/Hitler should/should not be in the game" thread :mad:.

Aussie.

Frantic men
Mar 04, 2010, 04:27 PM
maybe there are going to be less units overall? a focus on training the armies you have and placing them strategically rather than massing and being head on.
Maybe production cost will be much higher for armies and whatnot?
i mean who nows, exactly how the game will work, we know very little about the economy and whatnot not to mention all sorts of other things

exactly

The point is not to MASS ur units unlike all the other strategy games. This makes for a LOT better game. It also singles out the real strategy players from the people that just play to get it over with.

dc82
Mar 04, 2010, 04:32 PM
peace isn't everything. i don't even think peace is a good qualifier for leaders, since it sounds so boring. you could end up having Chamberlain as the English leader.

I think the point is that, instead of getting all the other civs going for all out war (like Civilization Revolution), it'd be interesting to get a more diverse mix of Civs, some of which will be more warlike, but others that might focus on developments that in turn, maybe pose a different type of challenge; the problem with previous Civ games is that things inevitably turn to war, but it'd be nice to see a more real race for tech, or a race to develop the largest cities and cultures.

Thorburne
Mar 04, 2010, 06:03 PM
In depth. A single unit with support, and located at a choke point can only fight, at best, two units per turn. As long as you have a free hex to shuffle your units around, and put a fresh one in its place, while you heal the veteran one, you could stop a very large group of enemy units almost indefinitely. Look at the screenshots: see that city exactly on the isthmus? With a six-unit army, you could stop as many as 20 enemy units. And if that is the only access to your civilization´s territory, you have basically prevented invasion.
The thing is, while playing previous CIVs you never had to worry about rotations: you could attack/defend any unit or stack, and it made no difference from where -any side meant the same result-. In Civ V, you´ll have to remind that your army/stack, is no longer the same front to front, nor side to side. Now you have to take into account which side your deployed army is facing. A single exposed unit might mean the undoing of your entire defense. Hexes have actually made combat rather deep, not only tactically, but strategically: now the shape and terrain of your civilization as a whole has an impact on defense (not to mention attack). So, there are actually many, many ways to defend a city with only one unit on it. It´s just that you have to think "outside" the city, and not the city itself...
(That is, if the AI is good. If not, it´ll probably beeline the attack, and all you gotta do is cut them off and fight the reinforcements one at a time).

Try playing Panzer General 2 if you can get a copy. It´s gonna be great practice.

I am sure that the system works great for a game like Panzer General 2. A game where the focus is on a specific time period or war. But I don't see how it will work on the scale of Civ. The map view is too far pulled out for this type of combat. As I suggested earlier (or in another thread... I don't remember where) imagine playing on a full earth map and playing as France. You go to war against Spain. You gather your forces and move them down to attack Madrid, your units filling all of France. At the same time, Spain is completely filled with their defending troops.

This is completely rediculous and clutters up valuable map tiles. Until I see larger maps (which I highly doubt), I really don't see how this will work. Even given that, though, I was willing to accept it if they allowed garrisons (where player can store a number of troops based on buildings, size, etc int there cities and Forts... which are apparently out as well). Of course, that is out now! If Firaxis wants to keep me on board, they really need to show me the money! (Meaning, show it in action and very soon!)

exactly

The point is not to MASS ur units unlike all the other strategy games. This makes for a LOT better game. It also singles out the real strategy players from the people that just play to get it over with.

Part of the point of Civ is MASSING units! If what you say is the case, then that will open up too much for sneak attacks from other Civs. I just don't get it!

Louis XXIV
Mar 04, 2010, 06:14 PM
I'm just going to say that I will be really disappointed if multiple leaders per civ are out. It was one of my favourite improvements in IV and the leader selections, for the most part, were perfect.

Considering that each leader is going to have unique advantages and disadvantages, I would suspect they've reduced the total number of leaders in order to increase the diversity.

Aussie_Lurker
Mar 04, 2010, 06:55 PM
I don't get it, we've been more than happy to accept the necessary abstractions in Civ in regards to movement (& even combat if you really think about it), but there is suddenly a problem with *scale* the moment you talk about doing away with the beloved SoD exploit. Note, SoD's are not a strategy or a tactic-merely an exploit of a poor game design-one which it finally sounds like they're gonna *fix*. Now I'm not 100% sure that I like the idea of a hard 1-unit-per-tile cap, but if it gets rid of SoD's, I think I might just be able to accept it!

Aussie.

EdCase
Mar 04, 2010, 08:37 PM
exactly

The point is not to MASS ur units unlike all the other strategy games. This makes for a LOT better game. It also singles out the real strategy players from the people that just play to get it over with.

Actually it becomes a game of tactics. Strategy has very little to do with it.It has even less to do with "real-time games" which it looks like your using for comparison.

Thormodr
Mar 04, 2010, 08:55 PM
I don't get it, we've been more than happy to accept the necessary abstractions in Civ in regards to movement (& even combat if you really think about it), but there is suddenly a problem with *scale* the moment you talk about doing away with the beloved SoD exploit. Note, SoD's are not a strategy or a tactic-merely an exploit of a poor game design-one which it finally sounds like they're gonna *fix*. Now I'm not 100% sure that I like the idea of a hard 1-unit-per-tile cap, but if it gets rid of SoD's, I think I might just be able to accept it!

Aussie.

Spot on. This happens every time a new Civ game is released. Like when Civ 4 tried to do away with ICS. The wailing and gnashing of teeth has come to be expected now.

People are either too lazy or too stupid to learn a new way to play it appears.

I personally look forward to a new challenge. :)

Snoopaloop
Mar 04, 2010, 09:02 PM
As I wrote later in that thread, I'm pretty sure it's Bismarck, not Stalin, who appears in the article.

Thanks Alter, that would be incredible.

gggggga
Mar 04, 2010, 09:09 PM
Japan in Civ 4 always made me sad because of how terrible Tokugawa was depicted as a leader; his shogunate did become isolationist but it was after his death, and they make him a stubborn ass when he was the most patient and crafty men of his time. Famous saying that said of him, "If the cuckoo does not cry, let us wait", describes him well. And now, as a direct opposite, described, "If the cuckoo does not cry, kill it", Oda Nobunaga! The guy was too far ahead of his time; he had modern concepts for infrastructure, independently introduced the standing army and three-stage volley, and showed some serious religious tolerance, building the first Jesuit seminary in Japan and encouraging Christian development. He also was a huge proponent of culture, encouraging all these kinds of arts like kabuki and cha-dou (tea ceremonies) and such, and even building this magnificent castle called Azuchi-Jyou, an amazing mix of Western and Eastern styles. But at the same time, he had quite the temper, occasionally massacring his enemies and once burning a famous monastery complex, with thousands of members, down to the ground. But he was a man with a clear vision of a modern Japan, on par with the European powers trickling in at the time, one that would have been achieved had he not been killed shortly before he could unify Japan. To me, he represents the other path Japan could have taken; while Tokugawa's government isolated Japan, and subsequently cultivated a distinctly Japanese culture over the course of 200 years, Nobunaga's government may have created a country that incorporated, without being overwhelmed by, European technologies and concepts, and created a Japanese-Spanish/European culture that would have been amazingly progressive and innovative for its time, at the cost of a distinct Japanese culture.

tl;dr: Nobunaga has significant characteristics of all the types seen in Civ 4: the culture freak of Asoka, the warmongering craziness of Moctezuma, and development/wonder focus of Cyrus, with a dash of tech-whoring ā la Mansa Musa. I've always thought he was the ideal leader of a Civ game, since he would act most like the human. I'm excited to see how this plays out with AI and these "unique" personalities. Meier, you're making a step in the right direction, but please don't disappoint.

Oda Nobunaga
Mar 04, 2010, 11:34 PM
Nobunaga is every inch as good a choice as Tokugawa (to the poster earlier who complained about that change)

Hirohito would be a horrible choice, not because of the war criminal debate, but because in review...he just doesn't have much success to his name*. His government fought and lost a war that led to devastation and ruin for Japan...and then he managed to not get removed from power.

If you wanted a relatively modern Emperor of Japan (but you won't get one, because of the legal aspect of putting an Emperor in Civilization - we found that out with IV), Meiji is the only defensible choice.

China-wise, Mao is too recent to make a good decision, but...I tend to think history will eventually come to view him favorably, because in general, what people remember is deeds, not statistics. "Rounding up the jews of Europe and trying to kill them all" is a deed. "Leading the Soviet Union to victory over a German invasion" is a deed. "Finally unifying China and ending Western interference in it" is a deed. "Killed X amount of political opponents" and "Leading X millions to die in a famine" are statistics.

(Note that I'm not saying they SHOULD be remembered positively. I'm just saying that I think they will be, because it's how history tend to work out)

Lucky The Fox
Mar 05, 2010, 03:20 AM
Considering that each leader is going to have unique advantages and disadvantages, I would suspect they've reduced the total number of leaders in order to increase the diversity.

Has that been confirmed? All I remember reading is that each AI is unique in behaviour.

Ahriman
Mar 05, 2010, 07:05 AM
It sounded like they said that each had a unique feature/trait.

I'd like to see more faction diversity. The limited faction diversity has always been one of the lamest things about vanilla civ IMO.

kazapp
Mar 05, 2010, 07:21 AM
If you measure in terms of people dead, ironically, Hitler is the "best".
It's highly probable this is true only because Hitler weren't in power very long.

That doesn't I'm saying Stalin and Mao are acceptable. They're just farther removed from "western civ", that's all. (At least in the uneducated minds of some boss at Firaxis/Take)

Case in point: the korean bar owner who opened "hitler bar". He was devastated when somebody told him that was equivalent to me opening a "emperor hirohito bar" here in Western Europe.

kazapp
Mar 05, 2010, 07:32 AM
- Basic military units move two tiles in combat instead of one.
This is the significant change.

This definitely shows they're going for more of a Panzer General type of gameplay.

Which is cool; I've been clamoring for a new PG game for ages.

However, it does kind of rule out maps encompassing Earth. Tactical movement (like in PG) simply does not take place on a global scale like this.

At least not in ancient times - probably not even today. "Sir, the enemy holds India. Should we detour north of the himalayas and attack them in the flank?!".

You would have needed at least two scales: one global strategy scale where you can, indeed, stack, units.

And another local tactical scale, where you implement the one tile one unit, ranged artillery, and more-than-one-step basic movement rules.

Not saying Civ needs this - quite the contrary, two scales means clutter and complexity.

Civ 5 will probably be a fine game, but it will be a very different game from previous Civs.

Ituralde
Mar 05, 2010, 07:50 AM
I think we just need to get our heads around this new scaling asymmetry.

Sure your example with India and the Himalayas is totally absurd, but so is the fact that India usually contains only two or three cities, at least on most Earth maps I've seen for Civ. And that no matter how you move your units and depending on when you move them it could take them between a couple of hundred years to one year to move into India.

Those asymmetries were always in the Civ games, the new combat system just highlights another one. We shouldn't let it get in the way of destroying the fun though.


You fight in the Middle Ages. Well the scale of the map is really small, your archers fire across tiles and it's no farther away than a bowshot.

You fight in the modern age. Suddenly only your artillery can fire across tiles and it's suddenly become a couple of kilometers, making the map scale more in line to what we're used to from earlier Civs.

The scale changes, but the combat mechanics stay the same!

Louis XXIV
Mar 05, 2010, 08:24 AM
Has that been confirmed? All I remember reading is that each AI is unique in behaviour.

I remembered reading that leader traits were being replaced by unique bonuses for each leader, but I can't remember where I read it.

Berba
Mar 05, 2010, 12:26 PM
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

TheEnforcer
Mar 05, 2010, 12:35 PM
Bleech on the leaders so far..

Loppan Torkel
Mar 05, 2010, 12:43 PM
I remembered reading that leader traits were being replaced by unique bonuses for each leader, but I can't remember where I read it.I like this and it could be even better if there was a 'bad' characteristic coupled with each leader too, like in the Total War-series..

Louis XXIV
Mar 05, 2010, 12:52 PM
I hope so. I was going to say like SMAC, but either way. The point being to give both advantages and disadvantages, not just advantages, to make an even more unique play style.

Klyde182
Mar 05, 2010, 01:05 PM
Xerxes is out, why? Is there no Persian Civ?
With out the Xerxes there is no Alexanders or Greek Civ!

moscaverde
Mar 05, 2010, 01:12 PM
Well there's always Darius and Cyrus.

I believe if the archer units can shoot from tile distance, so can all the more modern (gunpowder) units?

Berba
Mar 05, 2010, 01:22 PM
I believe if the archer units can shoot from tile distance, so can all the more modern (gunpowder) units?


All ranged units can fire from tile distance

Louis XXIV
Mar 05, 2010, 01:43 PM
Xerxes is out, why? Is there no Persian Civ?
With out the Xerxes there is no Alexanders or Greek Civ!

There were better leaders than Xerxes in Persia (Cyrus and Darius being the obvious ones, even Cambysses could possibly be better than Xerxes). Obviously Xerxes invaded Greece, but so did Darius and a rivalry between Persia and Greece would have been inevitable either way. Alexander would exist no matter what and some kind of league to rival the Peloponnesian League was inevitable. So Xerxes isn't needed.

the Falcon
Mar 05, 2010, 01:52 PM
Case in point: the korean bar owner who opened "hitler bar". He was devastated when somebody told him that was equivalent to me opening a "emperor hirohito bar" here in Western Europe.

Wow, talk about faux pas! :eek:

Ahriman
Mar 05, 2010, 02:09 PM
I believe if the archer units can shoot from tile distance, so can all the more modern (gunpowder) units?

All ranged units can fire from tile distance
Do we actually know this for a fact?

I could easily see a design where support units, including archers and artillery, could bombard from afar, but where frontline combat units, including musketeers, riflemen, modern infantry and tanks were regular combat units who fought by attacking directly.

Gundpowder units probably end up being more like swordsmen and axemen than they do like archers.

Otherwise the entire late game would be about bombardment, and tile defenses and unit placement would be basically irrelevant. Which would be *lame*.

Berba
Mar 05, 2010, 02:58 PM
Do we actually know this for a fact?

I could easily see a design where support units, including archers and artillery, could bombard from afar, but where frontline combat units, including musketeers, riflemen, modern infantry and tanks were regular combat units who fought by attacking directly.

Gundpowder units probably end up being more like swordsmen and axemen than they do like archers.

Otherwise the entire late game would be about bombardment, and tile defenses and unit placement would be basically irrelevant. Which would be *lame*.

Bombardment:

Some units may attack other units more than one hex away, for example archers.

That's what I call a fact, unless you can't convince me

Shiggs713
Mar 05, 2010, 03:01 PM
not only that, its also a fact that they will be able to attack further if they're standing on a hill.

Thormodr
Mar 05, 2010, 03:15 PM
It's highly probable this is true only because Hitler weren't in power very long.

That doesn't I'm saying Stalin and Mao are acceptable. They're just farther removed from "western civ", that's all. (At least in the uneducated minds of some boss at Firaxis/Take)

Case in point: the korean bar owner who opened "hitler bar". He was devastated when somebody told him that was equivalent to me opening a "emperor hirohito bar" here in Western Europe.

Heh heh. I taught English in South Korea for over 5 years and I actually saw that bar. Never went into it though.

I actually saw South Korean guys walking around with shirts that had the iron eagle clutching the nazi swastika. When I questioned them about that they said it was all about fashion and that it wasn't a big deal. "Just fashion! Just fashion! It's ok!" I just shook my head and kept walking.

I also saw a book on learning Japanese in a South Korean bookstore. They had pictures representing each Japanese sound. For example, for "Ma" they had a picture of a horse. (Ma is horse in Korean) For Hi (pronounced "hee") they had a picture of Hitler! (Literally Heetler according to the book I guess.) It still amazes me that they couldn't find a Korean word that started with "Hi" . :crazyeye:

It's amazing to think that Imperial Japan was allied with Nazi Germany and many South Koreans just didn't make that connection. To think that if I had worn any Imperial Japanese clothing in South Korea I would have got lynched. :rolleyes:

Berba
Mar 05, 2010, 03:16 PM
not only that, its also a fact that they will be able to attack further if they're standing on a hill.

Precisely, and I don't know why they should make the game so archers were the only "super range" unit

Frantic men
Mar 05, 2010, 06:13 PM
I am sure that the system works great for a game like Panzer General 2. A game where the focus is on a specific time period or war. But I don't see how it will work on the scale of Civ. The map view is too far pulled out for this type of combat. As I suggested earlier (or in another thread... I don't remember where) imagine playing on a full earth map and playing as France. You go to war against Spain. You gather your forces and move them down to attack Madrid, your units filling all of France. At the same time, Spain is completely filled with their defending troops.

But see, history isnt just about building armies. Its about building up cities and roads and towns, and AVOIDING conflict. If necessary, though i cant even think of a civ building up horde after horde of soldiers (population limit there), especially in that kind of war. It just goes to point how many people these days only think on action and ONLY action.:(




Part of the point of Civ is MASSING units! If what you say is the case, then that will open up too much for sneak attacks from other Civs. I just don't get it!

Ummmmm... NOT REALLY. Its making a civ, not mass warring and killing urself and others!:mad:

Shiggs713
Mar 05, 2010, 06:24 PM
I think his point was something like this....

Imagine an earth scenario in civ4, just say the earth18 that came with the game. Now say you play as England on that map, there are only 17 tiles on that land. So England can have a maximum of 17 troops on the island, and even if thats fine, they will all be spread out, using up graphics card resources, making the screen ugly full of non-combatant combatants. To be honest 1UPT is straight up ridiculous, unrealistic, and about the stupidest thing I think they could have came up with, but I sincerely hope it works out.

Mathalamus
Mar 05, 2010, 06:30 PM
I think his point was something like this....

Imagine an earth scenario in civ4, just say the earth18 that came with the game. Now say you play as England on that map, there are only 17 tiles on that land. So England can have a maximum of 17 troops on the island, and even if thats fine, they will all be spread out, using up graphics card resources, making the screen ugly full of non-combatant combatants. To be honest 1UPT is straight up ridiculous, unrealistic, and about the stupidest thing I think they could have came up with, but I sincerely hope it works out.

think of it this way.. it will make England a HEADACHE to take.

Thorburne
Mar 05, 2010, 07:10 PM
think of it this way.. it will make England a HEADACHE to take.

And what about the management of all of these units? You build an army and have to move them all one at a time...

Bangra 7
Mar 05, 2010, 08:27 PM
As far as modding goes, will the same engine system be used as in Civilization IV?

Shiggs713
Mar 05, 2010, 08:32 PM
they said something about a completely new system. but they did also say now they will be using XML for sure, and I'm assuming c++;


It's not surprising given Jon's background that the new version of Civilization will be even more moddable than Civ IV. All the tools have been taken to a whole new level, so the more you know about XML and programmable DLL, the more you'll be able to achieve with the game. More importantly, the game itself will contain a browser for full community interaction, so you can search for, discuss, install and rate mods all from within the game shell. Firaxis will maintain a small bit of control over this and will rely on player flags to evaluate objectionable content.
the whole article is linked in the IGN review thread.

Bangra 7
Mar 06, 2010, 03:30 AM
they said something about a completely new system. but they did also say now they will be using XML for sure, and I'm assuming c++;


the whole article is linked in the IGN review thread.

Thanks.
Just wondering. :goodjob:

stethnorun
Mar 06, 2010, 05:35 AM
I'm not sure if this has been mentioned yet (don't feel like reading through 6 pages of reaction), but the reason they chose the leaders they did is probably MOSTLY because of how unique they come off in the new diplomacy screen. I think people underestimate how cool this feature is going to be. It will be like you are actually interacting with real leaders, rather than just clicking through text screens. As such, they needed very unique leads in those screens. No offense to Frederick and the rest, but in the end, they are just a bunch of unremarkable white dudes. Each leader needs to bring something new and interesting to the "cinematic" table.

Mathalamus
Mar 06, 2010, 09:01 AM
I'm not sure if this has been mentioned yet (don't feel like reading through 6 pages of reaction), but the reason they chose the leaders they did is probably MOSTLY because of how unique they come off in the new diplomacy screen. I think people underestimate how cool this feature is going to be. It will be like you are actually interacting with real leaders, rather than just clicking through text screens. As such, they needed very unique leads in those screens. No offense to Frederick and the rest, but in the end, they are just a bunch of unremarkable white dudes. Each leader needs to bring something new and interesting to the "cinematic" table.

maybe they can say a few swear words if you piss them off enough?

Bangra 7
Mar 06, 2010, 09:05 AM
Let us all hope that Civ V makes a great opening menu sequence as well. :D

the Falcon
Mar 06, 2010, 02:25 PM
I'm not sure if this has been mentioned yet (don't feel like reading through 6 pages of reaction), but the reason they chose the leaders they did is probably MOSTLY because of how unique they come off in the new diplomacy screen. ... No offense to Frederick and the rest, but in the end, they are just a bunch of unremarkable white dudes. Each leader needs to bring something new and interesting to the "cinematic" table.

If that's the reason, then that's a very good one and one I would fully support. So far, I really like the direction Civ V seems to be moving in. :goodjob:

Ariobarzan
Mar 06, 2010, 04:56 PM
Qoute:
- (Arabia) Arabian leader: Harun al-Rashid (Xerxes and Saladin are out)



1.Xerxes isn't arab, he's Persian. :mad:
2. The article doesn't even talk about him being an arab leader so i don't know where you pulled that one out of. It says: He(Harun al Rashid) not as warlike as other leaders from the Middle East (such as Xerxes and Saladin). they may actually be in there

3. Sorry if this seems like i'm nit picking, but too me this is :mad:
4. , I have nothing against Arabs, but Persians are not arabs, not even close.

5. Technically Saladin isn't an Arab either, he's a kurd, but I won't argue because he's someone who fought for Arabs rather than Kurds


6. Thank you for reporting this, and having to put up with my nationalistic pride :D

Öjevind Lång
Mar 07, 2010, 06:19 AM
I don't get it, we've been more than happy to accept the necessary abstractions in Civ in regards to movement (& even combat if you really think about it), but there is suddenly a problem with *scale* the moment you talk about doing away with the beloved SoD exploit. Note, SoD's are not a strategy or a tactic-merely an exploit of a poor game design-one which it finally sounds like they're gonna *fix*. Now I'm not 100% sure that I like the idea of a hard 1-unit-per-tile cap, but if it gets rid of SoD's, I think I might just be able to accept it!

Aussie.

I agree. Both the Stack of Doom and the technology trading should have been scrapped long ago.

Montezuma turns up and says: "Teach me Liberalism or I'll declare war on you!" :rolleyes:

eoc
Mar 08, 2010, 07:18 PM
Mao was out, hmm... I will miss him so much. While it is a vista that Civ5 won't be censored too much by China government, and I can play it in time. It is a good news for me not waiting such a long time for the result of censorships, and I don't need to seek a pirate all around the world anymore. I have kept all the civ series from 2 to 4(with copyright disc of course) , and I will keep Civ5 too. Civ always deserve to be kept in my disc storage.

skdyer
Mar 09, 2010, 02:12 PM
Can someone post a scan of this article or tell me where I can grab a copy? Not a subscriber.

garthrock
Mar 10, 2010, 05:01 AM
Umm...

How many "great people" have:
a) Caused devastating famines causing millions of deaths (by pulling farmers off the land, destroynig farm tools and collectivization), "Great Leap Forward"
b) Destroyed most of the cultural heritage and antiquities of their country, and allowed purges and executions of anyone with an education, "Cultural Revolution"
c) Enslaved their population, shipping vast numbers of people off to labor camps where they were worked to death

Putting Mao together with Hitler, Stalin and Pol Pot is... about right.

Heck, even Mao himself didn't mind the comparison:
"This man Hitler was even more ferocious. The more ferocious the better, don't you think? The more people you kill, the more revolutionary you are."

If you want a great modern Chinese leader, take Deng, not Mao.

How about Qin Shi Huang? You know, the very first emporer of China? The one who united the land under a single ruler? The one who built the Great Wall? Ya, him. Great enough for ya?

Caused famine? To a lot of conquered lands, yep, did that. Check.

Destroyed heritage and antiquities? His famous "burning books and killing scholars." Yep, check.

Enslaved populations as labor? The Great Wall is built upon "graves of millions who died building it." Mmhm, check.

I think people in America get so naive about how a ruling entity in history had to behave because they were taught about their democracy and freedom and all those ideals as if their ancestors never had to go through mistakes that led to great conflict and bloodshed to get them. What's most ironic though, the majority of Americans agree that Lincoln was their greatest president, yet America had gone through their darkest times under him during the Civil War as well.

garthrock
Mar 10, 2010, 05:17 AM
:wow:Those "little" mistakes caused millions of people to die.


While it was indeed tragic how many people had to die for Mao's mistakes, it was really a lot more attributed to the shear size of the country's population. It's a lot different than gunning down jews in a huge hole dug in the ground.

The issue with the perception of Mao is that people think he's evil because how many people he "killed." That's a very unfortunate misdirection by western powers' propaganda campaign against communism. Mao was thought perceived as evil because communism was perceived to be evil, the deaths were then used as a convenient shock factor to somehow support that notion.

Ahriman
Mar 10, 2010, 06:02 AM
How about Qin Shi Huang?

Also a brutal tyrant. But I have no difficulty in judging people differently according to their times. The Englightenment, liberalism and modern political thought made people aware of different obligations of a leader. Mao wasn't some ignorant ancient Emperor who thought he was a god, he knew that leaders have an obligation to improve the welfare of their people.
But he destroyed the economy because of his incompetence, and purged the educated classes because of his paranoia.

people in America get so naive about how a ruling entity in history had to behave because they were taught about their democracy and freedom
I love how you assume I'm American (which I'm not), just because I live there....

Shall I assume you're Chinese, and have been raised on propaganda and censorship, and a Party Line view that tells you what to think about the little of your history that you are actually exposed to?

Also, *my* democracy didn't require the collectivization of farms or the conversion of farm tools into pig iron or the purging of the educated classes.

The issue with the perception of Mao is that people think he's evil because how many people he "killed."
You put "killed" in quote marks? Does that make it ok?

it was really a lot more attributed to the shear size of the country's population
"Oh, its fine that he killed lots of Chinese people, there were plenty more where they came from."
Seriously?

It's a lot different than gunning down jews in a huge hole dug in the ground.
There is a difference between deaths from famine and gunning people down, true. But Mao and his regime were responsible for executing hundreds of thousands of political opponents. Mao himself acknowledged this.


A lot of us have a hatred of Mao that has nothing to do with a fear of communism, but because of his brutality and because his incompetence kept the Chinese people in serfdom and poverty for decades longer than needed to be the case. China's economy started growing like crazy immediately after Mao was out and Deng took over. Agricultural productivity skyrocketed, and China's has lifted more people out of poverty in the last 30 years (ie *post* Mao) than have ever happened at any other time in history. So, 3 decades of stagnation and poverty and misery and death, followed by 3 decades of the most spectacular growth the world has ever seen. I know which *I* think is more praiseworthy.

But anyway, you are of course entitled to your own opinion.

garthrock
Mar 10, 2010, 01:51 PM
Well, it doesn't matter whether or not you think I am Chinese just as it doesn't matter whether or not I think you are American on these forums (unless you want to somehow upload a photo ID and you holding a today's newspaper or something, then the more props to you). But I do believe I have a much more objective view on Mao than most westerners because of the nature of my work. I never said Mao was competent, but incompetence =/= bloodthirst or "evil," the way you refer to him as you put him on the same level of Hitler's.

Like I said, it was tragic how many people died, but some would argue that it was a necessary step. Just as there was no other way (because there actually WAS no other way, hint: history is history) that China could have had its first unity aside from being conquered by a brutal tyrant, there likely was no other way that China could avoid going through a bad leadership under Mao. When he was "enslaving people as labor," it was mostly obeyed WILLINGLY simply because of his national hero status. He may not have thought himself as a god, but most of China did, and they followed pretty much his every command. I'm not sure what you meant by "brutality" when his policies weren't enforced by armed forces. Over 80% of the army Mao had after the civil war went back to being farmers. While it was a fact that he did put down opposition, it was no more brutal than what China is doing now against ethnic unrest in Xinjiang. It was certainly much, MUCH less brutal than what Ulysses Grant did to the American south after the assassination of Lincoln, and let's not even talk about the American Civil War again.

Deng was a great leader, but again, how would you know that without Mao's failures, Deng's rise to power was even possible? How would Deng even be alive without Mao's efforts in the Chinese civil war? The problem I have with people's popcorn judgment of history is that for some unconceivable reason, they seem to think they could personally have done it better. Quite laughable, wouldn't you say?

It is one thing to have an opinion, it is another to have opinion based on whats and ifs. Tell me, what would you have done to seize power from Mao after the war and avoid his "killings?" (No, I'm not putting it in quotation mark to make it OK, I'm doing it to mock your skin-deep insight.)

Ahriman
Mar 10, 2010, 03:32 PM
I do believe I have a much more objective view on Mao than most westerners because of the nature of my work
Work for the CCP, do you? :-)
[That was a *joke*, for the humor-impaired]

incompetence =/= bloodthirst or "evil," the way you refer to him as you put him on the same level of Hitler.
He had hundreds of thousands of political opponents (ie anyone with wealth, or an education) executed, based purely on political ideology. How is that not evil? These weren't rebels or insurgents, they were just people who happened to have own some property, or run a business, or teach at a university.
I'll happily grant not *as* outright evil as Hitler (Mao set up labor camps, not actual extermination camps).

How was destroying the commercial and educated classes a necessary step for the development of China? How was collectivizing farms a necessary step for the development of China? (Deng de-collectivized, and agricultural production skyrocketed.)

People obeyed "WILLINGLY" because they knew that if they didn't, they would be rounded up and sent off to labor camps where they would likely to starve to death.

While it was a fact that he did put down opposition, it was no more brutal than what China is doing now against ethnic unrest in Xinjiang
What is happening in Xinjiang is also somewhat oppressive, but it was mostly against rioters (some of whom who had also been killing people), and maybe a few dozen people were killed by the government. It is not at all the same as rounding up tens of thousands of political opponents and shooting them, just because they were "rightists" or "capitalists".

I'm not sure what you meant by "brutality" when his policies weren't enforced by armed forces.
Ummm.. of course they were. Its difficult to shoot people or send them to labor camps without arms.

MUCH less brutal than what Ulysses Grant did to the American south after the assassination of Lincoln
What are you talking about? Grant's southern campaign during the war caused a lot of damage. But Lincoln was assassinated in April 14 1865.
The War was basically over after Appomatox Courthouse on April 9 1865.
Grant was quoted as *wanting* to take revenge, but he didn't do anything.

how would you know that without Mao's failures, Deng's rise to power was even possible?
Thats true, without Mao destroying the Chinese economy, the initial agricultural base output would have been higher when Deng game to power, and so the percentage increases under Deng would have been smaller. Clearly, an argument for Mao's greatness....

they seem to think they could personally have done it better
Well yeah, I wouldn't have slaughtered anyone out of hand, I think I would have done *much* better.
But since when was "well, could you have done better?" an argument for anyone over the age of 12?

* * *

Hardly the most objective source I realize (though would *anything* convince you?), but try reading through the Wikipedia page for a decent summary on Mao http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mao

Do you dispute the facts, or the direct quotes from Mao? He was *proud* of having murdered thousands of people.

Anyway, if you want to discuss further we should take this to PM, we're waaay off topic and probably boring the hell out of everyone.

say1988
Mar 10, 2010, 03:48 PM
He was a horrible and despicable man.

But I would much rather been in 1976 China than mid-late 1940s China.

He unified China, ending the civil war and getting rid of any remaining warlords. And centralized the state.
China as a state had become a major military power, with nuclear weapons.

garthrock
Mar 10, 2010, 04:16 PM
What is happening in Xinjiang is also somewhat oppressive, but it was mostly against rioters (some of whom who had also been killing people), and maybe a few dozen people were killed by the government. It is not at all the same as rounding up tens of thousands of political opponents and shooting them, just because they were "rightists" or "capitalists".

Um, I know you wanted to stop this debate for the benefit of others in this thread, but I just have to point out one thing about your comment here. Mao did not outright round them up and shoot all the rightists and capitalists, he rounded them up and told them to give up their land to the peasant class and reform their "capitalistic ways." They were not "political opponents" because they did not, or did not dare to, oppose him having no political party or any kind of organization (those who did fled to Taiwan), they were just landlords. I'm pretty sure some refused to reform by working labor and got shot, but a lot of others accepted and lived on. The vast majority of China's population were indeed believers of his cause, evident by how much support Mao gained during his military campaign. I'm not saying that's OK, but that's what I'm trying to differentiate in terms of mistake in policy and political ideal versus inherent evil. It was the communist and Marxist ideology to have land owned by the community instead of by the individual, by which slogan Mao was able to rally the masses to his revolution. Unfortunately for the land owners, they were consisted of less than 5% of China's population prior to the civil war and invasion of Japan. So in a way, you can even say that it was a majority decision to commit to communism, and forcing the land owners to reform in hard labor was arguably no different than imprisoning marijuana farmers. A crude comparison, but there you have it. We have a fitting term for this even in democratic societies: the tyranny of the majority.

The only point I've been trying to make is this: Mao was a deeply flawed man and a tragedy as much as he was a triumph for China, but putting him in the same category with Hitler is just irresponsible spreading of a persistant western propaganda.


edit: oh, and it was a necessary step because Maoism was the political ideal that rallied China in order to finally stop 50 years of conflict and bloodshed between warlords driven by foreign influence, did you think all those people would just go "that was a cute idea that we believed in, but now that the war's done, let's just forget about it and try another idea called capitalism that we've been hating all these years"? That Deng guy you liked so much was also a supporter of Maoism and the Great Leap Forward, and was a firm believer in Marxism. The difference between him and Mao was that Deng was able to quickly recognize the unrealistic nature of such political ideals during the Great Leap Forward. Experiments, failures, and improvements. I don't know any kind of development process, be it social or scientific, that can skip the middle step.

Shardienyah
Mar 11, 2010, 09:39 PM
It's a bit werid to see Wu Zetian as the Chinese leader. She is famous in China, but only because she's a woman. She didn't have much of an impact as an emperor in Chinese history.

The rulers that greatly impacted China would be:
Qin Shihuang
Han Gaozu/Liu Bang
Tang Taizong/Li Shimin
Ming Taizu/Zhu Yuanzhang
Mao Zedong

The second tier would be:
Han Wudi/Liu Che
Han Guangwudi/Liu Xiu
Sui Wendi/Yang Jian
Tang Xuanzong/Li Longji
Song Gaozu/Zhao Kuangyin
Ming Chengzu/Zhu Di
Qing Shengzu/Aixinjueluo Xuanye/Kang Xi

As for Wu Zetian, at best, she can be placed in the third tier. She's better than an average Emperor, but she's not even close to Qin Shihuang or Mao Zedong, who totally changed China.


Agree, agree 110% I'd even put Sun Yatsen and Deng Xiaoping above Wu Zetian, I could even think of half a dozen ministers who did more for Chinese history than Wu Zetian. Zhu Yuanzhang is who I would think would be the best of the Chinese leaders.

Im not a fan of Suleiman as Ottoman leader ether, but thats for another thread

kurtkage
Mar 11, 2010, 11:02 PM
I've read the thread and seen many comments about the single unit per tile in relation to cluttering.

What I have not seen mentioned is that in a couple of reviews they say that units are limited by strategic resources, so that 1 source of Iron is only going to allow you to build/have 1 Swordsman. (ok well one article said 1 and the other said 5 but in a guess sort of way).

This changes things alot if your 1 source of Oil can only support 5 tanks, things are totally different on the clutter front.

It also mentioned that losing your resource would allow you to keep the unit in the field but would have an increase to the support cost in gold and you wouldnt be able to build new units of that type until the resource is hooked back up or new resource aquired.

http://au.pc.ign.com/articles/107/1075587p1.html

And I lost the other link but it was on the Civ V confirmed features thread.

say1988
Mar 11, 2010, 11:31 PM
This changes things alot if your 1 source of Oil can only support 5 tanks, things are totally different on the clutter front.

Depends on a few factors:
1) How dense are resources? If they are plentiful, then this won't have a great impact.
2) How many units need resources? You can build pretty good armies with no resources in Civ IV.
3) How many units per instance of a resource? Are there other factors that can increase it (certain techs)? If Iron is 5, then are other resources similar?

tom2050
Mar 12, 2010, 12:06 AM
What's most ironic though, the majority of Americans agree that Lincoln was their greatest president, yet America had gone through their darkest times under him during the Civil War as well.

Civil War put an end to the pathetic acts of slavery... a dark, but shining moment in U.S. history (unless you are pro-slavery). You're hatred of Western culture is obvious, and the only propaganda confused individual here is yourself... perhaps talking to a wall is your best bet to have something actually listen to you.

kurtkage
Mar 12, 2010, 12:49 AM
Good points say1988.

In this http://www.shacknews.com/onearticle.x/62739 review it states 1 unit per resource using swords as an example.

In this http://www.escapistmagazine.com/news/view/99021-Civilization-V-Offers-New-Strategic-Combat it says "Units are no longer destroyed if they lose a battle, which means that civs can spend much more resources on maintaining their armies as opposed to cranking out new units" which is very interesting and it goes on to quote Dennis Shirk whom I assume is with firaxis as saying "We wanted to pull combat out of the cities, and make every unit important."

This one http://gdc.gamespot.com/story/6253246/civilization-v-impressions-first-look?page=2 says "units will take longer to produce and will eventually come to have upkeep costs associated with them" and says "generally speaking, you and your neighbors will have fewer military units in play than you might have had in previous games in the series, and they'll last longer and be more valuable."

I think it all seems to point towards less units overall, and perhaps the potential cluttering is taken care of.

I have to say that I love the idea of having resources directly tied to number of units as it gives you a reason to want to capture / trade for more that wasn't previously there.

Your point about non-resource units is very good, I mean what could archers need other than wood for bows and arrow shafts, ummm maybe stone or some metal for the arrowhead? But then again a couple reviews do mention higher gold maint for units too which could be the limiting factor on these units instead of resources.

Anyway I guess this is a thread of it's own, I suppose I should go search for one hehe.

Mathalamus
Mar 12, 2010, 01:38 AM
In this http://www.escapistmagazine.com/news/view/99021-Civilization-V-Offers-New-Strategic-Combat it says "Units are no longer destroyed if they lose a battle, which means that civs can spend much more resources on maintaining their armies as opposed to cranking out new units" which is very interesting and it goes on to quote Dennis Shirk whom I assume is with firaxis as saying "We wanted to pull combat out of the cities, and make every unit important."

hmm.. this is a very good concept. you could have a unit of Tanks which is named the 6th army to attack Stalingrad ( and fail) then the 6th army could retreat all the way from that area to Berlin gradually getting smaller and smaller, then it gets destroyed just outside Berlin.

can you imagine how fun that would look?

tom2050
Mar 12, 2010, 02:25 AM
In this http://www.shacknews.com/onearticle.x/62739 review it states 1 unit per resource using swords as an example.


IGN gave the number at 5 per resource, so right now it's probably either undecided or not known for sure. But 1 through 5 per resource is the spectrum.

1 is far too few, unless they plan on spamming resources. I would go with at least a few, for the sake of the 'fun factor'. Or make it on a sliding scale (more resource you have, the less each additional provides), so small civ's don't get smashed to bits by larger ones, or ones with more resources (after all they said this was one of their goals, that big civ's cannot crush smaller ones easily).

Tom

mjs0
Mar 12, 2010, 09:33 AM
IGN gave the number at 5 per resource, so right now it's probably either undecided or not known for sure. But 1 through 5 per resource is the spectrum.

1 is far too few, unless they plan on spamming resources. I would go with at least a few, for the sake of the 'fun factor'. Or make it on a sliding scale (more resource you have, the less each additional provides), so small civ's don't get smashed to bits by larger ones, or ones with more resources (after all they said this was one of their goals, that big civ's cannot crush smaller ones easily).

Tom
At this point it's all guesswork, but it's possible that the #units/resource is dependent on map size, a larger map meaning more available units makes sense.
Of course you would also expect more iron resources on the larger map, but maybe the two things scale differently.

So, 1 per resource might be reasonable for a duel size, but if you are playing a larger map 5 per resource works better.

Personally I hope this is a custom game option to allow me some variability, i.e. to play games such that some are more unit constrained than others.
As I say just guesswork at this point.

smgx27
Mar 14, 2010, 08:50 AM
Wu Zetian?...it should be Qin Shi Huang or Tai Zong

Öjevind Lång
Mar 15, 2010, 04:20 AM
Wu Zetian?...it should be Qin Shi Huang or Tai Zong

No, I'm glad they chose Wu. She was a remarkably, very able woman. Under her, Cinese power, culture and finances flourished. I don't understand the opposition to her. Is it because she was a woman?

smgx27
Mar 15, 2010, 08:19 AM
No, I'm glad they chose Wu. She was a remarkably, very able woman. Under her, Cinese power, culture and finances flourished. I don't understand the opposition to her. Is it because she was a woman?

No,she is definately a remarkable woman,but to represent the ancient history of china ,I think she is not suitable. Especailly now Civ 5 only gives one leader for each empire ,if there are two or more ,i don't mind give her a place

player01
Mar 16, 2010, 07:52 PM
It seems the leader of China in CIV5 is very unsuitable as people have complained about it for 7 pages.

Mathalamus
Mar 16, 2010, 11:22 PM
i don't mind having a Chinese leader a woman. its just more eye candy for us males. if they make her look good that is...

Thyrwyn
Mar 16, 2010, 11:39 PM
Male/female who cares? As long as the civ under her leadership feels different than the others, I will be happy.

Öjevind Lång
Mar 19, 2010, 09:16 AM
i don't mind having a Chinese leader a woman. its just more eye candy for us males. if they make her look good that is...

Wu started as an emperor's concubine and must have been striking since she become so influential. On the other hand, she reigned until old age, so Firaxis can take it either way.

Deezee
Mar 20, 2010, 07:43 AM
I really dont see how Wu Zetian is a good choice for china's leader people have been talking about how remarkable it is for a woman to work her way to the top, but given the circumstances it really isn't.
Wu Zetian took the throne after usurping it from her own son, which isn't even that difficult considering she was regent at the time, and then ruled for 15 years before being overthrown a year before her death.
As for her actual reign, it has been used for propaganda as why woman can/cannot run a country so often it is difficult to say if she was actually a good leader or not, but it seems that her reign wasn't really remarkable one way or another.
To put it simply, the only thing that stands out about Wu Zetian is that she is a woman, and while that is somewhat remarkable I'd much rather play as someone who actually has some sort of historical contribution.
And maybe its just me, but personally I think its a greater achievement to rise from being a poor peasant to being emperor (Liu Bang/Han Gaozu, and Zhu Yuanzhong/Ming Taizu), than from being empress to being regent to being emperor.
Even if you wanted an atypical leader I would go with someone like Zhu Di (the Yongle Emporer) of the Ming dynasty, who is definitely a "different" choice but is very historically significant (his greatest achievement was overseeing Zheng He's expeditions, which is one of the great explorations of the time and done by a famously inwardly focused nation, but he also drove out the last remaining Mongols from China and annexed Vietnam as a province).

scpe
Mar 20, 2010, 11:34 PM
I would say Wu Zetian is ok for being Chinese leader. Firaxis knows well about Mao, at least in civ3. Look at that Stalin head portrait behind Mao in modern era. I'm sure Mr. Chao made it for dear Mao.

Infantry#14
Mar 21, 2010, 01:46 AM
appearantly, Wu Zetian looks like the equilvalent of Victoria in Civ 4 or Catherine in Civ 3

http://www.weplayciv.com/node/193

GoodSarmatian
Mar 21, 2010, 07:24 AM
IGN gave the number at 5 per resource, so right now it's probably either undecided or not known for sure. But 1 through 5 per resource is the spectrum.



It might depend on map-size, tech level or improvements. In CIV cottages grew with time, mybe now you'll be able to upgrade mines or breed horses to get more resources.

scpe
Mar 21, 2010, 11:04 AM
appearantly, Wu Zetian looks like the equilvalent of Victoria in Civ 4 or Catherine in Civ 3

http://www.weplayciv.com/node/193

IMO Wu Zetian shares more similarity with Theodora of Byzantine.

Frantic men
Mar 21, 2010, 05:44 PM
smgx27
Chieftain

Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 2

Wu Zetian?...it should be Qin Shi Huang or Tai Zong
smgx27 is offline Report Post Reply With Quote Multi-Quote This Message Quick reply to this message
smgx27
View Public Profile
Send email to smgx27
Find More Posts by smgx27
Find all threads started by smgx27
Add smgx27 to Your Contacts
Add smgx27 to your ignore list
Old Mar 15, 2010, 05:20 AM #128
Öjevind Lång
Deity

Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 2,001

Quote:
Originally Posted by smgx27 View Post
Wu Zetian?...it should be Qin Shi Huang or Tai Zong
No, I'm glad they chose Wu. She was a remarkably, very able woman. Under her, Cinese power, culture and finances flourished. I don't understand the opposition to her. Is it because she was a woman?
Öjevind Lång is offline Report Post Reply With Quote Multi-Quote This Message Quick reply to this message
Öjevind Lång
View Public Profile
Send a private message to Öjevind Lång
Send email to Öjevind Lång
Find More Posts by Öjevind Lång
Find all threads started by Öjevind Lång
Add Öjevind Lång to Your Contacts
Add Öjevind Lång to your ignore list
Old Mar 15, 2010, 09:19 AM #129
smgx27
Chieftain

Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 2

Quote:
Originally Posted by Öjevind Lång View Post
No, I'm glad they chose Wu. She was a remarkably, very able woman. Under her, Cinese power, culture and finances flourished. I don't understand the opposition to her. Is it because she was a woman?
No,she is definately a remarkable woman,but to represent the ancient history of china ,I think she is not suitable. Especailly now Civ 5 only gives one leader for each empire ,if there are two or more ,i don't mind give her a place
smgx27 is offline Report Post Reply With Quote Multi-Quote This Message Quick reply to this message
smgx27
View Public Profile
Send email to smgx27
Find More Posts by smgx27
Find all threads started by smgx27
Add smgx27 to Your Contacts
Add smgx27 to your ignore list
Old Mar 16, 2010, 08:52 PM #130
player01
Chieftain

Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 3

It seems the leader of China in CIV5 is very unsuitable as people have complained about it for 7 pages.
player01 is offline Report Post Reply With Quote Multi-Quote This Message Quick reply to this message
player01
View Public Profile
Send email to player01
Find More Posts by player01
Find all threads started by player01
Add player01 to Your Contacts
Add player01 to your ignore list
Old Mar 17, 2010, 12:22 AM #131
Mathalamus
Byzantine Emperor

Mathalamus's Avatar

Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Calgary, Canada
Posts: 446

i don't mind having a Chinese leader a woman. its just more eye candy for us males. if they make her look good that is...
Mathalamus is online now Report Post Reply With Quote Multi-Quote This Message Quick reply to this message
Mathalamus
View Public Profile
Send a private message to Mathalamus
Send email to Mathalamus
Find More Posts by Mathalamus
Find all threads started by Mathalamus
Add Mathalamus to Your Contacts
Add Mathalamus to your ignore list
Old Mar 17, 2010, 12:39 AM #132
Thyrwyn
Guardian at the Gate

Thyrwyn's Avatar

Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: State College, PA
Posts: 535

Male/female who cares? As long as the civ under her leadership feels different than the others, I will be happy.
__________________
"He who draws his sword against the Prince, should throw away the scabbard." -- various
"We are creatures of the twilight. But it is out of our race and lineage that minds will spring, that will reach back to us in our littleness to know us better than we know ourselves, and that will reach forward fearlessly to comprehend this future that defeats our eyes." -- H. G. Wells, 1902
Monarch, Marathon, Large, Big & Small, 10+ AI
Thyrwyn is offline Report Post Reply With Quote Multi-Quote This Message Quick reply to this message
Thyrwyn
View Public Profile
Send a private message to Thyrwyn
Send email to Thyrwyn
Find More Posts by Thyrwyn
Find all threads started by Thyrwyn
Add Thyrwyn to Your Contacts
Add Thyrwyn to your ignore list
Old Mar 19, 2010, 10:16 AM #133
Öjevind Lång
Deity

Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 2,001

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mathalamus View Post
i don't mind having a Chinese leader a woman. its just more eye candy for us males. if they make her look good that is...
Wu started as an emperor's concubine and must have been striking since she become so influential. On the other hand, she reigned until old age, so Firaxis can take it either way.
Öjevind Lång is offline Report Post Reply With Quote Multi-Quote This Message Quick reply to this message
Öjevind Lång
View Public Profile
Send a private message to Öjevind Lång
Send email to Öjevind Lång
Find More Posts by Öjevind Lång
Find all threads started by Öjevind Lång
Add Öjevind Lång to Your Contacts
Add Öjevind Lång to your ignore list
Unread Mar 20, 2010, 08:43 AM #134
Deezee
Chieftain

Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Hong Kong
Posts: 1

I really dont see how Wu Zetian is a good choice for china's leader people have been talking about how remarkable it is for a woman to work her way to the top, but given the circumstances it really isn't.
Wu Zetian took the throne after usurping it from her own son, which isn't even that difficult considering she was regent at the time, and then ruled for 15 years before being overthrown a year before her death.
As for her actual reign, it has been used for propaganda as why woman can/cannot run a country so often it is difficult to say if she was actually a good leader or not, but it seems that her reign wasn't really remarkable one way or another.
To put it simply, the only thing that stands out about Wu Zetian is that she is a woman, and while that is somewhat remarkable I'd much rather play as someone who actually has some sort of historical contribution.
And maybe its just me, but personally I think its a greater achievement to rise from being a poor peasant to being emperor (Liu Bang/Han Gaozu, and Zhu Yuanzhong/Ming Taizu), than from being empress to being regent to being emperor.
Even if you wanted an atypical leader I would go with someone like Zhu Di (the Yongle Emporer) of the Ming dynasty, who is definitely a "different" choice but is very historically significant (his greatest achievement was overseeing Zheng He's expeditions, which is one of the great explorations of the time and done by a famously inwardly focused nation, but he also drove out the last remaining Mongols from China and annexed Vietnam as a province).
Last edited by Deezee; Mar 20, 2010 at 08:51 AM.
Deezee is offline Report Post Reply With Quote Multi-Quote This Message Quick reply to this message
Deezee
View Public Profile
Find More Posts by Deezee
Find all threads started by Deezee
Add Deezee to Your Contacts
Add Deezee to your ignore list
Unread Mar 21, 2010, 12:34 AM #135
scpe
Chieftain

Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 2

I would say Wu Zetian is ok for being Chinese leader. Firaxis knows well about Mao, at least in civ3. Look at that Stalin head portrait behind Mao in modern era. I'm sure Mr. Chao made it for dear Mao.
scpe is offline Report Post Reply With Quote Multi-Quote This Message Quick reply to this message
scpe
View Public Profile
Send email to scpe
Find More Posts by scpe
Find all threads started by scpe
Add scpe to Your Contacts
Add scpe to your ignore list
Unread Mar 21, 2010, 02:46 AM #136
Infantry#14
Emperor

Infantry#14's Avatar

Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 1,188

Yuck
appearantly, Wu Zetian looks like the equilvalent of Victoria in Civ 4 or Catherine in Civ 3

http://www.weplayciv.com/node/193
__________________
"Have no friends not equal to yourself." -Analects
Infantry#14 is offline Report Post Reply With Quote

Could we all plz STOP WITH THE WU ZETIAN CRAP AND TALK ABOUT THE REAL GAME!:mad:

WHO CARES IF A LEADER IS MALE OR FEMALE OR EVEN WHO THE LEADER IS RIGHT NOW!!!!!!:mad:

THIS THREAD IS FOR THE GAME MECHANICS NOT WHO THE LEADERS R GOING TO BE!!!:mad:

Louis XXIV
Mar 21, 2010, 05:59 PM
Isn't it both, it's a game preview comment thread. We also don't have a lot to talk about because they're leaving things cryptic.

Frantic men
Mar 21, 2010, 08:28 PM
Isn't it both, it's a game preview comment thread. We also don't have a lot to talk about because they're leaving things cryptic.

So?

The whole point is to discuss every1s views on the mechanics they're showing. NOT the "leaders", go to another thread if u want to talk about leaders, THERE'S WAY TOO MANY ALREADY! This right here is y the game designers cant even get things right, most of the gamers dont even think about discussing gameplay till its too late, then and ONLY then do people get fumed over the problems these games have...:mad:

Ty for the people that stick to the topic:D.

Frantic men
Mar 21, 2010, 08:35 PM
City-states
- City-states: Can provide gifts of gold, bonuses; only one city but borders can grow. Confirmed is Singapore.

I cant wait to see how this really plays out... This should be very intersting, that all of a sudden they put in something else to fight for (with the added resource change), especially since the states might actually cover up some resources and if rand mapping is still here then some might hold chokepoints:rolleyes:...

HKer
May 08, 2010, 09:30 PM
.............(China) China leader: Wu Zeitein/Zetein (two spellings in the article; SHOULD be Wu Zetian) (Mao and other previous Chinese leaders are out)............

Could Sid Meier please provide 1-2 more leaders for China to be chosen?? Wu Zeitein, she is the only one "female king" in China history, add her to the game is good, but "Qin Shi Huang" can represnt China more. Could Sid Meier keep him "Qin Shi Huangdi" in CIV V...?

mechaerik
May 08, 2010, 09:35 PM
No, not at this time. There is only one leader per civ at this point (and probably it will remain so until a future expansion).

MrHan
May 08, 2010, 09:41 PM
@HKer

Wu Zetian is a pretty cool character imo. and she has many more reasons to be added to the game than for being the only female king (adding someone cuz she's female is a pretty crappy reason imo).

Shi Huang did provide the foundation upon which China was built, what with all his unification of writing, wheel sizes, so on and so forth, but it's under Wu Zetian during the Tang dynasty that China really flourished. Shi Huang may have been important but, now that I think about it, Wu Zetian feels like the more appropriate person to be granted the title "leader".

Edit: eh, you're from china. You should be pretty familiar with this subject as well.

Meteora
May 15, 2010, 03:09 AM
Wu Zetian is definitely uncalled for... I wasn't quite expecting them to pull that one off. She has some remarkable characteristics that stand out from the countless hundreds of emperors in Chinese history. One being the obvious: she's a woman and the only ruling Empress in China. Period. That is a first and only ever. The second was managing to stay in power for so long as a women, debatable if that is ever notable. Thirdly, she made gender more equal in her time.

Of course, many of these traits can be overshadowed by many more great leaders in China. I won't really get into the Mao argument; but he is a genuinely liked leader in China and did a lot. This was more true in the beginning when he didn't start making nearly as much mistakes and making a cult of himself later on. Blah blah blah. So on.

In the end, it doesn't bloody matter because its the developer's choice and there's more important things to worry about than arguing who should be the leader in a freaking video game.