Civ V Gameplay Changes
- Thread starter Camikaze
- Start date
Possibly losing Religions is saddening.
Finite resources is a good idea, if handled well. Ideally, each resource should have a total pool, which slowly decreased based on the your civ's size[for luxury resources], or use by each military unit you raise (one time deduction) and maintain(per turn) [strategic resources]; until there's literally no more, at which point the resource disappears. The exception would obviously be food resources, seeing as those never run out. Looking at the description, having 1 unit per 1 resource seems rather...dumb, especially as the total number of units gradually increases over the length of the game.
I imagine city states to be similar to independent civs found in RFC, but simply more fleshed out(the bonuses, or annexing em part), which in the overall picture certainly adds realism.
Finite resources is a good idea, if handled well. Ideally, each resource should have a total pool, which slowly decreased based on the your civ's size[for luxury resources], or use by each military unit you raise (one time deduction) and maintain(per turn) [strategic resources]; until there's literally no more, at which point the resource disappears. The exception would obviously be food resources, seeing as those never run out. Looking at the description, having 1 unit per 1 resource seems rather...dumb, especially as the total number of units gradually increases over the length of the game.
I imagine city states to be similar to independent civs found in RFC, but simply more fleshed out(the bonuses, or annexing em part), which in the overall picture certainly adds realism.
Also, we have the official website, which offers some information on features of the game.
One thing I noticed in particular about what is mentioned is 'trading items and land'. Will this mean that borders will no longer be decided by culture, but by diplomacy, or does it simply mean you can trade cities like you could in Civ4?
I can't seem to copy and paste from that site, so I'll work on typing up what's there.
One thing I noticed in particular about what is mentioned is 'trading items and land'. Will this mean that borders will no longer be decided by culture, but by diplomacy, or does it simply mean you can trade cities like you could in Civ4?
I can't seem to copy and paste from that site, so I'll work on typing up what's there.
Yes! YES!!!
Less enthusiastic about this. Still, Civ3 was fine without religions, and I would think it's possible to mod it in. I'll wait and see.
Less than enthusiastic about this as well. As Matt said, a resource pool would be good.
Good, good.
Legionarius
Chieftain
- Joined
- Oct 12, 2005
- Messages
- 39
Finite resources is a good idea, but to go along with it, I think that the chance of discovering another source should increase as you advance technologically (i.e. to simulate new technologies giving you access to otherwise unassailable locations). This could vary from resource to resource; copper should have a relatively higher chance of discovery than gold or gems.
And I agree with the above poster that 1 unit per resource is stupid. One resource should have a number of points associated with it, which would decrease depending on the number of units requiring that resource, basically linking military upkeep with resources in addition to gold.
And I'm questioning why they got rid of religion; it worked very well in IV, adding another layer of complexity to the diplomacy aspect of the game. But if they said they revamped and upgraded the diplomacy in V, maybe we won't need it. After all, all the religions were basically the same, differing only in name and when one could discover it.
And I agree with the above poster that 1 unit per resource is stupid. One resource should have a number of points associated with it, which would decrease depending on the number of units requiring that resource, basically linking military upkeep with resources in addition to gold.
And I'm questioning why they got rid of religion; it worked very well in IV, adding another layer of complexity to the diplomacy aspect of the game. But if they said they revamped and upgraded the diplomacy in V, maybe we won't need it. After all, all the religions were basically the same, differing only in name and when one could discover it.
Lord Parkin
aka emperor
I'll transfer over my relevant comments from the other thread, since it seems like we'll be using this one from now on.
With regards to the limited number of units per resource:
One problem I can forsee is that this makes land-grabbing and warmongering an even more powerful strategy. Empires that span more land get more resources, and consequently can build more units. There's no longer anything small empires can try to do to compensate (get a super-productive city, etc) because they're no longer able to produce more than a limited number of units while their opponent with 2-3 times the resources can produce 2-3 times the units.
Obviously warmongering is going to be an effective strategy in every Civ game, but I'm worried about whether this new resource limitation might make it so necessary to war for land that peace isn't an option if you want to survive. I hope they'll be taking this into account when creating the resource system.
With regards to the "capital capture conquest" victory:
Hmm, interesting, but could make it a bit too easy to win on a naval-based map with a sudden stab attack strategy. At least thinking from Civ4 combat mechanics. Maybe the limit of units per tile will make such a strategy near-impossible in Civ5. We'll have to see.
Either way, I'm fairly sure that this "capital capture conquest" (dare I introduce the acronym of CCC?) will probably be a selectable option. In other words, if you want to play the "traditional" style of conquest by complete and utter demolition, you should be able to tick or untick a box to do so.
With regards to the stacking of units:
I wonder if the units we see in the screenshots are made up of several individual units combined? This might mean that there's some kind of "unit per tile limit" imposed... e.g. can't have more than 10 or 20 units on the same tile. This would work against the "invincible stacks" thing, and at the same time be realistic (because there's only a finite number of troops you can fit into a certain space - i.e. tile).
[Later] Looks like my stab in the dark might have been right about limits for units on the same tile. I just hope the limit won't be ONE unit per tile, that'd be silly. But 10 or 20 I'm fine with.
With regards to religion:
No religion? Aw, that's a shame. I thought that was a pretty cool feature of Civ4. Guess they got too PC or something...
With regards to leader bonuses:
Unique leader bonuses... sounds great, I'm all for it. I just hope they can come up with enough unique bonuses so as not to make them repetitive (especially when the expansions start arriving).
With regards to the limited number of units per resource:
One problem I can forsee is that this makes land-grabbing and warmongering an even more powerful strategy. Empires that span more land get more resources, and consequently can build more units. There's no longer anything small empires can try to do to compensate (get a super-productive city, etc) because they're no longer able to produce more than a limited number of units while their opponent with 2-3 times the resources can produce 2-3 times the units.
Obviously warmongering is going to be an effective strategy in every Civ game, but I'm worried about whether this new resource limitation might make it so necessary to war for land that peace isn't an option if you want to survive. I hope they'll be taking this into account when creating the resource system.
With regards to the "capital capture conquest" victory:
Hmm, interesting, but could make it a bit too easy to win on a naval-based map with a sudden stab attack strategy. At least thinking from Civ4 combat mechanics. Maybe the limit of units per tile will make such a strategy near-impossible in Civ5. We'll have to see.
Either way, I'm fairly sure that this "capital capture conquest" (dare I introduce the acronym of CCC?) will probably be a selectable option. In other words, if you want to play the "traditional" style of conquest by complete and utter demolition, you should be able to tick or untick a box to do so.
With regards to the stacking of units:
I wonder if the units we see in the screenshots are made up of several individual units combined? This might mean that there's some kind of "unit per tile limit" imposed... e.g. can't have more than 10 or 20 units on the same tile. This would work against the "invincible stacks" thing, and at the same time be realistic (because there's only a finite number of troops you can fit into a certain space - i.e. tile).
[Later] Looks like my stab in the dark might have been right about limits for units on the same tile. I just hope the limit won't be ONE unit per tile, that'd be silly. But 10 or 20 I'm fine with.
With regards to religion:
No religion? Aw, that's a shame. I thought that was a pretty cool feature of Civ4. Guess they got too PC or something...
With regards to leader bonuses:
Unique leader bonuses... sounds great, I'm all for it. I just hope they can come up with enough unique bonuses so as not to make them repetitive (especially when the expansions start arriving).
This is most likely a feature of the,"- More diplomatic options between players.". Trading items would obviously be gold, tech, resources etc. I'd be especially interested to see how finite resources affect how you trade em, and since there isn't a sensable resource model to look at, I have no clue.
As for land, I would imagine it to be something similar to provinces(except as tiles in Civ5) in EU3 for peace treaties, just another option to bring to the peace table.
Lord Parkin
aka emperor
Trading land hexes between borders would be quite cool. I've always wanted to be able to do that, if only to ensure my city is working a full fat cross (which I guess will now be a fat... polygon?...
).Actually, that could potentially balance the problem of "more land = more resources" which I mentioned above. One civ might expand militarily very fast and claim 2-3 strategic resources, while another might put all their resources towards teching and discover a couple more sources of resources within their small borders. You just have to be careful to make sure that the fast-expanding military civ can't ALSO tech at the same rate (or faster) while they're warring compared to the small peaceful nation, as that would be really unbalancing. Maybe have some sort of production bonus/research penalty implemented while in a state of war or something. I don't know.
That's what I originally assumed it would be like, but re-reading the post I noticed it did say "1 Horse per resource". Maybe this was just a mistake, or maybe they're planning on implementing the multi-thing later in the game. Or maybe they're trying to reduce the number of units in the game to speed it up and make it more appealing to a different audience. I hope it's not too much of the latter.
Yeah... but they were still cool. It'd be cooler if they'd had unique bonuses, but I can see why they couldn't do that without risking PC backlash. Still, removing religions altogether seems a shame. But I'm sure they'll be modded back in at the earliest opportunity. Or maybe they're planning to save religions for an expansion or something. Who knows.
My apologies for any transcription errors. From the Civilization V website.
Some very interesting ideas in there. Another one I noticed whilst typing- it appears that the advisors are back.
Some very interesting ideas in there. Another one I noticed whilst typing- it appears that the advisors are back.
My best guess of the 18 is, in no particular order:
Aztec
America
China
India
Greece
France
England
Germany
Russia
Mongols
Rome
Zulu
Spain
Egypt
Japan
Arabs
And two of
Babylonians
Vikings/Scandinavians
Inca
Maya
Persia
Iriqious/Sioux/Cherokee/some Native North American civ
Maybe "one horse per resource" uses the word "resource" as a unit of measure.
If its one unit per tile that's bad. Its too blunt a way to get rid of the SOD, and leads to more use of the strategic playing area to double as the tactical playing area. Better would be if each of those ranks in the screenshots were one unit being represented graphically all at once. Especially if it also represented attack or defense order when in combat (assuming all don't fight at once or some totally changed system) and you could select their order. Then again, maybe these units that take up a whole tile are like Civ3 Armies that you build up. Also, it looks like the number of scales has been reduced, ie you have one scale for units and improvements and another for cities instead of each item having its own scale sufficient for it to fill the tile. That's good.
Not to be a stickler for "realism" but tiles translate to the size of states if you really think about the size of the world and the size of a civ map. So area is not really an issue for unit stacking. Of course you just have to do some suspension of dibelief.
If its one unit per tile that's bad. Its too blunt a way to get rid of the SOD, and leads to more use of the strategic playing area to double as the tactical playing area. Better would be if each of those ranks in the screenshots were one unit being represented graphically all at once. Especially if it also represented attack or defense order when in combat (assuming all don't fight at once or some totally changed system) and you could select their order. Then again, maybe these units that take up a whole tile are like Civ3 Armies that you build up. Also, it looks like the number of scales has been reduced, ie you have one scale for units and improvements and another for cities instead of each item having its own scale sufficient for it to fill the tile. That's good.
Not to be a stickler for "realism" but tiles translate to the size of states if you really think about the size of the world and the size of a civ map. So area is not really an issue for unit stacking. Of course you just have to do some suspension of dibelief.
Inverse Icarus
Chieftain
- Joined
- Nov 17, 2009
- Messages
- 36
I really hope that religion isn't removed. I wouldn't mind if it was changed majorly or abstracted in some other way, but religion as a whole is a very interesting part of history, and make for fun games.
1morey
Warlord
Hey people, remember there is still room for expansion packs. (If they ever do, which is almost certain.) Hopefully this time there will be complete ethnic diversity and New leaders/civs along with old ones/
Lord Parkin
aka emperor
Hmm, don't we already do that all the time... Alt-Tab, or just run it in a window. I don't see how this is new.
But the rest sounds great.
It did say "Religion is not a factor anymore", which seems pretty clear. Maybe they're planning to introduce it in an expansion though. Otherwise I'm sure it'll be modded in quickly. Either way, it'd be sad to see it go.
Regarding this apparent one unit per tile rule. If you have one unit defending an important choke point, say, a machine gun, and want to move your infantry across it, how would you? If its only one unit per tile, then you couldn't, unless you move the machine gun forward, therefore losing it's fortification bonus (Which seems to be what one units has in the lefthand side of one screenshot) and putting it in possibly an exposed position, which in some some scenarios could be costly, then would that make such a rule...a bit unrealistic and unfair?
This is most likely a feature of the,"- More diplomatic options between players.". Trading items would obviously be gold, tech, resources etc. I'd be especially interested to see how finite resources affect how you trade em, and since there isn't a sensable resource model to look at, I have no clue.
Trading land hexes between borders would be quite cool. I've always wanted to be able to do that, if only to ensure my city is working a full fat cross (which I guess will now be a fat... polygon?...
It would certainly be interesting, and would certainly represent an expansion of diplomacy in the game, but what would the implication be for culture? Where would it's role in the game be past providing defensive bonuses?
Inverse Icarus
Chieftain
- Joined
- Nov 17, 2009
- Messages
- 36
The idea of City-States is very interesting to me.
I figure they'll just be little AI-owned cities not aligned to any empire. You could probably trade with them and stuff.
You could probably leave them as a separate entity, convince them to join you diplomatically, or just stomp on them and make them your cities.
I really like this, not only from a gameplay perspective, but because this is more true to history. The idea of 8 or so nations starting with a single city and colonizing an empty world is kind of silly. Depending on the number of city-states in the game, it could be really interesting.
Maybe they could join together if there are enough of them nearby, and become a real civilization?
I figure they'll just be little AI-owned cities not aligned to any empire. You could probably trade with them and stuff.
You could probably leave them as a separate entity, convince them to join you diplomatically, or just stomp on them and make them your cities.
I really like this, not only from a gameplay perspective, but because this is more true to history. The idea of 8 or so nations starting with a single city and colonizing an empty world is kind of silly. Depending on the number of city-states in the game, it could be really interesting.
Maybe they could join together if there are enough of them nearby, and become a real civilization?
Hmm, don't we already do that all the time... Alt-Tab, or just run it in a window. I don't see how this is new.
Well, it will certainly be brilliant for CFC if it makes the forums more accessible to people who would otherwise not come here. I mean, most people who play the game do not go to the forums, so if it is made an actual part of the game, then it would be absolutely fantastic for CFC. And, I would assume, Apolyton. Although IDK how they'd go about selecting which sites to link to, or whatever.
Regarding this apparent one unit per tile rule. If you have one unit defending an important choke point, say, a machine gun, and want to move your infantry across it, how would you? If its only one unit per tile, then you couldn't, unless you move the machine gun losing it's fortification bonus(Which seems to be what one units has in the lefthand side of one screenshot), but that could potentially cost you in some scenarios.
I'm not buying this possibility. I mean, surely simply limiting units to one per tile is way too basic a solution to stacks for them to contemplate. Perhaps the screenshots are being misleading and you just can only see the selected unit on a tile? I mean, currently, without the dots above the flag, you can only actually see one unit per tile. So maybe the only difference is the absence of those dots.
Similar threads
