Civ5 - Gamereactor preview

V. Soma

long time civ fan
Joined
Apr 13, 2004
Messages
3,943
Location
Hungary
Gamereactor has a preview on Civ5, published 6th of April, you can read it here.

Not with much new stuff in it, but this may be an interesting quote:

"Firaxis opted to limit the number of units occupying one tile to simply one this time around,
with cities not being able to host any units at all."
 
not realistic. there's a bunch of battles with military units inside the city itself.
 
yep. not realistic, but still this is coherent with the other bad-looking changes :crazyeye:

civ5 seems to have a different view to combat. and new combat system really look all bad to me. only time will show if i will like this new view.

civ4 was not perfect with its SoD neither. but with some improvement, stack style of combat would be better than 1upt.
 
I am sure that when attacked, the city will act out some way of military action,
and do damage to the attacker...

...only you perhaps (as indicated in the preview)
cannot individually act and initiate attack with a military unit from within the city tile.

But I believe the city will act visually and technically as a combatting force.

I imagine it as a special combat unit when attacked...
(its way may be depending on what tech-level, historical age, defense buildings, forts it has)
 
hmm yes.
maybe city cannot defend totally but just prolongs siege period of the city.
attacker has to siege the city for a #of turns before taking it (like civ4 anarchy period after takeover, depending on city pop) and in that period maybe you still have the chance to build up new troops like drafting. or reinforce troops from a neighbour city.

such a thing could be good. else than that, i don't think the self defense of the city will be a real defense.
 
Well, all I can say is, damnit I want to play Civ V...
 
I thought that Firaxis already said units can be in cities. Oh and welcome to the staff.
 
I'm thinking that you cannot take a city unless you destroy all opposing units around the city.
 
All of this once unit per tile and bombardment leads to what seems like very big maps.
 
So what happens if a city that is surrounded on all tiles by enemy units procudes a new military unit?
 
one unit per tile kinda scares me with regards to the combat system. It lends itself to very big bloodbaths where one unit take out another. The unit's counter retakes the square for the initial holder, the other unit's counter does the same for the attacker, and so on until the smaller army or the one not using combined arms well enough is expended.

If Firaxis wanted to make SoD's a thing of the past they should have referenced the forums here. There are any number of intelligent ideas into solving that issue from an ambush-fortify unit mode to a hard cap per square. But one unit per square with ranged archers over the top is not the solution. It just over emphasizes archers and takes away from realism in warfare up to the development of gunpowder, or more specifically, artillery.

But what's missing in these previews are what are the changes they're going to make to the economic model of the game. The role of religion? Diplomacy, etc.

The thing that is great about civ 4, is that there is great flexibility in the strategies you can use to win. I doubt the game designers had the notion of hammer based specialist based economies when they put out the game, but I think they should encourage that aspect of the game, lending to a deeper, richer strategic experience every time.

So far, all I've seen is some questionable choices in changing the combat system, with nothing new or exciting added [culture in civ 3, religion in civ 4]. Hopefully, previews in the coming months will serve to change my current opinion, but right now, this civ1-4 vet is only lukewarm to this new incarnation.
 
So what happens if a city that is surrounded on all tiles by enemy units procudes a new military unit?

Sorry man, but if it gets to that point, your city is gone :( .

The system is much different. It seems to rely more on building a front which goes to battle in an open field, not building a trench right in front of a city and holding out.
 
Gamereactor has a preview on Civ5, published 6th of April, you can read it here.

Not with much new stuff in it, but this may be an interesting quote:

"Firaxis opted to limit the number of units occupying one tile to simply one this time around,
with cities not being able to host any units at all."

i think thats just vaguely worded, i remember previous previews or interviews stating that units can be placed in cities but it would prevent new units from being created.

it's probably saying that units can't stack simply from being in a city.
 
But I believe the city will act visually and technically as a combatting force.

With it's own healthbar and the ability to bombard, we can sure count on that.

I'm thinking that you cannot take a city unless you destroy all opposing units around the city.

Not very intuitive this suggestion.

§L¥ Gµ¥;9077400 said:
one unit per tile kinda scares me with regards to the combat system. It lends itself to very big bloodbaths where one unit take out another. The unit's counter retakes the square for the initial holder, the other unit's counter does the same for the attacker, and so on until the smaller army or the one not using combined arms well enough is expended.

It has been said, that units will probably not destroyed by a single combat, that it will take more than one.
 
I'm willing to bet that the article is simply wrong and that units can exist in cities. This goes directly against what Firaxis employees were stating outright in PAX and GDC.
 
about 1upt; firaxis have to find a way to multi-select and move units. otherwise, just after vanilla, firaxis will have to fire a few lead designers and maybe they will make civ6 w/o making any EP.
 
about 1upt; firaxis have to find a way to multi-select and move units. otherwise, just after vanilla, firaxis will have to fire a few lead designers and maybe they will make civ6 w/o making any EP.

:lol::lol::lol:

...but what is EP?
 
If you think about it, that's one way to chip off a piece off the micro. So far in every Civ, you pretty much have to have a unit in your city full time, or you are making a mistake. Any time you have a situation where a player must do something universally, it is no longer a decision to be made by the player and can be safely removed by abstraction/automation.
 
If you think about it, that's one way to chip off a piece off the micro. So far in every Civ, you pretty much have to have a unit in your city full time, or you are making a mistake. Any time you have a situation where a player must do something universally, it is no longer a decision to be made by the player and can be safely removed by abstraction/automation.

...And here thy cephalo with his eternal universal wisdom. :old:

:lol:

But seriously I agree ;) ...and it's not even in harmony with Sid's logic. Remember the stuff he talked about in those articles or whatever of his about giving the player options to decide... "if there is no choice for the player in some aspect then we failed" or something like that...
 
Top Bottom