i like hex tiles, and one unit per tile. however im dissapointed in both the civ and leader choices. stalin, mao, and saladin should be in there over the ones they picked. and greece, spain and persia should all be in there. do we know for sure its 18 civs? maybe theyll surprise us and throw in 24.
New IGN preview
- Thread starter mrbee
- Start date
Insanity_X
Warlord
- Joined
- Feb 1, 2009
- Messages
- 230
We know there's 18 because they've said there's 18. And why should Mao (incompetant, modern person who's actions killed millions of people), Stalin (Paranoid madman who assasinated anybody who disagreed with him and whose actions also killed (if not millions) hundreds and thousands of people) and Saladin (Who wasnt Arabian, technically) get in over people who are more representative of the civs they lead.
dcmort93
The Stig
Well all we have seen is that there is going to be 18 Civs, not 18 leaders. Who's to say that there won't be, oh say, 36 leaders or even more.
cybrxkhan
Asian Xwedodah
Somewhere, they confirmed that there will only be one leader per civ. I don't remember where, though.
Insanity_X
Warlord
- Joined
- Feb 1, 2009
- Messages
- 230
because one leader per civ has also been announced.
Smellincoffee
Trekkie At Large
I love the effort they're making to give the AI leaders and the map itself personality.
thecolorblue
Chieftain
- Joined
- May 29, 2009
- Messages
- 19
I'm excited about nearly every aspect of this game. My first Civ game was IV; so I don't quite have the attachment to the stack of death gameplay as others, and I see the hexagon tiles and pulling battles away from cities to be a little more realistic(I know, it's a game and this isn't always the focus) and interesting.
The only thing I don't like is the removal of religion. I thought that was a very cool(if kind of underwhelming) aspect of the game that should have been expanded on instead of taken out completely. It plays such a huge part in politics and war I can't see the game without it. Hopefully they will add it in with an expansion, like they did with espionage for IV.
The only thing I don't like is the removal of religion. I thought that was a very cool(if kind of underwhelming) aspect of the game that should have been expanded on instead of taken out completely. It plays such a huge part in politics and war I can't see the game without it. Hopefully they will add it in with an expansion, like they did with espionage for IV.
wow. many posts have been written since yesterday afternoon. maybe guys from usa? anyway, i will comment a few.
1) Istanbul was under foreign control militaristically at that time
2) Istanbul is very close to border
3) Istanbul is a grand city. You cannot control public movement in such metropolitan cities. So a rather smaller and bureacratic capitol is considered better by some leaders. Just like the Washington/New York case.
well. i want to make a few comments on city-states. not about what their names will be but about their features. just a few guesses.
"befriending them will bring more benefit". sth like that was mentioned.
*maybe city states are more powerful than civs in early game. so attack has no meaning.
* maybe they start with a pop 4/5 while civs stat with 1 settler.
* maybe city state AIs play in the lowest level (settler) so tech partnering would be beneficial?
* even a city-state playing on noble would have a good effect if u play on high levels because there will be many of them.
well i have tried to found a colony in deity and it works quite well. don't forget colonies get AI bonuses as well
in civ4, AIs play on noble while u picked the level. imagine how they would be if they played on settler while u played on deity. according to civ4 dynamics, they would be as fast as u in tech if u had 4cities while it had only 1.
that was also what i said in post 115. Mustafa Kemal moved the capital to Ankara for 2 reasons.
1) Istanbul was under foreign control militaristically at that time
2) Istanbul is very close to border
3) Istanbul is a grand city. You cannot control public movement in such metropolitan cities. So a rather smaller and bureacratic capitol is considered better by some leaders. Just like the Washington/New York case.
The difference of Chiese Great Wall is that, it is seen from space! that much great and very long.
well. i want to make a few comments on city-states. not about what their names will be but about their features. just a few guesses.
"befriending them will bring more benefit". sth like that was mentioned.
*maybe city states are more powerful than civs in early game. so attack has no meaning.
* maybe they start with a pop 4/5 while civs stat with 1 settler.
* maybe city state AIs play in the lowest level (settler) so tech partnering would be beneficial?
* even a city-state playing on noble would have a good effect if u play on high levels because there will be many of them.
well i have tried to found a colony in deity and it works quite well. don't forget colonies get AI bonuses as well
in civ4, AIs play on noble while u picked the level. imagine how they would be if they played on settler while u played on deity. according to civ4 dynamics, they would be as fast as u in tech if u had 4cities while it had only 1.
Julian Delphiki
Anton's key
Just like many other man made structures. Wall is not even very well visible as it blends with the background on most places.
Mathalamus
Emperor of Mathalia
1. then Ataturk should have waited until they left, then moved the capital back.
2. so? many many nations also have capitals near the border. one (chad) has their capital right on the border.
3. no other nation had a problem controlling the people in their capital. even if its the biggest city ever. istanbul had less than a million people. you should be able to control the population of that many.
if America moved the capital to new york tomorrow, i doubt anything would change. exept from every single country having to update their maps and stuff.
Ankara was a tiny city.. 20,000 people at that time.. smaller is sometimes better but they literally had to construct everything from scratch. in Istanbul all you had to do was tear down some buildings and construct a nice shiny palace from that. or tear town the old palace and build a new one. or even use that old palace.
Sorry, but i still dont see a good reason that Istanbul cant be the capital. even today.
well. pop of istanbul just changed much during 20th cent. decreased during war and then increased. just as u say, a smaller city is simpler for re-organizations in some cases.
well, it is just out of topic. for the guys who are interested in the issue, see following.
Spoiler :
What with the increased unit costs, a whole ring (or 5/6 ring) of melee units may well be an unaffordable luxury some or most of the time - let alone 12 archers! But yeah, even a 1/2 or 1/3 ring will be pretty effective: the simple fact that attacking the archers will force the defenders out of their defensive position will likely be powerful enough.
Le Sage
Emperor
The leaders included can be discussed in all eternity. I dunno which ones have been confirmed as yet. But excluding both Mao and Stalin are good choices I think, since those were worse massmurderours than Hitler who has never been a part of Civ. Having massmurderours represent nations is no good, but they will surely be modded in though. Hitler and Stalin for all those WWII mods und so weiter.
Shi Huang Di for China, Peter the Great for Russia would be excellent choices for China and Russia, instead of the nutcases. However, Catherine also gladdens me, since she is one of my favourite leaders in CivIV. Most of the great leaders in history have more or less blood on their hands; even old Winnie. That seems to be part of leadership, but mentally derailed massmurderours isn't good to represent an entire nation's history and should not be included.
I wonder which leader they'll make for the Vikings, the nation which I most synch with? Take back Canute, Knud den Store, I'd say. I hope the Vikings will be included in vanilla five as well.
Shi Huang Di for China, Peter the Great for Russia would be excellent choices for China and Russia, instead of the nutcases. However, Catherine also gladdens me, since she is one of my favourite leaders in CivIV. Most of the great leaders in history have more or less blood on their hands; even old Winnie. That seems to be part of leadership, but mentally derailed massmurderours isn't good to represent an entire nation's history and should not be included.
I wonder which leader they'll make for the Vikings, the nation which I most synch with? Take back Canute, Knud den Store, I'd say. I hope the Vikings will be included in vanilla five as well.
i also said it is out of topic and just gave a short reply.
anyway, i really need additional leaders in EPs. this 1 leader per civ is just for decreasing code work. no philosophy under that might be accepted by us, right?
i know nations have their own characteristics but still this is not an excuse. they could just give different UUs/UBs or similar stuff to additional leaders.
well, i expect the first EP to come in late2012/2013 and the third in 2014. so our wishlist for civ5 will mostly wait for civ6 if there will be any. so it seems we will have to be satisfied wth this 1 leader per civ for years. maybe i may continue playing civ4 as well
anyway, i really need additional leaders in EPs. this 1 leader per civ is just for decreasing code work. no philosophy under that might be accepted by us, right?
i know nations have their own characteristics but still this is not an excuse. they could just give different UUs/UBs or similar stuff to additional leaders.
well, i expect the first EP to come in late2012/2013 and the third in 2014. so our wishlist for civ5 will mostly wait for civ6 if there will be any. so it seems we will have to be satisfied wth this 1 leader per civ for years. maybe i may continue playing civ4 as well
You can't really see the Great Wall of China from space, can you? Isn't it just a myth? What is it - 5 m wide? That would make my appartement visible!
I hope, I didn't just overlook an ironic joke.
I really look forward to civ5. I'm already beginning to plan my income so I'll have a brand new computer ready...
Regarding the last civs. As much as I would love vikings as one of the remaining civs, they're quite outmanouvered by Persia, Greece, Spain. I have to admit that.
- Jeppe, Denmark
I hope, I didn't just overlook an ironic joke.
I really look forward to civ5. I'm already beginning to plan my income so I'll have a brand new computer ready...
Regarding the last civs. As much as I would love vikings as one of the remaining civs, they're quite outmanouvered by Persia, Greece, Spain. I have to admit that.
- Jeppe, Denmark
Great article thanks for posting it. I am truly shocked at the direction this thread has gone. Very little discussion of game mechanics and a lot on semantics.
IMHO I don't think which leaders and Civs are in the game matters very much if the game turns out to be a dud. After all... the rest will be included with downloadable content/expansions at a price. Obviously that is what most of you care about, so why not charge a premium for more leaders and civs? That is what I would do. Personally I could play the game with Cultural leader Artsy Fartsy and scientific leader Smarty Pants as examples.
As to the realism vs gameplay debate. You guys are all arguing on the same side of the argument, but from different angles. The Civ developers have tried to make a somewhat realistic and playable strategy simulation out of the history of mankind. I know the game in itself is not uber realistic but every step it gets closer to realism we all seem to like the game much better. As crazy as this sounds... as it gets more realistic the gameplay seems to be getting better as well. In fact as a community we can't even stand it if it takes a step back in the wrong direction. i.e dropping religion and espionage. So to all of those people who say it is all about gameplay I say this... Great gameplay brings about realistic results. If the game doesn't feel realistic few people will play it. To all those who think it is all about realism. Without gameplay you are not playing a game. So just go and settle a village in the wilderness somewhere and we will see where you get in a few thousand years.
Now back on topic.
I find the generic statement "game is as deep as long time fans want" a bit too vague to give me any comfort at all. Every other game developer has let me down in the past except Sid. Please Sid don't fail me now!
I am concerned about naval warfare/transport and how it will be managed. Some of the ideas in this thread have been very interesting like units transporting themselves through a city. We will see soon I hope.
I truly like a cities culture and borders growing slowly hex by hex. The innability to pick which hexes you want to include in your cities culture will make it hard to specialize cities to certain tasks. Perhaps specialized cities are a thing of the past? Are national wonders for specializing cities included in CiV? I haven't read anything about them.
I like the idea of cities defending themselves and building structures can increase that defense. Also garrisoning the city with a unit is a great option to have. With the one unit per hex rule I can already see a battle frontage where each side has units on either side of a city and that city hex changing sides several times before the battle is over.
Units can replace each other is great but can 3 units in a triangle switch spots?
The tech sharing is definately better with a small boost to participant nations. I may even play with it turned on. I have never played a game with tech trading on in CIV 4.
I find alliances with city states very intriguing and hope they pull it off. I wonder why just taking their city will not be as beneficial to you? It always has been in the past.
I love the idea of maintenance costs for strategic resources. This will make warfare much more necessary to aquire vital resources. It will also make a target of nations who have the most resources. So when you get big and have the most everyone will try to knock you down and take what you have. This could balance the game a bit instead of the snowballing I see in many of my games where the big just keep getting bigger.
The concept of writing the AI in layers sounds great. I just hope it has the flexibility to change with map position, availability of resources, and the changing game. Here's to hoping!
Cities flipping always seemed unrealistic and by definition bad gameplay! I'm glad that is changing. I hope it becomes more of a civil unrest situation. Thus having cities like this become a drag on the empire. The partisan idea could be cool as well. This could tie up your troops from more important matters.
The individual traits for the leaders has me very concerned. As was previously mentioned. When leaders shared traits there was competition for wonders, culture, religion, large empire, attack, defense, etc. There was always another leader with the same or opposite traits to compete with. Also the example given was horrible. forests as roads? If they are going that route then I am truly worried. I could get a seafaring trait only to be stuck in the middle of a continent. I see very little flexibility if they are going for traits like that?! I can also see a situation where a couple of leaders will have the most desired trait and everyone will want to play with that leader/civ.
As for the graphics news. Great extra but I don't really care a whole lot. Gameplay and Realism that is what I care about!
IMHO I don't think which leaders and Civs are in the game matters very much if the game turns out to be a dud. After all... the rest will be included with downloadable content/expansions at a price. Obviously that is what most of you care about, so why not charge a premium for more leaders and civs? That is what I would do. Personally I could play the game with Cultural leader Artsy Fartsy and scientific leader Smarty Pants as examples.
As to the realism vs gameplay debate. You guys are all arguing on the same side of the argument, but from different angles. The Civ developers have tried to make a somewhat realistic and playable strategy simulation out of the history of mankind. I know the game in itself is not uber realistic but every step it gets closer to realism we all seem to like the game much better. As crazy as this sounds... as it gets more realistic the gameplay seems to be getting better as well. In fact as a community we can't even stand it if it takes a step back in the wrong direction. i.e dropping religion and espionage. So to all of those people who say it is all about gameplay I say this... Great gameplay brings about realistic results. If the game doesn't feel realistic few people will play it. To all those who think it is all about realism. Without gameplay you are not playing a game. So just go and settle a village in the wilderness somewhere and we will see where you get in a few thousand years.
Now back on topic.
I find the generic statement "game is as deep as long time fans want" a bit too vague to give me any comfort at all. Every other game developer has let me down in the past except Sid. Please Sid don't fail me now!
I am concerned about naval warfare/transport and how it will be managed. Some of the ideas in this thread have been very interesting like units transporting themselves through a city. We will see soon I hope.
I truly like a cities culture and borders growing slowly hex by hex. The innability to pick which hexes you want to include in your cities culture will make it hard to specialize cities to certain tasks. Perhaps specialized cities are a thing of the past? Are national wonders for specializing cities included in CiV? I haven't read anything about them.
I like the idea of cities defending themselves and building structures can increase that defense. Also garrisoning the city with a unit is a great option to have. With the one unit per hex rule I can already see a battle frontage where each side has units on either side of a city and that city hex changing sides several times before the battle is over.
Units can replace each other is great but can 3 units in a triangle switch spots?
The tech sharing is definately better with a small boost to participant nations. I may even play with it turned on. I have never played a game with tech trading on in CIV 4.
I find alliances with city states very intriguing and hope they pull it off. I wonder why just taking their city will not be as beneficial to you? It always has been in the past.
I love the idea of maintenance costs for strategic resources. This will make warfare much more necessary to aquire vital resources. It will also make a target of nations who have the most resources. So when you get big and have the most everyone will try to knock you down and take what you have. This could balance the game a bit instead of the snowballing I see in many of my games where the big just keep getting bigger.
The concept of writing the AI in layers sounds great. I just hope it has the flexibility to change with map position, availability of resources, and the changing game. Here's to hoping!
Cities flipping always seemed unrealistic and by definition bad gameplay!
I'm glad that is changing. I hope it becomes more of a civil unrest situation. Thus having cities like this become a drag on the empire. The partisan idea could be cool as well. This could tie up your troops from more important matters.The individual traits for the leaders has me very concerned. As was previously mentioned. When leaders shared traits there was competition for wonders, culture, religion, large empire, attack, defense, etc. There was always another leader with the same or opposite traits to compete with. Also the example given was horrible. forests as roads? If they are going that route then I am truly worried. I could get a seafaring trait only to be stuck in the middle of a continent. I see very little flexibility if they are going for traits like that?! I can also see a situation where a couple of leaders will have the most desired trait and everyone will want to play with that leader/civ.
As for the graphics news. Great extra but I don't really care a whole lot. Gameplay and Realism that is what I care about!
Shiggs713
Immortal
honestly I stopped reading when you mentioned downloadable content at a price. Dont buy into the hype, its not happening. Who's gonna pay for garbage content firaxis produces when modders will make it better and for free?
Le Sage
Emperor
This time I agree with Shiggs. Downloadable content is no idea. I think that was done on Oblivion when I was modding and playing that one, but I personally never cared for the downloadable stuff that came at a price and never gave it a second thought. I don't know anyone else who did either. In Civ it's a completely useless idea as well. The only thing they can get my Euros for after the game's initial release are official expansion packs.
I will have my Vikings led by Canute. Whether modded or included in an expansion.
I will have my Vikings led by Canute. Whether modded or included in an expansion.
Similar threads
