GamePro Preview

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
 
LOL. Sorry cybr, I thought that was your post I was responding to. That was meant to be directed at Mathalamus-my bad ;)!

Aussie.
 
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...!"
 
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:
 
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
 
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
 
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.
 
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").
 
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.
 
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."
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.)
 
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.
 
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.
 
Top Bottom