A bit dissapointed!

Aussie_Lurker · Mar 2, 2010

I confess that my hope is the shift to 1 leader per civ-at least for Vanilla-is inline with an attempt to bring in a "1 bonus for civilization, 1 bonus for leader" approach, similar to what we saw in CivCol. I'm also hoping that City States will replace Goody Huts-with the City States granting some kind of longer-term, in-game bonus (access to unique units & buildings, bonuses to commerces & yields, gold per turn etc), depending on how they integrate them into the empire.

Aussie.

Infantry#14 · Mar 2, 2010

Dark_Jedi06 said:
Ugh, disappointing. Why only have one leader per civilization? Sure, Civ3 was a good game with only one leader but to go to multiple leaders and then back again seems like a huge step backwards. LAME.

And the choice of Wu Zetian over Qin Shi Huang is ridiculous, period. Maybe if they had the sense to keep multiple leaders they could throw Wu in there for some flavor, but clearly that won't be happening.

I really hope this is some sort of farce, otherwise my anticipation for this game will have been severely soured.

Spoiler :

Ah man, I dont know how to add images properly...

Well, here is the link:
http://www.waterstones.com/waterstonesweb/displayProductDetailsZoom.do?sku=4643468

Thorburne · Mar 2, 2010

Aussie_Lurker said:
I confess that my hope is the shift to 1 leader per civ-at least for Vanilla-is inline with an attempt to bring in a "1 bonus for civilization, 1 bonus for leader" approach, similar to what we saw in CivCol. I'm also hoping that City States will replace Goody Huts-with the City States granting some kind of longer-term, in-game bonus (access to unique units & buildings, bonuses to commerces & yields, gold per turn etc), depending on how they integrate them into the empire.

Aussie.

I'm not sure if you get an actual bonus, or if they were just referring to the "diplomatic" bonus of befriending them (or incorporating them into your empire). City-States definitely need more explanation!

Aussie_Lurker · Mar 2, 2010

Oh yeah, should have clarified that. I realise it might not be the case, I just hope that *is* how it works. Would be far, far less random than Goody huts-& might be a darned sight more challenging than barbs if some city-states are more aggressive than others!

Aussie.

thungrim · Mar 2, 2010

Dark_Jedi06 said:
Ugh, disappointing. Why only have one leader per civilization? Sure, Civ3 was a good game with only one leader but to go to multiple leaders and then back again seems like a huge step backwards. LAME.

Many people theorize its due to how much more animated (and thus work intensive) the leaders are.

mattigus · Mar 2, 2010

My prediction: Egypt will not have Cleopatra, and Empress Wu will replace her as the token hot female leader. Because she's asian.

cybrxkhan · Mar 2, 2010

mattigus said:
My prediction: Egypt will not have Cleopatra, and Empress Wu will replace her as the token hot female leader. Because she's asian.

Sorry, I'm only laughing because I'm Asian.

But, yeah, either Wu will be the token hot female leader... Or the token ugly fat old female leader. We'll see. :lol:

johnny139 · Mar 2, 2010

Yeah... not too enthused about single-leader civilizations. One of the best advances in IV over previous installments was the idea that you could have different playstyles for each civilization, different parts of history, different figures. But now it seems they're going back to the idea of "you play as the nation, not as the leaders." Disappointing.

Cool to see Haroun al-Rashid and Oba Nobunaga, though. Both interesting figures and new faces, at that.

mdmiller · Mar 2, 2010

Overall I like the news that I have heard. I hope to get the magazine soon.

Were there any new screenshots?

mattigus · Mar 2, 2010

cybrxkhan said:
Sorry, I'm only laughing because I'm Asian.

But, yeah, either Wu will be the token hot female leader... Or the token ugly fat old female leader. We'll see.

Catherine actually could take the title of token hot female leader. She was fat and old in Civ3, hot in Civ4, and super-hot in CivRev. If you follow this trajectory, she's definately on target.

Also, I just convinced my uber-conservative friend that the American leader for Civ5 is Eleanor Roosevelt. He's freaking out right now. :lol:

mdmiller · Mar 3, 2010

mattigus said:
Also, I just convinced my uber-conservative friend that the American leader for Civ5 is Eleanor Roosevelt. He's freaking out right now.

HAHAHAHA! now thats funny! :goodjob:

Aussie_Lurker · Mar 3, 2010

I confess that, when it comes to City-States, my ideal is that they be something like the Minor Races of Birth of the Federation. Is anyone familiar with this game & what I'm talking about?

DuTian · Mar 3, 2010

The one leader per civ is a bit disappointing, but it isn't as if further expansions won't come out. And my favorite LHs in civ4 were made not be Firaxis, but by individuals in this forum.

matthewv · Mar 3, 2010

Thorburne said:
I am also skeptical about the management of units. I can imagine that it would get pretty crazy and overwhelming. I am also worried about the scale of the maps. To me, this type of system would work best on more focused maps. If the scale of Civ IV maps is anything to go by for Civ V, it seems to me that the map could get pretty crowded. With an Earth map, I can see France and Spain each being filled with units for one epic battle. On the plus side (depending on how you look at it), there is at least two moves per unit (which is for tactical reasons). As the article demonstrated, a spearman can move to the front lines as your warriors clash with the enemies.

I have a hunch that maps will be much larger and the minimum distance between cities will be greater. This will give room for large sprawling battles on the landscape. This will also help balance the increased unit movement.

Loppan Torkel · Mar 3, 2010

It's a good decision to go back to one leader per civ, at least for the vanilla version. It became too much of "Leaders" instead of "Civilizations" in civ4 and even if diversity is good and fun, I think they could focus on other aspects to gain more in quality gameplay. I got the sense civ4 was watered down because of the leaders and the many, pretty boring characteristics of them.

matthewv said:
I have a hunch that maps will be much larger and the minimum distance between cities will be greater. This will give room for large sprawling battles on the landscape. This will also help balance the increased unit movement.

This is what I also hope for. That they go back to a larger game and if it's easier to do this with one-unit/hex I'm for it.

lostcause · Mar 3, 2010

Maybe they cut back the number of total leaders to cut back on the number of traits, cause some traits were lacking compared to others.

V. Soma · Mar 3, 2010

matthewv said:
I have a hunch that maps will be much larger and the minimum distance between cities will be greater.

On one of the screenshots we have so far you can see 2 cities -
my guess is they are 6-7 tiles away from each other...

hm, IF that is MINIMUM distance, that MAY be okay...
but I cannot be sure, of course...

EDIT:

on another, the distance is 4, only, meaning three tiles btw the two cities...

Danielos · Mar 3, 2010

I´m all for fewer leaders if that instead means we will get more civilizations. Perhaps a few new ones that has yet to be seen in a Civ-game like *cough* Atlantis *cough*, Sweden, Brazil or Argentina?

CornPlanter · Mar 3, 2010

One leader per civ truly is a step back

CTH · Mar 3, 2010

I heard from a friend that in the article in swedish pc gamer it said that the leaders will speak in their own language... He didnt say much more about it and it sounds a bit strange to me. If anyone has the new swedish PC gamer please confirm this and give us more facts

(I would have bought it myself but I am not currently in sweden right now)

A bit dissapointed!

Deity

Emperor

Centurion

Deity

Warlord

Warlord

Asian Xwedodah

Warlord

Chieftain

Warlord

Chieftain

Deity

Chieftain

Emperor

Deity

Aim to Misbehave

long time civ fan

Emperor

Emperor

Prince

Similar threads