GamePro Preview

Ituralde · Mar 5, 2010

I think we just need to get our heads around this new scaling asymmetry.

Sure your example with India and the Himalayas is totally absurd, but so is the fact that India usually contains only two or three cities, at least on most Earth maps I've seen for Civ. And that no matter how you move your units and depending on when you move them it could take them between a couple of hundred years to one year to move into India.

Those asymmetries were always in the Civ games, the new combat system just highlights another one. We shouldn't let it get in the way of destroying the fun though.

You fight in the Middle Ages. Well the scale of the map is really small, your archers fire across tiles and it's no farther away than a bowshot.

You fight in the modern age. Suddenly only your artillery can fire across tiles and it's suddenly become a couple of kilometers, making the map scale more in line to what we're used to from earlier Civs.

The scale changes, but the combat mechanics stay the same!

Louis XXIV · Mar 5, 2010

Lucky The Fox said:
Has that been confirmed? All I remember reading is that each AI is unique in behaviour.

I remembered reading that leader traits were being replaced by unique bonuses for each leader, but I can't remember where I read it.

Berba · Mar 5, 2010

I post the following text in all topics about the recent Civ V previews, sorry if it counts as spam

But if there's only one unit per hexagonal tile, there'll be a almost completely new combat system as you'll not be able to defend your city and therefore you must take out the enemy before it gets to the city?
And the text mentions that there's one unit per tile including cities, does this mean that there's a maximum of one unit per city or does it mean that you can't have any unit defending/sleeping in a city at all?
That's my two questions hope you can answer them

TheEnforcer · Mar 5, 2010

Bleech on the leaders so far..

Loppan Torkel · Mar 5, 2010

Louis XXIV said:
I remembered reading that leader traits were being replaced by unique bonuses for each leader, but I can't remember where I read it.

I like this and it could be even better if there was a 'bad' characteristic coupled with each leader too, like in the Total War-series..

Louis XXIV · Mar 5, 2010

I hope so. I was going to say like SMAC, but either way. The point being to give both advantages and disadvantages, not just advantages, to make an even more unique play style.

Klyde182 · Mar 5, 2010

Xerxes is out, why? Is there no Persian Civ?
With out the Xerxes there is no Alexanders or Greek Civ!

moscaverde · Mar 5, 2010

Well there's always Darius and Cyrus.

I believe if the archer units can shoot from tile distance, so can all the more modern (gunpowder) units?

Berba · Mar 5, 2010

moscaverde said:
I believe if the archer units can shoot from tile distance, so can all the more modern (gunpowder) units?

All ranged units can fire from tile distance

Louis XXIV · Mar 5, 2010

Klyde182 said:
Xerxes is out, why? Is there no Persian Civ?
With out the Xerxes there is no Alexanders or Greek Civ!

There were better leaders than Xerxes in Persia (Cyrus and Darius being the obvious ones, even Cambysses could possibly be better than Xerxes). Obviously Xerxes invaded Greece, but so did Darius and a rivalry between Persia and Greece would have been inevitable either way. Alexander would exist no matter what and some kind of league to rival the Peloponnesian League was inevitable. So Xerxes isn't needed.

the Falcon · Mar 5, 2010

Ahriman · Mar 5, 2010

I believe if the archer units can shoot from tile distance, so can all the more modern (gunpowder) units?

All ranged units can fire from tile distance

Do we actually know this for a fact?

I could easily see a design where support units, including archers and artillery, could bombard from afar, but where frontline combat units, including musketeers, riflemen, modern infantry and tanks were regular combat units who fought by attacking directly.

Gundpowder units probably end up being more like swordsmen and axemen than they do like archers.

Otherwise the entire late game would be about bombardment, and tile defenses and unit placement would be basically irrelevant. Which would be *lame*.

Berba · Mar 5, 2010

Ahriman said:
Do we actually know this for a fact?

I could easily see a design where support units, including archers and artillery, could bombard from afar, but where frontline combat units, including musketeers, riflemen, modern infantry and tanks were regular combat units who fought by attacking directly.

Gundpowder units probably end up being more like swordsmen and axemen than they do like archers.

Otherwise the entire late game would be about bombardment, and tile defenses and unit placement would be basically irrelevant. Which would be *lame*.

Bombardment:

Some units may attack other units more than one hex away, for example archers.

That's what I call a fact, unless you can't convince me

Shiggs713 · Mar 5, 2010

not only that, its also a fact that they will be able to attack further if they're standing on a hill.

Thormodr · Mar 5, 2010

kazapp said:
It's highly probable this is true only because Hitler weren't in power very long.

That doesn't I'm saying Stalin and Mao are acceptable. They're just farther removed from "western civ", that's all. (At least in the uneducated minds of some boss at Firaxis/Take)

Case in point: the korean bar owner who opened "hitler bar". He was devastated when somebody told him that was equivalent to me opening a "emperor hirohito bar" here in Western Europe.

Heh heh. I taught English in South Korea for over 5 years and I actually saw that bar. Never went into it though.

I actually saw South Korean guys walking around with shirts that had the iron eagle clutching the nazi swastika. When I questioned them about that they said it was all about fashion and that it wasn't a big deal. "Just fashion! Just fashion! It's ok!" I just shook my head and kept walking.

I also saw a book on learning Japanese in a South Korean bookstore. They had pictures representing each Japanese sound. For example, for "Ma" they had a picture of a horse. (Ma is horse in Korean) For Hi (pronounced "hee") they had a picture of Hitler! (Literally Heetler according to the book I guess.) It still amazes me that they couldn't find a Korean word that started with "Hi" . :crazyeye:

It's amazing to think that Imperial Japan was allied with Nazi Germany and many South Koreans just didn't make that connection. To think that if I had worn any Imperial Japanese clothing in South Korea I would have got lynched. :rolleyes:

Berba · Mar 5, 2010

Shiggs713 said:
not only that, its also a fact that they will be able to attack further if they're standing on a hill.

Precisely, and I don't know why they should make the game so archers were the only "super range" unit

Frantic men · Mar 5, 2010

Thorburne said:
I am sure that the system works great for a game like Panzer General 2. A game where the focus is on a specific time period or war. But I don't see how it will work on the scale of Civ. The map view is too far pulled out for this type of combat. As I suggested earlier (or in another thread... I don't remember where) imagine playing on a full earth map and playing as France. You go to war against Spain. You gather your forces and move them down to attack Madrid, your units filling all of France. At the same time, Spain is completely filled with their defending troops.

But see, history isnt just about building armies. Its about building up cities and roads and towns, and AVOIDING conflict. If necessary, though i cant even think of a civ building up horde after horde of soldiers (population limit there), especially in that kind of war. It just goes to point how many people these days only think on action and ONLY action.

Thorburne said:
Part of the point of Civ is MASSING units! If what you say is the case, then that will open up too much for sneak attacks from other Civs. I just don't get it!

Ummmmm... NOT REALLY. Its making a civ, not mass warring and killing urself and others! :mad:

Shiggs713 · Mar 5, 2010

I think his point was something like this....

Imagine an earth scenario in civ4, just say the earth18 that came with the game. Now say you play as England on that map, there are only 17 tiles on that land. So England can have a maximum of 17 troops on the island, and even if thats fine, they will all be spread out, using up graphics card resources, making the screen ugly full of non-combatant combatants. To be honest 1UPT is straight up ridiculous, unrealistic, and about the stupidest thing I think they could have came up with, but I sincerely hope it works out.

Mathalamus · Mar 5, 2010

Shiggs713 said:
I think his point was something like this....

Imagine an earth scenario in civ4, just say the earth18 that came with the game. Now say you play as England on that map, there are only 17 tiles on that land. So England can have a maximum of 17 troops on the island, and even if thats fine, they will all be spread out, using up graphics card resources, making the screen ugly full of non-combatant combatants. To be honest 1UPT is straight up ridiculous, unrealistic, and about the stupidest thing I think they could have came up with, but I sincerely hope it works out.

think of it this way.. it will make England a HEADACHE to take.

Thorburne · Mar 5, 2010

Mathalamus said:
think of it this way.. it will make England a HEADACHE to take.

And what about the management of all of these units? You build an army and have to move them all one at a time...

GamePro Preview

Warlord

Le Roi Soleil

Warlord

Chieftain

Deity

Le Roi Soleil

Prince

Prince

Warlord

Le Roi Soleil

Chieftain

Tyrant

Warlord

Immortal

Servant of Civ

Warlord

Chieftain

Immortal

Emperor of Mathalia

Centurion

Similar threads