GamePro Preview

[dc82]

GamePro (April 2010) has a great preview of Civ. A few things they mention:

Leaders/Civs
- (Germany) German leader: Otto von Bismark
- (China) China leader: Wu Zeitein/Zetein (two spellings in the article; SHOULD be Wu Zetian) (Mao and other previous Chinese leaders are out)
- (America) American leader: Washington (Lincoln and FDR are out)
- (Japan) Japanese leader: Oba Nobunaga (Tokugawa is out)
- (Arabia) Arabian leader: Harun al-Rashid (Xerxes and Saladin are out)
- Other confirmed leaders mentioned in the article (Genghis Khan, Washington, Caesar, Napolean, Gandhi)

Looks like one leader per civ a la Civilization Revolution?

City-states
- City-states: Can provide gifts of gold, bonuses; only one city but borders can grow. Confirmed is Singapore.

Terrain
- Hills provide defensive and line-of-site advantages
- Attacks over rivers are affected
- Wounded units can hide in trees and recover

Units
- Basic military units move two tiles in combat instead of one.

[_random_]

Originally Posted by dc82

Units
- Basic military units move two tiles in combat instead of one.

This indicates that they might be going for a larger scale. Makes the whole "ranged attack" thing with archers a bit less absurd (not that it bugged me too much in the first place.)

[Cashew]

Originally Posted by Randomnerd10

This indicates that they might be going for a larger scale. Makes the whole "ranged attack" thing with archers a bit less absurd (not that it bugged me too much in the first place.)

People are just dumb. Probably people will complain that it's unrealistic for an army to be able to move only as far as an arrow can shoot or some other crap.

[Izanaki]

I like that they're not going for modern leaders, especially the lack of Mao.

Although I must say Wu Zetian is an odd choice too. A very unremarkable leader, probably chosen just because she's a woman.

[Mathalamus]

why did they kick Mao out? hes a good modern leader.

why ddi they kick out Saladin, FDR, Lincoln, Tokugawa, Frederick, etc? in most cases these leaders are better than the ones that are confirmed.

[Joecoolyo]

Originally Posted by Mathalamus

Frederick, etc? in most cases these leaders are better than the ones that are confirmed.

He doesn't have kick-ass facial hair, unlike my friend Bismarck.

[the Falcon]

Originally Posted by Joecoolyo

He doesn't have kick-ass facial hair, unlike my friend Bismarck.

Facial hair FTW!

[Jawa'sRevenge]

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.

[cybrxkhan]

Originally Posted by Jawa'sRevenge

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.

HEAR, HEAR!

But to make it look like we're not fanatical capitalistic anti-commies, I'll change that sentence a bit - any reasonably famous and/or important and/or influential/powerful Imperial leader is better than Mao.

(Also for those who may be a bit confused, the 'Zhou Dynasty' Wu Zeitian founded was NOT the 1000 years Zhou dynasty that ruled in the BC era; the one that Wu founded died with her, more or less)

[phungus420]

If they are dropping Mao, they will likely be dropping Stalin as well. That way there will be no disconnect between having those two monsters in, but for some reason not using Hitler. I still don't know who among those three is "worse".

[mechaerik]

Originally Posted by Joecoolyo

He doesn't have kick-ass facial hair, unlike my friend Bismarck.

But from what i've seen, he doesn't have his pickelhaube. A pickelhaube would make him even cooler.

[cybrxkhan]

Originally Posted by phungus420

If they are dropping Mao, they will likely be dropping Stalin as well. That way there will be no disconnect between having those two monsters in, but for some reason not using Hitler. I still don't know who among those three is "worse".

If you measure in terms of people dead, ironically, Hitler is the "best". From what I know, estimates of those killed due to Stalin range about 20-25 million, and for Mao they range at least about the same (I've heard estimates as high as 100 million for Mao, but that's sort of ridiculous).

Again, the biggest difference between them is that Stalin and Mao still have mixed legacies, unlike Hitler, who is more or less in most people's minds like the devil incarnate.

Anyhow, if I remember correctly, they aren't dropping Stalin. He has been confirmed as a leader in another thread/article.

[dc82]

Originally Posted by Mathalamus

why did they kick Mao out? hes a good modern leader.

why ddi they kick out Saladin, FDR, Lincoln, Tokugawa, Frederick, etc? in most cases these leaders are better than the ones that are confirmed.

Check out the article if you have a chance, but apparently they've been replaced for a desire to heave leaders that focused more on diplomacy (vs war), a nod to Shafer's interest in 19th century diplomacy. Nobunaga was explained to be more of a diplomat that built up Japan. Wu Zetian promoted scholarship and the place of women in Chinese society. Same with Harun al-Rashid, who was less warlike and lead Arabia during a height in art and culture. They did want to keep some of the favorites though, including Napolean and Gandhi.

[SmellyJelly]

Please post a link to the preview...
Thanks!

[Aussie_Lurker]

Am I the only person who hopes that City-States will be identical to Minor Races from Star Trek: Birth of the Federation? That was such a cool element which I feel has been missing from Civ for too long!
I also note that there is no mention about religion in this article, which suggests the talk of its removal might be premature! At least I certainly hope thats the case!

Aussie

[Mathalamus]

Originally Posted by dc82

Check out the article if you have a chance, but apparently they've been replaced for a desire to heave leaders that focused more on diplomacy (vs war), a nod to Shafer's interest in 19th century diplomacy. Nobunaga was explained to be more of a diplomat that built up Japan. Wu Zetian promoted scholarship and the place of women in Chinese society. Same with Harun al-Rashid, who was less warlike and lead Arabia during a height in art and culture. They did want to keep some of the favorites though, including Napolean and Gandhi.

peace isn't everything. i don't even think peace is a good qualifier for leaders, since it sounds so boring. you could end up having Chamberlain as the English leader.

Am I the only person who hopes that City-States will be identical to Minor Races from Star Trek: Birth of the Federation? That was such a cool element which I feel has been missing from Civ for too long!
I also note that there is no mention about religion in this article, which suggests the talk of its removal might be premature! At least I certainly hope thats the case!

birth of the federation? that's one of my favorite games. if it is like that, its too easily exploitable. ( bribe them 10 times then get them to join you) i hope its a bit more complicated.

removal religions is still bad. i often have fun utterly destroying a culture (razing cities) while representing Christianity.

[cybrxkhan]

Originally Posted by Mathalamus

peace isn't everything. i don't even think peace is a good qualifier for leaders, since it sounds so boring. you could end up having Chamberlain as the English leader.

Peace doesn't have to be 'boring'. To be honest, there is nothing like 'true', all-out total peace, and it's also very hard to get true, all-out total war either. Peace could mean cultural and economic development, so you have to be careful when you distinguish between when nothing happens at all and when a leader is helping their Empire prosper domestically. But even so, many of the more 'peaceful' leaders still had to deal with war and 'more interesting' stuff.

[Aussie_Lurker]

Well obviously, cybr, getting the City-States to ally with you should be almost as difficult as getting one of the major civs to ally with you. As much as I loved Birth of the Federation, the diplomacy engine was a bit on the weak side-for the reasons you mentioned !

Aussie.

[Thorburne]

New troops must leave a city at once, as there is only one unit per tile

from CivFanatics Main page

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?

[cybrxkhan]

Originally Posted by Aussie_Lurker

Well obviously, cybr, getting the City-States to ally with you should be almost as difficult as getting one of the major civs to ally with you. As much as I loved Birth of the Federation, the diplomacy engine was a bit on the weak side-for the reasons you mentioned !

Aussie.

Wait, I wasn't talking about Birth of the Federation... I don't even know what that is. ...