19 of 18 Civs now confirmed!

[Dale]

There is another thing to consider.......

The poster was it actually for Civ5? Or the Civ4 poster showing Khmer, HRE and Persian UU's?

 

[kivanc]

There is another thing to consider.......

The poster was it actually for Civ5? Or the Civ4 poster showing Khmer, HRE and Persian UU's?

hey! it is not april 1 yet.

 

[Camikaze]

traits are out so it could be fine if each civ had 2 UUs.

it wouldn't be a problem for germans just like landsknecht and panzer.
however that could be a problem for civs who have appeared in only ancient period of history. for such civs, 2 UUs might appear in the same period and that could damage the balance.

Well sure, I would've thought there'd be balance issues too. But I assume if there are going to be multiple UUs for each civilization (and I can't remember where I read this, but I was under the impression that this was a confirmed feature), they'd figure out the balance somehow.

 

[CMKMStephens]

There is another thing to consider.......

The poster was it actually for Civ5? Or the Civ4 poster showing Khmer, HRE and Persian UU's?

After having a look at the scans of the Italian magazine, it's clearly referring to Civ5. It was probably in the 'art deco' style (like that image of the samurai) - possible box poster?

 

[bob rulz]

I personally like the idea of UUs being an additional unit that each civilization has and not a replacement. The Persians still had swordsmen for example - Immortals didn't REPLACE them. I think they should UUs should be an additional unit, but much more expensive and perhaps they could limit how many you actually have.

It doesn't seem likely but this is how I would prefer it.

 

[eireksten]

Well sure, I would've thought there'd be balance issues too. But I assume if there are going to be multiple UUs for each civilization (and I can't remember where I read this, but I was under the impression that this was a confirmed feature), they'd figure out the balance somehow.

From what I understood, Civs wouldn't necessarily have the same amount of UU's. This would apparently be balanced by other bonuses the civs get.

 

[Hawkwood]

Landsknecht aren't really native to any one empire (Maybe the Germans or the Swiss, from memory).

Actually the landsknechts were formed by Holy Roman (German) Emperor Maximillian I, though they were based on the Swiss mercenaries.

 

[Charles Martel]

I've just read the scanned pictures of that article from the Italian magazine (but some parts were unreadable). Here are some quotes that may be worth mentioning (the translation is mine):

• “Only one combat value per unit” (e.g. no attack/defence values like Civ3)
  
• Promotions (The actual quotes goes like: “In Civ4 it was possible to promote units when they gained enough experience... that feature will be still present in Civ5, but everything will be much better!&#8221.
  
• “Cities will have a defensive value and will be able to defend themselves from barbarians.”
  
• Heroes (“Gli eroi” !?)
  
• The possibility of winning without fighting (“La possibilità di vincere senza combattere&#8221
  
• “You can ‘buy’ an hex to put it immediately under your control”
  
• “Schafer loads a saved game and shows us a big battle from the Hellenistic period: the hoplites of both opposing sides are facing one another, but the yellow side has got archers, who shoot the enemy from behind. The arrows kill many victims: the enemy units, made up of eight/nine ‘little men’, are literally decimated. Then, it’s the opponents turn: they try to break the line of yellow hoplites, but the archers shoot again, the arrows obscure the sky and kill all the remaining enemies.”
  
  The last passage seems to suggest a couple of things: opportunity fire and lethal ranged bombardment.

 

[Newcomer24]

My Italian isn't that good, but from what I understand of this text direct from the magazine, it definitely says "Siamese Elephants" and "Persian Immortals".

I'm italian.
Yes it says "Siamese Elephants" but I bet they are just refering to the normal elephant riders of civ4.

 

[PTM]

“You can ‘buy’ an hex to put it immediately under your control”

I'm pretty sure we've seen this mentioned before but it's nice to see further confirmation. Territory trading was sorely lacking in Civ4.

As for the Siam/Persia/HRE debate, I agree with those arguing that the 'phants are likely minor civ UUs made available through diplomacy. Persia is likely civilization 18 given previous roster lists and their overall importance with respect to world history. Of course, I had hoped for a Sumer or Babylonian showing, but that's what expansions and mods are for, I guess.

 

[Newcomer24]

An interesting bit for everyone here:

"A Civ5 game will last, approximately, as a Civ4 one"

This is indeed something we didn't know before.

 

[CMKMStephens]

An interesting bit for everyone here:

"A Civ5 game will last, approximately, as a Civ4 one"

This is indeed something we didn't know before.

Sooo.....a few hours up until the industrial age followed by half a dozen sleepness nights watching videos and anime while waiting for each turn to chug along?

 

[kivanc]

From what I understood, Civs wouldn't necessarily have the same amount of UU's. This would apparently be balanced by other bonuses the civs get.

that could be the best solution.

just roughly for example,
Germans have 2UUs + 1UB +10% production
English have 1UU + 1UB + 10% commerce +10% culture
etc.

An interesting bit for everyone here:

"A Civ5 game will last, approximately, as a Civ4 one"

This is indeed something we didn't know before.

i just knew it would last long but mostly because u have to move all units seperately

 

[Tomice]

1) City states need a reason to not be conquered, so powerful UU for them that you won't get otherwise are very logic, I think the war elephants are such mercenary units.

2) Multiple UU per civ seem very likely (british longbowman and redcoats, german landsknechts and panzers). those civs without great military tradition get other bonuses and possibly no UU at all.
Civs could also have strong and weak eras as balancing method.

 

[TheDervish]

2) Multiple UU per civ seem very likely (british longbowman and redcoats, german landsknechts and panzers). those civs without great military tradition get other bonuses and possibly no UU at all.
Civs could also have strong and weak eras as balancing method.

I hope that means the Japanese will have the Zero!

The Indians had "fast worker" as their UU in Civ IV, so in that case, a civ may get a non-combat UU.

 

[Newcomer24]

1) City states need a reason to not be conquered, so powerful UU for them that you won't get otherwise are very logic, I think the war elephants are such mercenary units.

I agree. City states will probably give an unique bonus to their friends... Florence could give extra culture, Venice extra trade routes... while other militaristic city states could provide their friends with unique units they couldn't normally build.

 

[kivanc]

city-states might be given many different bonuses, not necessarily UU. well a UU for each city-state is not possible by means of code work. i suppose there will be 20-30 city states but in each game we will have 5-6 of them maybe roughly.


anyway, that was out of topic. i really like to have Cyrus The Great / Persia as a 18th civ.

i also believe requirement of a UU should be free-of-supply for every civ. For ex, persia should start with 1 free horse resource but has to learn "the wheel" for training immortals. because persia w/o immortals are weird. same for every civ. but immortals should be nerfed as well.

 

[Dale]

City-states could be very bland and not have UU's, etc. Not one single preview or article on Civ5 has mentioned it...... at all. They've mentioned giving units, but you would think that if they gave UU's it would be mentioned specifically. So I'm inclined to believe that city-states don't give you UU's. Thus, I think we have to look at the possibility that we got stooged and there's more than 18 Civs. If that's true, then that's fantastic!

 

[Chalks]

City state based UUs are an extremely nice idea. I was wondering what sort of benefits they could provide to make them strategically important - important enough to go to war over.

Being the only source of your most powerful unit is certainly something that would make you want to keep them intact, and willing to risk everything to preserve.

I wonder if you can liberate conquered city states to preserve bonuses if an enemy takes them over (since once this happens, the city state civilization will be destroyed).

If this isn't the case, I'm not sure what the advantage of going to war with someone who takes them over would be - other than just to vent your frustration.

 

[Grimlin]

City state based UUs are an extremely nice idea. I was wondering what sort of benefits they could provide to make them strategically important - important enough to go to war over.

Being the only source of your most powerful unit is certainly something that would make you want to keep them intact, and willing to risk everything to preserve.

I wonder if you can liberate conquered city states to preserve bonuses if an enemy takes them over (since once this happens, the city state civilization will be destroyed).

If this isn't the case, I'm not sure what the advantage of going to war with someone who takes them over would be - other than just to vent your frustration.

It was mentioned in one article that city states can be liberated, to be precise it was mentioned that this is a war goal in a war between two adjacent nations in context of the new diplomacy system.
About the city-state-UUs, if they give them to you you don't have to worry about strategic resource caps