Very happy. It's like they're restoring some of the better ideas from previous incarnations of the game. Ranged bombardment, one unit per tile (wasn't a hard limit in 1 and 2 but only 1 defender was allowed) etc. The hexes is like a dream come true. The more I hear about it, the more it sounds like the civ that I'd design.
The one unit per tile thing surprised me at first, but the more I think about it, the more I reckon it's a great idea. It'll do what I've always dreamed of civ doing - having true front lines and making the defense of terrain and land important. Finally, the SOD is gone and forts will become important.
I will miss religion. Not entirely sure why they cropped it out. I hated religion when it was first introduced, but it's grown on me. However, I must say it was implemented poorly. Jewish Vikings and Confucian England and all that. But it was a simple fix - it only needed to be made generic, so you have a default style based on your nation but you could rename it and pick and choose the buildings, icons, and units associated with it when it gets founded. It could've been fixed; it didn't need to be scrapped. Oh well ... we can always hope it's brought back in an expansion.
Bringing back ranged bombardment is great. I always missed this one in civ4. The whole idea of suicide artillery was appalling. Who throws waves of artillery against enemy fortifications to be destroyed? Artillery is usually protected, firing from a safe distance, and the only time it is lost, is when there is counterbattery fire, air strikes, or a counterattack that achieves a breakthrough. It is not a shock troop thrown like waves against a rock to wear it down. That's infantry.
One thing that I'm really pleased about is the mature look of the game, from what I've seen in the screenshots. It has a refined and realistic look. I've been playing civ since the start of the franchise, and 2 and 3 were nothing but improvements on the game, but when 4 came along, I protested everything about it. I felt like they were getting rid of good things for no reason (like ranged bombardment) and I absolutely hated the look of the game - the leaders, in particular, looked cartoony and the way units towered over the cities like giants did not appeal to me. There was a certain juvenile feel to the whole thing - at first. I've gotten used to it and it doesn't seem that way anymore, but those were my first impressions, before I'd actually played. Once I actually played it, I started feeling alot different about it - I never play 3 anymore. But the first impressions were bad. I'm not getting that with the previews on this one. It looks great. I've seen one shot of a leaderhead (presumably) and he doesn't look cartoony in the least, it's a very realistic and mature look.
One thing I'm really concerned about, though, is ... what is the franchise doing? It seems to be appealing to a core demographic - people like me, who have been playing for a long time and who initially came to a civ as a computerized (and very light) version of tabletop wargames and strategy games. That is the origin of the franchise, too - Sid himself was apparently quite the wargamer way back when. What I'm concerned about is that it won't resonate with younger players who only came to civ in 3 or 4, and people who don't have a background in the roots out of which it developed (the Avalon Hill type games etc). They're looking for an 'immersive experience', not a strategy game per se. It'll be a great game for me, I just hope they know what they're doing commercially. I wouldn't want to see the franchise fail.
, maybe some new game facets fill in the gaping hole, maybe not.
