Are you happy with the path Firaxis is taking Civ 5?

[Rusty Edge]

Unsure.
I fear the game might become too martial & tactical. I like the present balance.
Removing religion and adding more diplomacy may or may not help.

I think most of the changes are good ideas, I've lobbied for many of them.

Sometimes all of the pieces fall into place, sometimes the places falls all to pieces: such is life.



If it's even more modable than Civ IV, we can be sure geat things will come of it sooner or later.

 

[frekk]

I'm not entirely sure what the basis is for the game being too much of a wargame, but I keep hearing it.

Improving how warfare plays out in the game doesn't mean that the focus on warfare is going to increase at all. We can readily see that there's a qualitative change, but I don't see any evidence of a quantitative change. In fact - given that the unit count almost certainly has to drop owing to the tile restriction, I'd have to say that the proportion of time spent managing military units is probably going to drop signifigantly.

 

[MadMage86]

I love the Hex and military changes. Both should have happened long ago, in fact.

I did listen to Sid speak at the GDC and I honestly disagree with many of the things he said. Not sure what that says about Civ5 in general, but a great example would be what he said about how AI leaders react to being conquered in Civ4 - essentially that he felt they should act belligerent to make destroying them more fun.

I think the AI should know it's place - if you've got 30 tanks on thier borders and they've got spearmen garrisoned in thier cities they need to be cowering in fear and doing anything they can to appease me.

 

[ee0u3142]

Removing religion is a big let down, considering wars have been faught over less. But I'll wait and see if Firaxis plans to implement religion in some way other than just another victory condition.

Also, single unit tiles is another concern of mine, but as long as the "frontline battles" work well, I'll be happy. It's also more realistic in the map compared to the stack of doom. Mile long army formations were common throughout history, even as recently as WW1, so it wont be a stretch of the imagination to accept 5 or 6 units streched over as many tiles to protect a city.

 

[tom2050]

I've been hoping for more diplomacy... but can't find anything saying more diplomacy besides the full-size leader pictures. Anyone have links to these?

 

[Danielos]

All this silly speculation. Can´t all people here just abandon this forum until september and then return when you have the game and you know what you are talking about?

 

[Dragonlord]

What I see I like.

- more tactical combat
- no more SoD's
- less units in the modern age
- possibly fewer cities, since you only need to conquer capitals
- better AI (multilevel)
- better diplomacy

All in all, I hope for games that remain exciting and fun throughout, instead of degenerating into the drudgery of managing hundreds of units and dozens of cities in the modern age.

I've very seldom finished a game in Civ3 and 4, precisely because it gets boring in the modern age, when a single turn can take half an hour or more, and you basically already know you've won - all over but another x hours of pushing units around.

 

[squadbroken]

My opinion on what has been revealed so far is almost entirely positive.

Of course, I'm a realist - I know that it could very well turn out to be bad. I've seen far too many good series take nosedives to think it couldn't happen to this one. But I have no reason to suspect that is happening (yet).

 

[Akka]

Unsure. There is plenty of possibilities, that's good.
I'm REALLY NOT convinced by the "one unit per tile" concept, and even less by the ridiculous idea that archers are able to launch strategic-scaled arrows. Still, maybe it will work in the end. Maybe not.
I find it's really a stepback that they are removing religion. The concept of religion bores me to death, but it's such a capital part in history, I find it really weird they recinde on it.

So well... I'm unsure, but I keep an open mind about it.

 

[cicero spqr]

I'm split half and half. on one hand, you have city-states which i like. One unit per tile would probably limit the army size and take the focus of taking cities. when ever i went to war in civ4, i almost never fought in the field. no religion makes me made, but they might add it in an expansion pack or someone will probably make a mod, so i'm not too worried there. i think that they added hexes instead of squares because you can attack a six sided shape in more than one way as opposed to a square. but just to make sure i'm not disappointed, i'm not buying civ5 until i hear what others think

 

[Willem]

Mile long army formations were common throughout history, even as recently as WW1, so it wont be a stretch of the imagination to accept 5 or 6 units streched over as many tiles to protect a city.

Except that, in Civ 4 at least, one tile can be as wide as 300 miles. So a Civ5 frontline that spans maybe 1500-1800 miles will definitely be a huge stretch of the imagination. While I like the idea of 1 unit per tile on the whole, I think the battles themselves should be done on a seperate map, much like Total War.

 

[EdCase]

All this silly speculation. Can´t all people here just abandon this forum until september and then return when you have the game and you know what you are talking about?

Indeed, because the last thing you should do on a discussion forum is discuss things.

 

[Willem]

Indeed, because the last thing you should do on a discussion forum is discuss things.

Not to mention that by offering early feedback, Firaxis is going to be in a position to make some changes before the final release if it appears that some feature is going to be grossly unpopular. If no one speaks up, then we're just stuck with it.

 

[frekk]

I like to think that the developers are actually counting on some feedback from us about certain features.

It's pretty obvious to me from some of the changes (notably, hexes) that they have drawn alot of ideas from discussions and arguments around here.

 

[Savoir10]

Not to mention that by offering early feedback, Firaxis is going to be in a position to make some changes before the final release if it appears that some feature is going to be grossly unpopular. If no one speaks up, then we're just stuck with it.

You are absolutely correct, and the feedback Firaxis is getting from the results of this poll, is that the vast majority of people are happy with the proposed changes and they should continue with them.

 

[Carver]

"Hate it" is not quite strong enough...

The hex map is the only improvement.

1upt? ARRRRGGGHH

Ground units transforming into boats? ARRRRGGGHH

 

[boredatwork]

Civilization was always a great strategic game but the combat has always sucked.

Panzer General had great combat but had finite replayability.

If Civ5 is indeed a blending of the two then, if done successfully, it could be the greatest strategy game of all time IMO.

 

[tom2050]

It is easy to see why so many are happy with everything, when there are extremely few details known, the game has never been played, and there are probably going to be alot of changes made as the game is tweaked before release...

Excitement of a new Civ game prompts human beings to like it. Most everyone in all actuality would be on the 'need to wait for more info' option to make a proper decision.

 

[Guta]

I happen to like both - single-unit-per-tile (a must!) and hexes (I loved PG, History line & co. )

 

[Cilpot]

I am very pleased so far. I like that they are doing "radical" changes to combat.