Civ 5 Confirmed Features

[Ddude97]

I don't think this has been posted/asked and I'm sorry if it already was but, what are the chances ethnicity (assuming it will be in the game) is going to go past gunpowder, so that everyone doesn't suddenly become the same? There are problems with the aztecs/other empires that didn't develop modern weapons (and of course there's also the modern nations (US comes to mind first) that didn't exist until early industrialish)
I'd really like to see t72s vs m1a2s or whatever

 

[Bangra 7]

I don't think this has been posted/asked and I'm sorry if it already was but, what are the chances ethnicity (assuming it will be in the game) is going to go past gunpowder, so that everyone doesn't suddenly become the same? There are problems with the aztecs/other empires that didn't develop modern weapons (and of course there's also the modern nations (US comes to mind first) that didn't exist until early industrialish)
I'd really like to see t72s vs m1a2s or whatever

Who's to say we can't mod that stuff in?
I agree however, that it should be a consideration for the developers of later games in the CIV franchise.

 

[Melo-Franco]

The coolest Civilization features, speaking for myself, include the idea of virtual history. E. g.: how the world would be if Rome had dominated it until now? Would we communicate in this germanic language that lacks grammatical gender? What kind of tech would emerge first in a really Latin (not in the banal acception of the word) modern society?

In my estimation, this kind of anachronism (co-existence of leaders and civs from different periods of time) is essencial to shape the imaginary experience related to the "what if" aspect of the game: what would Napoléon do if he had to defeat Alexander etc?

Pardon my English, it's not my mother tongue.

 

[Bangra 7]

The coolest Civilization features, speaking for myself, include the idea of virtual history. E. g.: how the world would be if Rome had dominated it until now? Would we communicate in this germanic language that lacks grammatical gender? What kind of tech would emerge first in a really Latin (not in the banal acception of the word) modern society?

In my estimation, this kind of anachronism (co-existence of leaders and civs from different periods of time) is essencial to shape the imaginary experience related to the "what if" aspect of the game: what would Napoléon do if he had to defeat Alexander etc?

Pardon my English, it's not my mother tongue.

Only to think of the MODS to come from this one.

 

[Acronym2]

I don't think this has been posted/asked and I'm sorry if it already was but, what are the chances ethnicity (assuming it will be in the game) is going to go past gunpowder, so that everyone doesn't suddenly become the same? There are problems with the aztecs/other empires that didn't develop modern weapons (and of course there's also the modern nations (US comes to mind first) that didn't exist until early industrialish)
I'd really like to see t72s vs m1a2s or whatever

I've looked at some of the screenshots in the Civ5 Forum and one would feel they "outsourced" the units as I see Rome with T-34/85 tanks, Hind D attack helicopters, British WWII styled infantry, and MLRS artillery as well as a wheeled mechanized infantry unit. (There is, perhaps some practical thought in this. For example, the T-34 was produced in greater numbers than any other WWII tank, etc.)

 

[The Almighty dF]

I don't think this has been posted/asked and I'm sorry if it already was but, what are the chances ethnicity (assuming it will be in the game) is going to go past gunpowder, so that everyone doesn't suddenly become the same? There are problems with the aztecs/other empires that didn't develop modern weapons (and of course there's also the modern nations (US comes to mind first) that didn't exist until early industrialish)
I'd really like to see t72s vs m1a2s or whatever

Looking like Firaxis got too lazy to do this one. I'll bet it'll be modded in shortly after release, though.

 

[Me,myself,and,I]

If Rome were still around today we would be buying THEIR tanks.

 

[Agent Cooper]

If Rome were still around today we would be buying THEIR tanks.

...and their awesome military uniforms

 

[Mustakrakish]

Ha just imagine legionaire style soldier uniform with an AK.

 

[emeralddude]

I hope there's at least basic dynamic names. Don't know how they'd do that with no civics and the social policies, though.

 

[Bangra 7]

What?! No civics and social policies?!
Now how am I going to force the world into democracy then kill off all the ruthless pagan leaders?

 

[Churchdown Yank]

Stumbled across these audio clips of the 2K/Firaxis presentation of Civ V at E3. No video, but the audio sounds legit to me. Speaking is Pete Murray, marketing associate at Firaxis

Posted by Killthrash of 2old2play

Part 1

Part 2

Spoiler :

Mentions 2 wonders I don't see on the main list: Notre Dame @ 5:48 in Part 1 and Stonehenge @ 1:27 Part 2.

Maybe those of you with sharp ears can pick up something else I missed...

Edit: Sadly Gloucester also falls in Part 2

 

[Peng Qi]

What?! No civics and social policies?!
Now how am I going to force the world into democracy then kill off all the ruthless pagan leaders?

Honestly, though, how many of the civics did you actually use?

Let me recount when I used each one:

Hereditary Rule, just because it was the only one I had for a while and had the same upkeep as Despotism. Once I got any other civic I stopped using it.

Representation, and only if I was using a specialist economy or if it was the only non-Hereditary Rule one that I had.

Police State only during war, and only if my opponent was stronger than I was.

Universal Suffrage almost all the time otherwise.

So out of the Government civics, I was almost always in Universal Suffrage when it was available unless I was a specialist economy, then Representation.


Vassalage if it was the only legal civic I had.

Bureaucracy almost all the time until the late game.

Nationhood only if I was stuck in a war and extremely weak, and/or having happiness problems.

Free Speech almost all the time in the late game.

So out of the legal civics, it was basically always Bureaucracy and Free Speech.


Slavery as my labor civic almost all the time until late game.

Serfdom almost never unless I had just rapidly expanded and needed to improve the terrain and was spiritual.

Caste System every once in a while when my empire doesn't have many hills and I need to spam workshops.

Emancipation only if I'm having happiness problems.

So in labor civics, almost always slavery.


Mercantilism as my economy civic when it's the only one I have or am running a specialist economy.

Free Market almost all the time.

State Property almost literally never.

Environmentalism only when the UN forces me to or I'm having serious health problems.

So in economy civics, almost always free market.


Religious civics are the only ones I really have any diversity in. Still, almost never pacifism.

I much preferred the governments of CivIII. I used almost all of them at one point or another. Loved Feudalism and Fascism.

 

[PieceOfMind]

Are you suggesting that with social policies there won't also be particular options that become most popular in 'optimal' strategies?

I've tinkered a bit with the civics in PIG Mod but for the most part I found there was enough variety and balance already. Slavery being too strong is the main problem. And/or Serfdom being too weak.

 

[nody]

I don't understand why they didn't added rise and fall-mechanics (with the possibility of losing cities after collapse) to Civ V. Didn't they see how awesome Rhye's mod is. RFC is practically Civ 4 1/2.

And removing religion is a huge step in the wrong direction imho.
They should have added more religions with more different aspects and maybe even left-wing or right-wing cities (red state/blue state) that can spread to cities and according to your actions become pleased or displeased.

 

[Bangra 7]

I hope there's at least basic dynamic names. Don't know how they'd do that with no civics and the social policies, though.

Honestly, though, how many of the civics did you actually use?

Let me recount when I used each one:

Hereditary Rule, just because it was the only one I had for a while and had the same upkeep as Despotism. Once I got any other civic I stopped using it.

Representation, and only if I was using a specialist economy or if it was the only non-Hereditary Rule one that I had.

Police State only during war, and only if my opponent was stronger than I was.

Universal Suffrage almost all the time otherwise.

So out of the Government civics, I was almost always in Universal Suffrage when it was available unless I was a specialist economy, then Representation.


Vassalage if it was the only legal civic I had.

Bureaucracy almost all the time until the late game.

Nationhood only if I was stuck in a war and extremely weak, and/or having happiness problems.

Free Speech almost all the time in the late game.

So out of the legal civics, it was basically always Bureaucracy and Free Speech.


Slavery as my labor civic almost all the time until late game.

Serfdom almost never unless I had just rapidly expanded and needed to improve the terrain and was spiritual.

Caste System every once in a while when my empire doesn't have many hills and I need to spam workshops.

Emancipation only if I'm having happiness problems.

So in labor civics, almost always slavery.


Mercantilism as my economy civic when it's the only one I have or am running a specialist economy.

Free Market almost all the time.

State Property almost literally never.

Environmentalism only when the UN forces me to or I'm having serious health problems.

So in economy civics, almost always free market.


Religious civics are the only ones I really have any diversity in. Still, almost never pacifism.

I much preferred the governments of CivIII. I used almost all of them at one point or another. Loved Feudalism and Fascism.

Not trying to cause a debate, here; but I do agree that CivIII governments were better.

 

[Bangra 7]

I don't understand why they didn't added rise and fall-mechanics (with the possibility of losing cities after collapse) to Civ V. Didn't they see how awesome Rhye's mod is. RFC is practically Civ 4 1/2.

And removing religion is a huge step in the wrong direction imho.
They should have added more religions with more different aspects and maybe even left-wing or right-wing cities (red state/blue state) that can spread to cities and according to your actions become pleased or displeased.

Ahh, yes; RFC was a great mod. Surely they should learn a thing or two from that one.

 

[Aramel]

Are you suggesting that with social policies there won't also be particular options that become most popular in 'optimal' strategies?

There will probably still be some policies that are better than others, but because you can have as many policies as you can afford, it won't be as much of a problem. Since slavery is really good it makes serfdom less desirable, because you can't have both. But if oligarchy is really good, it won't itself make aristocracy any worse, because you can buy both of them. You don't have to compare aristocracy with oligarchy, you just have to compare it with all the other policies you could purchase.

Think about it: how many times would you have picked up serfdom if you could also have slavery, or police state if you could also have universal suffrage? Probably more than if they're exclusive.

 

[Acronym2]

Looking like Firaxis got too lazy to do this one. I'll bet it'll be modded in shortly after release, though.

There may come opportunity to buy unit packs over Steam. That's about the only way it would be worth 2K/Firaxis time to make civ or culture specific unit sets. If you look at how many more units are required for CG specific and the insane amount for civ specific, you sort see why they wouldn't choose to do it.

 

[PieceOfMind]

There will probably still be some policies that are better than others, but because you can have as many policies as you can afford, it won't be as much of a problem. Since slavery is really good it makes serfdom less desirable, because you can't have both. But if oligarchy is really good, it won't itself make aristocracy any worse, because you can buy both of them. You don't have to compare aristocracy with oligarchy, you just have to compare it with all the other policies you could purchase.

Think about it: how many times would you have picked up serfdom if you could also have slavery, or police state if you could also have universal suffrage? Probably more than if they're exclusive.

From my perspective it looks like you're completely ignoring an important thing called opportunity cost. If for example slavery and serfdom were two options among about 20, and let's suppose each cost 50 points and you accrued 1 point per turn, picking slavery well before you picked serfdom would still amount to basically the same lack of variety you get with civ4's system. It's now merely the order in which you unlock them (in civ5) rather than the possibilities of civics in the endgame (in civ4). If the social policies are balanced poorly (they will probably be balanced reasonably well, IMO, but who knows at this point) then the decision making could easily become even more "optimum-based" than it was in civ4.

I do disagree with some of your civic evaluations anyway. For example, I think HR is much better than the credit you give it. After slavery, IMO it's the best civic in the game.

Another thing to note with civ4: The relative balance of civics does depend on the difficulty level. For that reason you'll often get Deity players strongly disagreeing with Noble-level players in strategy discussions in the civ4 forum about the relative effectiveness of civics and their combinations.