Civ V - Earth in time, scheduled release

[RedRalph]

So, this is interesting...

Oh, but I guess that probably refers to the console version...

I cant read that in work, be great if you could C&P, if not dont worry

 

[eric_]

Here you go:

2K building new Civilization(s)
To the surprise of no one, Take-Two reveals that a new entry in Firaxis' legendary strategy series is planned.

By Tor Thorsen, GameSpot
Posted Mar 1, 2007 7:18 pm PT

In late 2006, Take-Two Interactive spent tens of millions to acquire Firaxis, developer of the Civilization series of strategy games. Given the publisher's investment and the franchise's massive popularity, it was only a matter of time before a new installment was announced.

As it turns out, the time in question was this week. Buried in yesterday's Take-Two earnings report was news that yes, a new Civilization game is planned. The report did not specify whether or not said game would be the inevitable Civilization V or a spin-off like CivCity: Rome. The prospects of a console or portable Civilization title have also been rumored.

The timing of the new product--or products--is also slightly unclear. "Starting in 2008, 2K will have new content based on its Civilization franchise and other products, including both original intellectual property and third-party titles," the company's report read. As of press time, Take-Two reps had not specified whether or not the report meant the company's 2008 fiscal year (November 1, 2007-October 31, 2008) or the 2008 calendar year. The former scenario would leave open the possibility of a new Civilization game coming as soon as this holiday season.

I'm 99% sure there was no point in my posting that, though, as it probably had to do with the rumors about the console version. It was this placeholder for Civ V that had me curious.

 

[Mccash000]

Console strategy games are like cover songs from tv talent show winners.

A crime against humanity.

 

[RedRalph]

there will be a civ5 , though, wont there?


wont there?




guys?

 

[I tech faster]

Well now we know why they are too busy to make decent patches .

 

[eric_]

RedRalph, I certainly hope so! I just don't think that placeholder I found is the definitive proof I initially thought...

 

[RedRalph]

I really really hope there is. i know nothing about how the industry works, but surely Civ is too popular a franchise to be dropped. Unless revolutions becomes massive (unlikely). Isnt the Sims what killed off Sim city?

 

[blitzkrieg1980]

All of this is of little importance. The only question of real consequence regarding Civ V is this:

SHOULD POLAND BE IN CIV V???????????????

Oh, no. No more steering threads into the Poland discussion. Poland has the same amount of reasons to be in Civ as any nation that has a decent economy / cultural history. Forget it. Get a mod, or mod it in and please pretty please stop polluting threads with the Poland discussion. There's a whole thread for that.

CivV should incorporate more field based warfare.

 

[eric_]

CivV should incorporate more field based warfare.

Agreed! Something like Rise of Nations, maybe, which was developed by an ex-Civ programmer. It might also be fun if city development worked along the lines of Sim City. Also, as I said before, weather and seasons would be awesome as options. Imagine not just reading about a hurricane striking a city, but watching it roll across a map. Of course, that would require a much slower passage of time.

 

[RedRalph]

CivV should incorporate more field based warfare.

wat dat???????????

 

[blitzkrieg1980]

Throughout history, armies have met in hills, fields, and outside city walls. Almost all of the warring in cIV (even in the early eras) occurs within the city walls. This should be the final push of an invading force, IMO. Perhaps the modern and future eras are more realistic in the mostly city-based fighting, but I think they should have open field (non-city based fighting) bonuses for mounted units, tanks, and gunships.

 

[RedRalph]

Throughout history, armies have met in hills, fields, and outside city walls. Almost all of the warring in cIV (even in the early eras) occurs within the city walls. This should be the final push of an invading force, IMO. Perhaps the modern and future eras are more realistic in the mostly city-based fighting, but I think they should have open field (non-city based fighting) bonuses for mounted units, tanks, and gunships.

Absolutely. Know what the best way to fix that is? dont have cities as the only objective to capture. IMO, you should be able to capture asquare by occupying it for 5 turns. At the end of war, you can negotiate which (if any) squares will be returned, as part of the negotiations.

One of the few thinsg I hate about civ is that you have ot fight to capture cities, sometimes you have to go to war for a city when in fact all you want in one resource. soemtimes you have to capture 3 or more cities to guarantee you will get that resource, to make sure cultural borders wont reclaim it for the other civ. fixed borders after nationalism and an ability to capture specific squares would be a brilliant addition to Civ5

 

[eric_]

Interesting idea about being able to capture territory, Ralph. I like it.

I also think if battles could be waged using more explicit tactics, rather than based almost purely on chance, battles would happen more in the field.

 

[blitzkrieg1980]

Absolutely. Know what the best way to fix that is? dont have cities as the only objective to capture. IMO, you should be able to capture asquare by occupying it for 5 turns. At the end of war, you can negotiate which (if any) squares will be returned, as part of the negotiations.

One of the few thinsg I hate about civ is that you have ot fight to capture cities, sometimes you have to go to war for a city when in fact all you want in one resource. soemtimes you have to capture 3 or more cities to guarantee you will get that resource, to make sure cultural borders wont reclaim it for the other civ. fixed borders after nationalism and an ability to capture specific squares would be a brilliant addition to Civ5

A perfect explanation! Thanks for taking the thoughts in my head and putting them into text. Perhaps capturing land square by square is a little excessive, but you should be able to control resource squares as you suggest.

 

[eric_]

Perhaps capturing land square by square is a little excessive

What about basing it on each unit having an area of control? A unit with one movement point controls an area of one tile in every direction (so, the same number of tiles a city can work at the outset). A unit with two movement points controls something like the BFC, but maybe with the corners filled in. Then, maybe if you have more than a certain number of units in a stack, control expands out over yet another tile's worth in every direction.

If two stacks are near one another, but not at war, their areas of control compete much like culture currently competes. Also, I think culture should still be in play, such that putting a stack of units in a rival civ's cultural territory is not sufficient to take over the area of control during war. Also, if you share open borders with a civ, your units hold no sway over their territory when traveling across it or resting in it.

That could make fog busting much more interesting.

 

[RedRalph]

A perfect explanation! Thanks for taking the thoughts in my head and putting them into text. Perhaps capturing land square by square is a little excessive, but you should be able to control resource squares as you suggest.

Cheers. you could take example like Alsace Lorriane going back and forth between France & Germany, which dosent contain any huge cities but was nonetheless of great strategic importance. Poland and the Polish corridor, USSR taking the southern part of Finland, England controlling Northern Ireland etc... I'd also like if agricultural land outside city squares could provide more food if farmed, but maybe like strictly one "bread" per farm... you could go to war for access to Grassland, te help increase your population... I hate to use this word, but war for Lebensraum would be fun.

I imagine it as so:

I share a long border with, lets say, Mao. I've just researched Scientific method, to my horror, no oil. also, none of my cities have a big pop as I have a lot of desert tiles, peaks etc. Now Mao is protective, its fairly late game, so I really dont want t6o go on a war of assimilation, have endless rebelions in his cities if I capture them etc. I dont want t his cities. So...

I build an army with much more defensive units than usual, build many roads near the frontier so I can rush units to the front. I make a DOW. across a broad front, I invade China and, having pushed a max depth of three tiles in, (which covers one of his oilfields, and some good agricultural land), my objective now is to occupy as much of these tiles as I can until peace. I hold most of them for 15 turns, and approach Mao for peace. As part of the treaty, I can highlight the tiles I insist on keeping, and , after some further negotiations, he agrees.

Totally different type of war, needs a totally different type of planning, a totally different type of army. after it, I dont have to deal with constant rebellions, I dont have to put up with requests to rejoin China, dont have to spend 20+ turns building theatres... on the flipside, if tensions with Mao build back up, a defensive line on the border becomes essential... something i personally rarely have to do now

 

[blitzkrieg1980]

I like this idea a lot. Especially the idea of having military borders AND cultural borders both play a large roll. It has always been a wonder to me that in cIV the cultural borders are also the political borders. In reality, the military plays much more of a role in deciding what the political borders are, even if cultural lines are completely different.

Your solution, eric_ is very welcome. Anyone want to join forces and try to mod this in? seriously, though, is this a possibility, or would we be changing the entire basic engine?

 

[I tech faster]

They should add an attrition effect which would slowly weaken armies walking in ennemy territory, like it was in Rise of nations. This might get border pushing funnier.

Cities should not only occup one single map square but mere as they grow.

There is also a lack of points of interest or strategic places on the world map. Terrain squares are just good at contening one ressource type or giving a defense bonus.

 

[RedRalph]

I think culture should determine borders up until Nationalism, then they should be fixed. cultural pressures should cause disorder in cities, but the idea of a city changing to another copuntry because someone did a brilliant painting nearby in modern times is ridiculous. Germany has its present borders because it lost a war. as does Ireland. China has its because it won a war. As does the Koreas, Poland, Mexico etc... one its get to Nationlism, I think your borders should be invulnerable to cultural pressure. but your people should not.

 

[blitzkrieg1980]

love the ideas, and the avatar lol