Civ V Gameplay Changes

[Lord Parkin]

It would certainly be interesting, and would certainly represent an expansion of diplomacy in the game, but what would the implication be for culture? Where would it's role in the game be past providing defensive bonuses?

He who gets all the culture gets to sell (or keep) all the land at will.

I don't see it detracting from the cultural mechanics in any way.

Well, it will certainly be brilliant for CFC if it makes the forums more accessible to people who would otherwise not come here. I mean, most people who play the game do not go to the forums, so if it is made an actual part of the game, then it would be absolutely fantastic for CFC. And, I would assume, Apolyton. Although IDK how they'd go about selecting which sites to link to, or whatever.

I presume they'd probably link their own forum (2K games) as a preference to all others. But maybe they'll extend a hand to us here at CFC.

I'm not buying this possibility. I mean, surely simply limiting units to one per tile is way too basic a solution to stacks for them to contemplate. Perhaps the screenshots are being misleading and you just can only see the selected unit on a tile? I mean, currently, without the dots above the flag, you can only actually see one unit per tile. So maybe the only difference is the absence of those dots.

Or maybe when one unit passes through another they just amalgamate together in the graphics, so it looks like there are twice the guys on the tile. Either way, I really doubt that we'll be limited to 1 unit per tile. Five, ten or twenty sounds much more plausible.

 

[Camikaze]

I think religion should stay, and each should have their own benefits, instead of they're all the same.

Well this may be precisely why they took it out. They may have felt that to do religion justice, they would have to give them a degree of uniqueness, but that they could not do that from a business perspective without alienated or offending people.

He who gets all the culture gets to sell (or keep) all the land at will.

I don't see it detracting from the cultural mechanics in any way.

Well if you are going to buy and sell tiles, culture loses its importance. Assuming, of course, that once a tile is sold, or transferred in diplomacy in some way, that it cannot be won back with culture. Because otherwise it would be an exploit, right? So either you can't culture flip tiles once they are transferred, reducing the importance of culture as a determiner of borders, and invariably eliminating it as the important factor for determining borders, or you allow people to sell a tile, flip it, sell it again, flip it again, sell it again, and so on and so forth.

I presume they'd probably link their own forum (2K games) as a preference to all others. But maybe they'll extend a hand to us here at CFC.

Well it does say fansites, being a plural (although it does say visit one of the, so that could indicate it links to only one of the many thriving sites, that being 2K games site, or whatever), so I would assume it links to a few of the 'thriving' sites.

Or maybe when one unit passes through another they just amalgamate together in the graphics, so it looks like there are twice the guys on the tile. Either way, I really doubt that we'll be limited to 1 unit per tile. Five, ten or twenty sounds much more plausible.

This is most likely, although given there is apparently a whole new combat system, the amalgamation could be more than just with graphics.

And I have to gripe about arbitrary caps. Why 5, 10 or 20? Why not 6, 11 or 19? It makes no sense. There should be exponential penalties instead.

 

[cybrxkhan]

I really wished that religion stayed, even in generic form. It was one of the "big" additions to Civ4, like how culture was the "big" addition to Civ3. It really does give the game a much more "alternate history" feel.

 

[Matt0088]

This is most likely, although given there is apparently a whole new combat system, the amalgamation could be more than just with graphics.

And I have to gripe about arbitrary caps. Why 5, 10 or 20? Why not 6, 11 or 19? It makes no sense. There should be exponential penalties instead.

If there was to be a limit, instead of it being blatantly random, what would it have to be based off for logistics? Resources? Gold? Tech level?

I wonder what this new combat system and its related stats will be like. Neither the screenshots nor the tidbits of info shed any detail about it.

 

[Lord Parkin]

Well if you are going to buy and sell tiles, culture loses its importance. Assuming, of course, that once a tile is sold, or transferred in diplomacy in some way, that it cannot be won back with culture. Because otherwise it would be an exploit, right? So either you can't culture flip tiles once they are transferred, reducing the importance of culture as a determiner of borders, and invariably eliminating it as the important factor for determining borders, or you allow people to sell a tile, flip it, sell it again, flip it again, sell it again, and so on and so forth.

Or it could work on a loan system, exactly like a per-turn trade. If you have the majority of culture in a tile, you can loan it to them (e.g. for 2 gold per turn) for an indefinite period. Then if you choose to cancel the deal and regain the tile, you can, but you lose out on the gold you were getting. Seems like a workable system to me... the person with the most culture still has the upper hand, which is how it should be considering how powerful war usually is.

And I have to gripe about arbitrary caps. Why 5, 10 or 20? Why not 6, 11 or 19? It makes no sense. There should be exponential penalties instead.

Yeah, it probably doesn't make sense (unless you view it as an "overcrowded, can't fit any more people in" thing). I'm betting they'll go for a round or even number with the unit per tile limits though, just because that's what tends to happen. People like round numbers (in base 10 at least) after all.

I agree that an exponential penalty system would be cool, but I think it's a bit late to be able to convince them to head that way. Besides, the new system they've got might not be so bad. Remember when limits were imposed on the number of air units per city post-BTS? That didn't take too long to get used to, and work around. Maybe you'll even have similar stuff in Civ5 for increasing the number of units that can be on a tile... e.g. by building a Fort you're allowed a few more defenders. Now that would be pretty cool, and might make Forts an integral part of gameplay.

 

[Inverse Icarus]

I really wished that religion stayed, even in generic form. It was one of the "big" additions to Civ4, like how culture was the "big" addition to Civ3. It really does give the game a much more "alternate history" feel.

Culture was introduced in Civ III, but it was clunky. It was refined in Civ IV and got better.

Religion was introduced in Civ IV, but was clunky. [... blank ...]

I'm really hoping it stays in. I'm sure Firaxis can do it well.

 

[Camikaze]

If there was to be a limit, instead of it being blatantly random, what would it have to be based off for logistics? Resources? Gold? Tech level?

Yeah, it probably doesn't make sense (unless you view it as an "overcrowded, can't fit any more people in" thing). I'm betting they'll go for a round or even number with the unit per tile limits though, just because that's what tends to happen. People like round numbers (in base 10 at least) after all.

I agree that an exponential penalty system would be cool, but I think it's a bit late to be able to convince them to head that way. Besides, the new system they've got might not be so bad. Remember when limits were imposed on the number of air units per city post-BTS? That didn't take too long to get used to, and work around. Maybe you'll even have similar stuff in Civ5 for increasing the number of units that can be on a tile... e.g. by building a Fort you're allowed a few more defenders. Now that would be pretty cool, and might make Forts an integral part of gameplay.

Well yeah, sure, I'm sure it will all work out in the end and be all fine and dandy, but if there's something that's going to make me consternated until I the game is released, it is likely to be arbitrary and seemingly random limits.

I don't know how they could apply any limit without it being random, though. Which is why I would prefer if there was no limit, but an exponential penalty. And I wouldn't say it's too late to convince them, seeing as, for all we know, that's what they've gone for.

 

[GKrause]

I think religion should stay, and each should have their own benefits, instead of they're all the same.

Religion was a really strange mechanic to me when I first started playing Civ IV, but now I think it will feel really strange to play without it. Perhaps there will be new mechanics bringing a similar radical change or layer of complexity to compensate, but I'm worried I'm going to be disappointed without religion.

However, having each one with their own benefits sounds like a balancing nightmare and would likely be either too convoluted or inconsequential to be fun.

 

[Inverse Icarus]

Yeah, it probably doesn't make sense (unless you view it as an "overcrowded, can't fit any more people in" thing).

This is exactly what I want. It seems kind of silly that you can have 40 tanks and 100 infantry divisions in one tile.

 

[Lord Parkin]

I don't know how they could apply any limit without it being random, though. Which is why I would prefer if there was no limit, but an exponential penalty. And I wouldn't say it's too late to convince them, seeing as, for all we know, that's what they've gone for.

True, actually. Re-reading that post, it says:

More depth in combat, no more stacking of units.

That might not mean it's impossible to stack units, just that it's detrimental to do so excessively. Good catch.

 

[Gath]

This is exactly what I want. It seems kind of silly that you can have 40 tanks and 100 infantry divisions in one tile.

But a tile is an indeterminate amount of land space. A numerical limit doesn't hurt significantly, but limiting it to 1 would be terrible.

 

[Camikaze]

RE: Resources- so we think that one horse tile will allow for x number of mounted units, or something. Okay, that makes sense. But how will this translate to other resources, particularly non-military ones? How will this translate to, for instance, incense?

 

[Lord Parkin]

RE: Resources- so we think that one horse tile will allow for x number of mounted units, or something. Okay, that makes sense. But how will this translate to other resources, particularly non-military ones? How will this translate to, for instance, incense?

It could be X number of happy citizens and/or cities. Not too hard to imagine. However, they could just as well keep the same system for luxuries/bonus resources, and just change the strategic resource system. After all, that's the most important aspect.

 

[kulade]

- Switch from squares to hexagons changing the way the game plays. More room for maneuvers and more tactical options.

More room for maneuvers? There are six tiles that touch a hexagonal tile, but eight that touch diamonds. Well at least they're dropping the repulsive squares.

- Changes to combat. More depth in combat, no more stacking of units. This will lead to bigger focus on terrain.
- Reintroduction of Bombardment, now archers and siege equipment can shoot over melee units.

There has to be a point insofar you mar a sequel to such an extent that you can't call it Civilization anymore.

- Built in webbrowser. Sid Meier is also working on a facebook application of Civilization.

If I wanted a built in web browser I'd download iTunes. This may be a surprise, but I don't think most people would want to load a browser to play civilization. You can add a browser when you release Civilization the OS.

Without a doubt, the only improvement from CivIV to CivV will be the same as the one from Civ3 to CivIV: increased modability. All the other misguided tweaks just serve reasons for the aforementioned improvement.

Granted games will always be "improved" in the most naive of ways. Somehow the ability to zoom in on your units' murky faces is worth the tenfold load time.

 

[Bibor]

RE: Resources- so we think that one horse tile will allow for x number of mounted units, or something. Okay, that makes sense. But how will this translate to other resources, particularly non-military ones? How will this translate to, for instance, incense?

This is, in my opinion, the best way to go.
Every horse tile allows you to purchase 2 mounted units?
Every Iron mine allows +3 melee units, every copper mine allows +2 melee units?

Incense, each happy resource halves the upkeep cost for each military unit?
Cow, each health resource means your units can move +1 hex further into enemy territory?

Having supply lines dependant on your health/food/oil resources makes perfect sense.

 

[Bibor]

There has to be a point insofar you mar a sequel to such an extent that you can't call it Civilization anymore.

Making a strategy game with squares is like building a house with hexagonal bricks. Its fun, but not really common.
Hexes - 6 out of 8 properly displayed distances (NE, E, SE, SW, W, NW)
Squares - 4 out of 8 properly displayed distances (N, E, S, W)

Also, with hexes, only units sharing a "wide border" with another unit can be called "adjacent", which is also more realistic.

 

[Lord Parkin]

More room for maneuvers? There are six tiles that touch a hexagonal tile, but eight that touch diamonds. Well at least they're dropping the repulsive squares.

There has to be a point insofar you mar a sequel to such an extent that you can't call it Civilization anymore.

If I wanted a built in web browser I'd download iTunes. This may be a surprise, but I don't think most people would want to load a browser to play civilization. You can add a browser when you release Civilization the OS.

Without a doubt, the only improvement from CivIV to CivV will be the same as the one from Civ3 to CivIV: increased modability. All the other misguided tweaks just serve reasons for the aforementioned improvement.

Granted games will always be "improved" in the most naive of ways. Somehow the ability to zoom in on your units' murky faces is worth the tenfold load time.

Don't be too positive, now.

I'm sure it'll be fine. I was reluctant to switch from Civ3 to Civ4 initially, but I was glad I made the switch after I had. Change can be a good thing.

The one point I agree with you on is the browser thing... that sounds a bit weird, and I hope the game won't have to be played on a browser. That sounds a bit much like Civ Network.

This is, in my opinion, the best way to go.
Every horse tile allows you to purchase 2 mounted units?
Every Iron mine allows +3 melee units, every copper mine allows +2 melee units?

Something like that will be the case, I imagine.

Incense, each happy resource halves the upkeep cost for each military unit?

I'd rather have it affecting the cities instead of (or as well as) the units.

Cow, each health resource means your units can move +1 hex further into enemy territory? Having supply lines dependant on your health/food/oil resources makes perfect sense.

Not so sure about this, sounds like it could lead to problems. What happens if you have a small amount of land, and don't have enough resources to be able to venture far enough into enemy land to conquer any more cities? Sounds like a dangerous idea to me.

 

[Windsor]

About ranged bombardment, I can see lots of gameplay improvements, but if an archer can shoot 2 tiles, how far can the units move? It would be stupid if a group of warriors needs 50 years to reach some archers shooting at them...

 

[NonPrayinMantis]

- Inspired by Panzer General.

This is interesting. Panzer General (PG) was one of the best SSI games they made.

Looking at the graphics, it looks like they might have a system like PG for unit strengths. Each unit has a base str of 10, kind of like hit points and firepower combined. Also, as the unit gains in experience, you can increase strength over this limit (PG had a limit for an elite unit of 15 str points).

Another thing that PG had was bombardment, both direct and indirect. Artillery could be used to fire directly at a unit, damaging it before an attack. Artillery could also be used to protect units. If an artillery unit was next to another unit, it would fire indirectly at the attacking unit when it protected unit was under attack. This was sort of like bombardment from Civ3.

One unit per hex in PG, too.

NPM

 

[Bibor]

Not so sure about this, sounds like it could lead to problems. What happens if you have a small amount of land, and don't have enough resources to be able to venture far enough into enemy land to conquer any more cities? Sounds like a dangerous idea to me.

Army sizes could definitely be "capped" at your health resources (total, not unique), just as is the case now with city sizes, even if we don't go into the "logistical issue".

But it also makes perfect sense that you need to trade for those resources to make a military campaign possible.