Civ V Gameplay Changes

[Bibor]

To be completely honest, these people in Firaxis get paid to do their job. Which is, more or less, from a game design perspective, a question of whether you have classical eduaction or not. Any person who goes through West Point* pretty much has what it takes to make these kinds of choices. Knowledge in military, art, history, religion, economics, politics, natural sciences. At least some knowledge from all these fields is required to make good CIV5 decisions.


*or any other Academy that is capable of teaching a man literally everything about everyting.

 

[Cilpot]

I'll miss the little religion icon over the city name. I love details like that

 

[niklas627]

Maybe I judging it hard, but it have happened a lot in the last 5 years when it comes to strategic games. I think that Civ-V needs to come up with more ideas more than graphic to distinguish from the rest.
Like it or not, but I think that strictly turn based strategic game belongs to the past. Games (like Total War) which can both been played as turn based and real time games is more present.
If a turn based strategic game should distinguish from the numbers it needs to be lot more complex than it is to day. For example does the battle system need to be improved, with different artillery range, supply lines, the ability to manoeuvre out an enemy army, and ability to make ambush.

The political and economic simulations are harder to put in new ideas.
My own believe is that the best way for a civ to “survive” is trying to get rid of corruption and control resources.

cheers/
niklas

You're judging the game an awful lot when only a couple of screenshots and a few tidbits of information have been released. Nothing has really been revealed about the gameplay yet, and yet you're already saying you can't see the difference between the gameplay of this Civ5 and the earlier versions. Doesn't really make much sense.

Oh, and I challenge you to beat a (not mortally wounded) helicopter with an elephant, or a (not mortally wounded) tank with a warrior in Civ4. You're not going to get it to happen in anything but a freak accident.


That's not really true, and you know it. Religion was only one part of Civ4's diplomacy system. Sure, it sometimes polarized portions of the world, but even without it leaders would still grow to like or dislike you over time. If you've ever played a game on a continent where the early religions were not founded, you'll know what I'm talking about. Start next to Monty, Alex and Shaka without a religion a few times, and then try to claim that they're all like "one big happy family" with you.

I'm not really worried about the absence of religion from the perspective of diplomatic positive and negative points - I'm sure that other elements will be introduced that influence those things. I will definitely miss religion from a flavour point of view though. It was just a neat thing to have in the game, and I'll be sad to see it go.

 

[Camikaze]

My main fear is that with the added focus on combat tactics (Panzer General/Battle Isle-style), something else might have to go in order to make the game manageable for players (more depth in one area usually means less depth in another). And it is interesting and a little worrying that I haven't seen any mention of economy or other "peaceful" things so far. I am quite happy to play an entire game of Civ IV without a single war, because the main foundation of the game is the building of your nation. I hope added focus on combat does not mean this part is being neglected. Though the apparent loss of religion seems to suggest so.

Civ V is going to be an instant buy for me no matter what, and it is still early days for sure. But I am not as convinced as I hoped I would be.

I think this is an exceptionally important point. Getting paste the obvious :woot: at Civ 5 being announced, it seems a bit disappointing (although nothing at this stage seems disappointing at all) that pretty much everything so far seems to be related to the military aspects of the game. Sure, some would say that changing the combat system is an absolute requirement of any new Civ game, but I would hate for Civ to move even further away from being a true empire management game (which would give roughly equal focus to domestic matters, like an economy and internal stability, as it would to external matters, like wars, diplomacy and trade) towards being a war strategy game. It was evident in Civ 4 that war was the central focus of the game, and I can certainly live with roughly the same balance again, even if it was heavily skewed towards war. I just hope that the balance hasn't gone even further towards war, which would invariably involve the neglect of other equally important aspects of the game, the most notable of which is economics.

 

[BasketCase]

Eh? You actually use Environmentalism most of the time? And Free Religion isn't exactly a great civic in most cases either.

Six extra health in every city? That's big. No, I never actually use it (mostly that's me playing badly on purpose ). And Free Religion = +10% research across the board. Also big. Research is huge in this game, and anything that bumps you 10% in ALL cities is huge.

It's a double negative, i.e. he's saying they're the best civics.

Well, sort of. My point is, there shouldn't be "best" civics. What I liked about past versions is that there were strong advantages to ALL forms of government. Even despotism: you could have a huge army on the cheap.

Oh, and furthermore--whose stupid idea was it to remove the Great Wall of China from Civ 4??? Seriously, that's like taking the cheese off a cheeseburger!!

 

[Shurdus]

What I do not get: a tile in Civ has 8 tiles bordering it - that is, you can move to 8 tiles from the one you are currently in. How does changing the tiles to hexagonals allow more room for maneuvering? You will have less optional tiles or hexes to move to in the end...

 

[Lord Parkin]

Six extra health in every city? That's big. No, I never actually use it (mostly that's me playing badly on purpose ).

By that stage of the game, it should have negligible to null effect. You should have contact with everyone and access to most (if not all) resources, not to mention a bunch of buildings for improving healthiness. So the civic might mean a couple of extra food per turn in your few largest cities, but that's it. What makes it worse is that powerful Corporations come into play around this time in the game, and Environmentalism is the worst civic to be using in conjunction with corps.

More than that though, the +1 trade routes from Free Market or even the no maintenance and hammer bonus from State Property will far outweigh any benefit from a few extra food per turn. Indeed, the only time I've ever found myself using Environmentalism is on some One City Challenge games, where it can actually be useful because you tend to lack health resources due to such limited land. Aside from that though, I'm almost certain I've never used Environmentalism in any regular game. Hammer/commerce bonuses are just too powerful from the alternative civics at this point in the game. Maybe if Environmentalism was available earlier, it might be a bit more useful.

And Free Religion = +10% research across the board. Also big. Research is huge in this game, and anything that bumps you 10% in ALL cities is huge.

It's okay, but the hammer boost/easy missionaries from Organized Religion and the XP from Theocracy are also very valuable. Again, if Free Religion were available at the very start of the game I'd take it, but I find the other civics tend to be more useful once I get a widespread religion.

Anyway, I see I'm getting quite off track here. Back on topic.

Oh, and furthermore--whose stupid idea was it to remove the Great Wall of China from Civ 4??? Seriously, that's like taking the cheese off a cheeseburger!!

Who said it was being removed? I sure hope it's not.

 

[Lord Parkin]

What I do not get: a tile in Civ has 8 tiles bordering it - that is, you can move to 8 tiles from the one you are currently in. How does changing the tiles to hexagonals allow more room for maneuvering? You will have less optional tiles or hexes to move to in the end...

Maybe the engine will be able to support much bigger maps with ease, and that's where our maneuvering room will come from?

(Crosses fingers and hopes... )

 

[Windsor]

It was evident in Civ 4 that war was the central focus of the game, and I can certainly live with roughly the same balance again, even if it was heavily skewed towards war.

CivIV is skewed towards war in the sense that it's often beneficial to declare war on some poor bastard.

However if you ask an immortal player on what he have improved on since he played prince his improved skill in managing his empire will be much more important than his better skills in the battlefield. Combat in CivIV is portrayed so simple that the difference between a good and a bad player here isn't great. The difference is getting the stack, not actually using it

So my hope is that the balance "war vs peace" doesn't change much, however a more detailed combat system(and therefor a higher skill requirement to be good at the game) is welcome.

And at last, archers shooting arrows at warriors is a much better promo material than some dull banker But I do look forward to see screenshots of the city screen!

 

[Camikaze]

I suppose that is right. What I was trying to say was that the central focus of Civ4 was war; everything revolved around war. Sure, managing your empire is important, but you are essentially managing your empire so it is capable of going to war. A more detailed combat system isn't in itself bad, so long as it doesn't detract from other aspects of the game.

 

[Bibor]

What I do not get: a tile in Civ has 8 tiles bordering it - that is, you can move to 8 tiles from the one you are currently in. How does changing the tiles to hexagonals allow more room for maneuvering? You will have less optional tiles or hexes to move to in the end...

The size of the board doesn't matter, just the total number of squares or hexes.
The problem with squares is in skewed distance that's not multiplied by 1.41 for diagonal movement.

Currently in Civ it takes as much turns and time to cross 10.000 kilometers to NWES as it is to cross 14.100 kilometers to NW, NE, SW, SE. Where did those 4.100 (40%!) kilometers go?

Not to mention its easier encirclean enemy with 6 hexes than it is with 8 squares.

 

[Camikaze]

I'm very curious about this in particular:

Improved Diplomacy

Negotiate with some of history's most cunning rulers, each with a well-crafted plan for victory. Successful diplomacy will depend on players carefully managing relationships with other leaders, trading items and land, plying them with gold, and deciding if they are friend or foe. City States will present a new diplomatic background on which the major powers of the world will vie for supremacy.

We've covered the land trading bit, but some other things that stand out (leaving aside for a moment the city states) are the 'well-crafted plan for victory' and 'deciding if they are friend or foe'. With the first, I would hope that this means a better AI, and one that actually tries to win the game, rather than one that tries to just play the game. With the second, is that an indication that diplomacy attitudes won't be shown, and you'll have to figure out for yourself what an attitude towards you is, or is that just an embellishment of the whole diplomacy process?

Now, regarding city states, I wonder if they'll act as little Civs, just ones that you can't play as, and ones that cannot expand, and if so, I wonder if they will have leaders or any other unique historical characteristics? Will they be like barbarians that you can negotiate with? I'm struggling to think of another way they could fit within the diplomacy structure, given that that is what the descriptor relates them to.

 

[beestar]

If City States behave like standard but small civs, I suspect they would be very weak (following Civ4's mantra that "Land Is Power"). There would have to be some mechanism to let them keep pace.

Will City States be immune to being conquered? Otherwise they would just be too tempting as targets ...

 

[Camikaze]

Perhaps City States will be able to keep pace with every other civ by trading off their allegiance to others. Perhaps they'd be like mini-vassals that would have some special extra advantage for the owner, so they could feasibly leverage that for technology/power. Or perhaps they are never truly independent, but always part of a Civ, with the ability to switch allegiances given a better deal. Could be an incentive to increase happiness or healthiness, or something.

 

[kivanc]

religion: it was an important parameter in the game. but it is not a core issue of the game. corporations are like religions as well, not a core point.
the most core issue of the game is food+hammer(shild)+commerce system. i will be glad if that doesn't change. if it changes, then it will be a real different game.
i wouldn't like the mechanism howa city pops to 4 from3.
i wonder about such things especially. is production similar? how is science researched? AFAIK, great people still exist, so i hope commerce and tax slide is simlar as well. i hope they wouldn't change such core points of the game.
also the happiness/health cap system of civ4, and espionage points mechanism were also fine.
else than these, the rest is not important much. w/o religion, game will still be fine.
i even can have a taste playing civ3, so why not play w/o religion?

civics: a change in this might be fine. still, i used to like the civics of civ4

traits/unique leader: traits were fine. there were great synergies. and each leader could be powerful if it was played cleverly. but now each leader will be unique. oh, i start to feel that the extras would be simple. i hope, it won't be.

for example, to get benefit from gandhi you found religion and assign priests specialists, right? at least you do sth. this is the favorite play style of gandhi and you know this, you apply.
if gandhi had such an advantage than other leaders: growth +5%. so each pop would come as 95% of required stock. it would pop up in 48 instead of 50. so this would be too simple.

or how would u play lizzy? you would make some cottages and assign some scientists and build academies in cottage cities, right? if lizzy had this feature: gold +5%. would that give u fun?

shortly, i expect good extras from leaders. extras should be useful only when it's played cleverly. i don't want no-brainer extras of leaders.

finite resources: that would increase the need for wars. could be great if implemented well.

better AI: i expect much from this. one person said that "i don't want AI to start with one extra settler", i agree with this. i expect AI extras to be better when we move up level. this is just similar to a football match between father and son and son starts with 2-0 ahead

city states: don't know what to say yet. what about barbs???

 

[happyturtle]

Maybe I judging it hard, but it have happened a lot in the last 5 years when it comes to strategic games. I think that Civ-V needs to come up with more ideas more than graphic to distinguish from the rest.
Like it or not, but I think that strictly turn based strategic game belongs to the past. Games (like Total War) which can both been played as turn based and real time games is more present.
cheers/
niklas

If Civ became real time, I wouldn't play it anymore. I would play more computer games if most of them didn't require physical reflex skills to go along with the mental ones.

I'm excited about ranged units being able to be used at ranged. That's the change I'm most looking forward to.

 

[Luckystrike77]

I can’t see the different between earlier versions of Civs and CivV when it comes to game play
- What makes the game better when you get an Inviting Presentation?
- Each time I starting a new Civ game I get new epic history, especially if I play on a random generated map.
- Civ sucks when it comes to battle!
For example can elephant units beat attack helicopters.
Simple warriors can beat tanks. You have nothing for attack enemies from two directions, and so on.

I sense a missing understanding on how a game like CIV should be balanced. You think first one to develop tanks and helicopters should be able to conquer the whole world in no time without oposition?

Let's introduce the new victory condition: First one to tanks win the game... game over.....

One more thing, and something completely different; I'd love to finally see new military units, and reinforcement of old ones dependent on people in your cities. One new unit drains one person unit from your city. This would make wars really to cost you blood, not just production, and you would think twice before starting a rush tactic in the beginning of the game......

 

[kivanc]

I sense a missing understanding on how a game like CIV should be balanced. You think first one to develop tanks and helicopters should be able to conquer the whole world in no time without oposition?

Let's introduce the new victory condition: First one to tanks win the game... game over.....

One more thing, and something completely different; I'd love to finally see new military units, and reinforcement of old ones dependent on people in your cities. One new unit drains one person unit from your city. This would make wars really to cost you blood, not just production, and you would think twice before starting a rush tactic in the beginning of the game......

hmm new units like paradrop formers?
[from SM AlphaCentauri] you could build a full-armor (max defense) former (worker) who can paradrop

 

[Shurdus]

I sense a missing understanding on how a game like CIV should be balanced. You think first one to develop tanks and helicopters should be able to conquer the whole world in no time without oposition?

Let's introduce the new victory condition: First one to tanks win the game... game over.....

One more thing, and something completely different; I'd love to finally see new military units, and reinforcement of old ones dependent on people in your cities. One new unit drains one person unit from your city. This would make wars really to cost you blood, not just production, and you would think twice before starting a rush tactic in the beginning of the game......

Now this I wholehartedly support. If armies cost blood as well as hammers it would not be feaseble to field MASSIVE armies of 100+ units in the end-game. Of course it is nice to have epic battles, but if there would actually be 'panzer general' like combat, managing 100+ units would be horror. If units would cost pop as well, it will keep the number of units in check while it is also an extra barrier for warring in the first place. In Civ IV I feel like there are too little objecions to warring in the first place.

 

[kivanc]

Now this I wholehartedly support. If armies cost blood as well as hammers it would not be feaseble to field MASSIVE armies of 100+ units in the end-game. Of course it is nice to have epic battles, but if there would actually be 'panzer general' like combat, managing 100+ units would be horror. If units would cost pop as well, it will keep the number of units in check while it is also an extra barrier for warring in the first place. In Civ IV I feel like there are too little objecions to warring in the first place.

yes. so many units are not reasonable in fact. if they want to make it more realistic the system of civ1&2 was good.

each settler/worked was spending 1 food while each unit spent 1shield above some free units cost.
of course shild is not true. maybe 1food for 1unit could be more realistic. as troops eat food. this is the main cost of the army. and the population fighting.

so when you train a new unit, if city pop should decrease but with how much? with 1? in that case you wouldn't train any unit in a city with pop1.

well, maybe they could change the pop system but that would ruin the game. i don't think there is any way to do this w/o changing the growth mechanism dramatically.
just 1food support cost is enough and realistic I assume.