Civilization 5

[Mirc]

I totally agree with you!

 

[Synobun]

Okay, back on topic now

 

[ThERat]

I think what civnator meant was the fact that armies and artillery are pretty cool elements of C3C (in fact a lot of us love armies and the use for them in AW).
Now, it seems that for CIV the designers took the easy way out as for so many things. Can't teach the AI how to use armies and artillery? Ok, simply take it out...how lame
so, we do hope they'll be back for Civ5

 

[diablodelmar]

I reckon there will be a Civ 5, but not for about 3 years minimum.

 

[Synobun]

I reckon there will be a Civ 5, but not for about 3 years minimum.

Any proof of that date?

I think what civnator meant was the fact that armies and artillery are pretty cool elements of C3C (in fact a lot of us love armies and the use for them in AW).
Now, it seems that for CIV the designers took the easy way out as for so many things. Can't teach the AI how to use armies and artillery? Ok, simply take it out...how lame
so, we do hope they'll be back for Civ5

They took out artillery and armies in Civ4? Man, I must have forgotten a lot

 

[Talkie_Toaster]

Sorry, but with regard to the dinosaurs comment on the first thread: Humans were still tiny little burrowing mammals when the dinosaurs walked the earth. They never existed together. I just thought it needed pointing out. Not to ruin anyones fun or anything

 

[Synobun]

Sorry, but with regard to the dinosaurs comment on the first thread: Humans were still tiny little burrowing mammals when the dinosaurs walked the earth. They never existed together. I just thought it needed pointing out. Not to ruin anyones fun or anything

No, there were cavemen during the age of dinosaurs, the ancestors of the Neanderthals.

 

[Aceman101]

I saw this in someone's sig, but I've been told that the link actually goes to that page kevan.org page that "eats your brain".

So it is probably untrue that they are quiting making civ.

 

[drkodos]

Is there any news/rumours that a civ5 will come out soon, or sometime later?

You can also post your thoughts/suggestions on how Civ5 should look.

Sorry if there is a topic already about this, you can merge/delete this thread.

Eras: Cave Era (Dinosaurs and cavemen basically), Ancient Age (Like the original ancient era, except a bit more techs, and more units etc), Medieval Age (Same as ancient age (Not the techs though)), Industrial Age (More techs and units, maybe more features), and Modern Age (Way more futuristic than original, lots more techs and units included)

Dinosaurs and Cavemen?


The Flinstones was NOT a documentary, despite your local Shaman claiming it to be so.

 

[Elandal]

Homo Habilis is I believe the first in the Homo genus, and thus the first ancestor of the modern human (homo sapiens). Homo habilis appeared in early pleistocene, roughly two million years ago. Dinosaurs went extinct around 60 million years ago.

Of course one could argue about earlier ancestors, going back to the first primates. In that case yes, earliest primates did appear when there still were some dinos around. Talking about cavemen is a bit of a stretch though I might buy an argument about Australopithecus for example as an ancestor to humans, but that doesn't really take us more than some two million years farther than homo habilis.

 

[Talkie_Toaster]

Homo Habilis is I believe the first in the Homo genus, and thus the first ancestor of the modern human (homo sapiens). Homo habilis appeared in early pleistocene, roughly two million years ago. Dinosaurs went extinct around 60 million years ago.

Of course one could argue about earlier ancestors, going back to the first primates. In that case yes, earliest primates did appear when there still were some dinos around. Talking about cavemen is a bit of a stretch though I might buy an argument about Australopithecus for example as an ancestor to humans, but that doesn't really take us more than some two million years farther than homo habilis.

Yay! Thanks for saying something I meant but couldn't have dreamed of putting so eloquently

 

[Synobun]

Homo Habilis is I believe the first in the Homo genus, and thus the first ancestor of the modern human (homo sapiens). Homo habilis appeared in early pleistocene, roughly two million years ago. Dinosaurs went extinct around 60 million years ago.

Of course one could argue about earlier ancestors, going back to the first primates. In that case yes, earliest primates did appear when there still were some dinos around. Talking about cavemen is a bit of a stretch though I might buy an argument about Australopithecus for example as an ancestor to humans, but that doesn't really take us more than some two million years farther than homo habilis.

Well, then change it only to dinosaurs, and then when the next age comes, a movie comes, with a whole cycle of what happened, and then you have a new empire which consists of humans...

 

[iamliberal]

I'm shocked people don't like Civ4. I've eagerly awaited and played every version of Civ, starting with the orginal Civ 1 back in the early 90's. Every subsequent release has seemed like a dramatic and wonderful improvement to me. Some of the most irritating things of previous versions (such as suprise unwarranted attacks by ai from supposed allies) have been improved in civ4. I think the playabaility in civ4 is way better, no more of that irritating civil disorder that you COULD avoid in civ3 if something woul've ALERTED you to the fact that on the next turn it would go into disorder, and then manually go in and make entertainers, etc. The advisors screens are waaaay more useful and usable in Civ4, at least compared to civ3. I can finally see how much gold or technologies my opponents have available without opening dialogue with them. I don't remember real well, but I seem to remember Civ2 did this well too, like you just pull down a men and it lists everyone, their mood toward you, and how much gold they had (maybe techs too?).

Anyway, I've found Civ4 to be very fun and playable. Like many civfanatics, I don't really care how pretty or 3dimensional things are, but if they are going to make it pretty, I just wish they would write better code, civ3 and civ4 were both released very buggy and with a lot of performance problems for people, even people with great computers. Other bugs, like in Warlords, I'm supposed to be able to force my vassal to give me his resources, but every once in awhile it doesn't work properly and you get a normal non-vassal-type dialogue about resources trading, so he's able to refuse. These types of bugs are very irritating.

Another change I'd like would be a scrolling text box, so you can go back and see all of the announcements that came at the change of turn that you may have missed or forgotten about.

Other things for upcoming releases:
- make little short animation windows and such for big events, such as capturing a city. I remember way back in Civ 1 you had soldiers marching, and their image changed with each era. I liked those features.

 

[grumbler]

Another change I'd like would be a scrolling text box, so you can go back and see all of the announcements that came at the change of turn that you may have missed or forgotten about.

Hit CTRL + TAB.

 

[Talkie_Toaster]

@iamliberal, I love civ4! But there are still things that could be improved.

 

[shackleton]

I went Civ 2 -> Europa Universalis -> Civ 4. Never played Civ 3. So this isn't a fanboi response.

They need to fix combat in Civ 5. Suicidal catapults is the most sucky thing about Civ 4 and really handicaps it to my mind.

Civ 4 is pretty good but a few shortfalls really hold it back. Suicidal catapults, lack of fortresses, and lack of any real development a la Europe Universalis.

 

[iamliberal]

Hit CTRL + TAB.

So.. I hit control tab, and it does same thing as just hitting tab, brings a dialog box to type something for all to read. I trieed command (apple key) + tab and that scrolls through different programs running on the computer. I tried option (pc equivalent of alt) tab and nothing happened.

 

[iamliberal]

@iamliberal, I love civ4! But there are still things that could be improved.

Oh ya, I agree, I have a whole list of minor improvements I'd like, but most of it not related to core functions but just how things are displayed and such.

 

[iamliberal]

I went Civ 2 -> Europa Universalis -> Civ 4. Never played Civ 3. So this isn't a fanboi response.

They need to fix combat in Civ 5. Suicidal catapults is the most sucky thing about Civ 4 and really handicaps it to my mind.

Civ 4 is pretty good but a few shortfalls really hold it back. Suicidal catapults, lack of fortresses, and lack of any real development a la Europe Universalis.

I never played Europa Universalis, is it turn-based as well? I've never liked any real-time games. One of the things I've always enjoyed about civ is that I can spend weeks or even months on one game. In large maps late in the game, especially in older versions, I would dialogue with each civ, do all moves manually, and study the situation every single turn. One the things I'm always wanting more of from each civ game are more statistics kinds of screens and information (civ4 major improvement over civ3 in this area), who has what resources and is trading whom for what, who thinks what about whom, who is with conflict with whom and how can I benefit from the situation, etc.

I've never been a big fan of artillery type of units, and so I've always under-utilized them. I understand a major exploit in civ3 was huge stacks of death of catapults, and so I think civ4 does a nice job of helping correct this (not fixed, but better) and forces players to use a little more strategy than just making a stack of 30+ cats. I also like bombardments improvements in civ4 over civ3 with aircraft and such. Civ can always benefit from improvements in AI (smarter ai able to implement more advanced types of attacks and overall wars), and this has improved with each version of civ.

I like how they've gotten rid of the whole "can't be on the same square as another civ's units" problem, but one beef I have with civ4 is that I find allies almost never willing to 1. go to war with you when you're attacked by a friend of your ally, or 2. not even willing to cancel Open Borders with your enemy. It's frustrating to see your ally have 10 military units parked in your territory while the other civ is attacking you on the same squares. In my current game for example, the Vikings, Carthaginians, and I are all pleased with each other, but Vikings attacks me (frustrating, no provocation and why would an ally "pleased" attack (been a problem in every civ game since the beginning)). I can handle the attack for no reason thing, it's somewhat realistic (they want my resources and see an opporunity because my military is small and I'm so wealthy), but what I hate is that in Civ4 Vikings attack, but I can't get Carthage (bribe) to ally with me and declare war on Vikings for no amount of money or techs or resources (redded out)! In civ3, usually for enough gold you could get them to attack (altho sometimes outrageously expensive). Going along with this problem, I can't even get Carthage to stop trading, or even break just the Open Borders (it's always either all trades or none) agreement they have with Vikings. It's often more expensive to get civs to cancel trades than it is to get them to declare war (shoudl be opposite of that); and in civ4 these functions are often redded out (as in my example) so not even negotiable. Vikings can attack me from north where we border, or east and south through Carthaginian lands, ugh.

 

[Synobun]

I never played Europa Universalis, is it turn-based as well? I've never liked any real-time games. One of the things I've always enjoyed about civ is that I can spend weeks or even months on one game. In large maps late in the game, especially in older versions, I would dialogue with each civ, do all moves manually, and study the situation every single turn. One the things I'm always wanting more of from each civ game are more statistics kinds of screens and information (civ4 major improvement over civ3 in this area), who has what resources and is trading whom for what, who thinks what about whom, who is with conflict with whom and how can I benefit from the situation, etc.

I've never been a big fan of artillery type of units, and so I've always under-utilized them. I understand a major exploit in civ3 was huge stacks of death of catapults, and so I think civ4 does a nice job of helping correct this (not fixed, but better) and forces players to use a little more strategy than just making a stack of 30+ cats. I also like bombardments improvements in civ4 over civ3 with aircraft and such. Civ can always benefit from improvements in AI (smarter ai able to implement more advanced types of attacks and overall wars), and this has improved with each version of civ.

I like how they've gotten rid of the whole "can't be on the same square as another civ's units" problem, but one beef I have with civ4 is that I find allies almost never willing to 1. go to war with you when you're attacked by a friend of your ally, or 2. not even willing to cancel Open Borders with your enemy. It's frustrating to see your ally have 10 military units parked in your territory while the other civ is attacking you on the same squares. In my current game for example, the Vikings, Carthaginians, and I are all pleased with each other, but Vikings attacks me (frustrating, no provocation and why would an ally "pleased" attack (been a problem in every civ game since the beginning)). I can handle the attack for no reason thing, it's somewhat realistic (they want my resources and see an opporunity because my military is small and I'm so wealthy), but what I hate is that in Civ4 Vikings attack, but I can't get Carthage (bribe) to ally with me and declare war on Vikings for no amount of money or techs or resources (redded out)! In civ3, usually for enough gold you could get them to attack (altho sometimes outrageously expensive). Going along with this problem, I can't even get Carthage to stop trading, or even break just the Open Borders (it's always either all trades or none) agreement they have with Vikings. It's often more expensive to get civs to cancel trades than it is to get them to declare war (shoudl be opposite of that); and in civ4 these functions are often redded out (as in my example) so not even negotiable. Vikings can attack me from north where we border, or east and south through Carthaginian lands, ugh.

There is a tool beside quote which says multi, and if you click that on every post you want to quote, it'll quote all of it for you