Discussion in 'Civ4 - Strategy & Tips' started by Artichoker, Apr 6, 2010.
Starcraft 2 beta!!!
I have not be lucky enough to get access to the Beta test ...
I just started playing Civ IV last month, so I'm definitely going to be around for a while. I'll probably just delay making the move to Civ V until the expansions and balance patches are out, at which point it'll be a much better game (if BTS is any indication).
It'll be kinda sad that all the great experienced players will have moved on by then; this forum will probably be dying when it comes out...
I have this feeling that Civ V will be a fail, at least when it comes to my wishes. So I think I'll be still playing Civ IV for years...
I rarely buy videogames at launch these days. I prefer to wait and watch others' reactions. It has saved me from many a disappointment (such as DoW2 and SupCom2 for example). And I don't trust games magazines one inch.
I might even wait until there's some sort of xpack-bundle deal out.
Also, while I'm confident the new combat system will be a breath of fresh air I am prepared for disappointment from other directions.
In most of the buzz they mainly emphasize the negative lessons they learned from Civ4 (such as the essential problems with the Civilization combat model and how religion turned out) while we hear nothing about the positive lessons from Civ4 (such as city specialization and having a real choice regarding land development). Most of the screenshots show farms on flatland and mines on hills, but this might just be a preliminary build.
And then Civ4 only became a truly golden game with BtS expansion pack. We might very well see a similar turn of events with Civ5.
I think they'll be different enough that I'll move back and forth. I still play CivIII and it still has a regular forum.
Of course, it all depends upon how much I (or anyone else) likes CivV. Some will love it, some will prefer it, some will say that CivIV was the best and V is a step down.
In my mind, 1UPT is an arbitrary restriction. It reduces gameplay liberty. In my opinion, restriction is bad by default unless it has a positive by-product. Many folks in the Civ V sub-forum say 1UPT will improve gameplay by eliminating SoD. 1UPT will certainly accomplish this, which is well and fine if SoD makes you rage. (BTW, I was under the impression that us 1UPT-haters were a fringe minority.) I however, like SoD (I just wish the UI had a better representation of tall AI SoD, but that is strictly a UI deficiency, not a gameplay issue). So for me, this is a frustrating new restriction which will force me to change my tactics and strategies (in a non-intuitive fashion) to work around a fix for a non-existent problem.
I haven't played Panzer General, but I've heard nothing but great things about it. However, I don't see why PG's system is so heavily contingent on non-stacking units. I've played Steel Panthers II, which did allow some stacking. If I remember right, there were some restrictions. I would be more understanding if Firaxis wanted to prevent unlimited concentrations of forces in Civ V and imposed tile capacity restrictions. Capacities based on terrain type, improvements, technologies discovered and even the units "space requirements". Sort of like how the number of specialists a city can run is constrained by buildings, civics, population and wonders. That is seems well thought out and enhances gameplay. 1UPT comes across as a maul solution to problem better solved with a scalpel. My impression is Firaxis wanted to prevent unit build-ups but didn't want (or wasn't allowed) to develop a refined capacity constraint system.
Seriously? We're making an acronym out of an aspect of unit management in a future civ game? Geez O Pete, this is probably the most acronym-happy place I've ever seen in my life, with the CE, SE, FE, MGB, CS, COL, BPT, HE, CM, OMFG WTF BBQ SDF9SAJDHFKASFDAJSHFDSD!
Why don't we talk about the DR and HT in the upcoming game? Or the HWTTTBGE aspect? Perhaps we should make it our goal to RASWA!
*how will they top the best game ever
*replace all sentences with acronyms
Actually people are using a bad acronym with 1upt since civ5 will use hexes, hence 1uph.
I think there are definitely direct benefits of limiting the number of units per tile to a single unit. Terrain and unit placement becomes much more important than it does with stacking. In civ4 you move units in a sod from city to city, the only thing that can stop you is basically the enemy throwing an even larger amount of units against yours, it comes down more or less to who has the production advantage or technology if we discount the fact that the AI is very poor at protecting it's own units comparatively and to do coordinated attacks (if it did, it wouldn't need quite the production handicap it enjoys on the highest levels).
With 1uph you have to think about what units to put where, how you will react if a certain unit is killed, where you can outflank the enemy and so on. Production will probably still be very important but we also gets a ton of actual war tactics to consider. The war tactics in civ4 are there but it's mainly about what unit to build to counteract the units the enemy have available and which promotions to use and not even that with enough siege/bombardment. With enough of the latter you can theoretically actually take a medieval army and defeat a modern army.
Let me ask you a rhetorical question, would chess be better if you could stack pieces? It is my opinion that the 1upt restriction utilized in chess could has some definitve advantages in civ5 as well just like it has in Panzer General. Try PG and you will see why it's a potentially brilliant system.
Sometimes acronyms do get out of hand... I can't find the original thread, but here is one acronym that never really caught on much:
As DaveMcW said it..
Then call it a EGATEFOCEFEPTTWARTSAGP(PGS) BNMDIMYSACEMTTMOYESATLTCATYC economy.
[swiped from a signature]
You forgot Edu, CS, Aest, AH, Astro, SM, BW, CR, GP, GPP, GA, GE, GS, GM, WB, HA, EE, mids... The list goes on and on.
Besides a lot of the acronyms are not so bad as long as the first time they are explained. When talking about one unit per tile (1upt) it is waaaay faster to then continue talking about the 1upt by typing 1upt rather than typing 1upt out each and every time. When done wrong - that is, when acronyms that are not common are not explained at least once, then it can get very muddy for new posters and players to actually follow any discussion.
One final note: it is also one of the most friendly forums you will see on the net.
One unit per tile will take the focus slightly from strategy to tactics, which is a good thing in my opinion.
I found civ4 a little shallow tactically and think we can remedy that without having it feel too wargamey. On the other hamd, the developers are apparently not too worried about that as they also move to hexagons.
Anyway, I'll probably keep playing Civ4 becaus this game succeeds very well at what it tries to do, which is far more important than being the latest version out.
But then, I'm a bit of a dinosaur. I still play civ1 occasionally for the nostalgia, and would get more excited about a seriously overdue patch for Master of Magic than I am about the civ5 release...
14 have voted "more than 5 years" as of now...(which is probably what I would have voted myself if I hadn't taken RL into account).
So there is an optimistic future for Civ 4 after all.
I think the waters are quite muddy already for newer posters; when I first got here, I have actually spent 20-30 seconds staring at the screen trying to figure out the acronyms from the context. The glossary of terms page is quite useful, but not all-encompassing. That said, yes I agree that this site has one of the most newbie-friendly attitudes I've seen, esoteric acronyms and concepts notwithstanding. I've noticed that veterans are usually meaner to each other than to us n00bs.
I still play Civ 1, 2, 3 and 4, so I imagine I will be playing 4 along with 5. Someday I'll be playing 5 along with 6. I still read the forums for all iterations, though I rarely contribute.
I'm excited for Civ 5, with reservations. It really feels like they are making a huge leap, which scares me a little, but I will be waiting to buy the game as soon as it's available.
I will likely continue to play civ 4 even if I get civ 5 - I play my games depending on how I feel. For example, I played Age of Empires II for almost 6 months non-stop a couple years ago, even though I had Age of Empires III: The Asian Dynasties, the most up-to-date expansion pack, simply because I liked the mechanics of the game.
There are probably some hex-wargamers on the dev-staf for Civ5, so expect ZOC to be the next new acronym for the forum along with other hex-wargames concepts, hopefully applied with the skill of a jeweler but maybe slapped on with the subtelty of a drunken bill-boarder...
I have doubts that my computer will be able to handle Civ5 as it barely handles Civ4. And I certainly can't justify spending $$$ just for a game, so it will be Civ4 for a while.
I had all sorts of games, but when my hard drive died, Civ 4 was the only game I stuck on my new computer. I would keep on playing it until I eventually beat diety. I am beating emporer now so I can feel it getting close.
However, Civ 5 will probably be a better game if the last 3 games are any indicator. I've been playing Civ since Civ 2 and each installment is more enriching and engrossing than the last one. I would expect Civ 5 to be no different. From the previews I have seen on this site, it looks pretty impressive. I will definately go out to the store and buy it as soon as it comes out, and in all likelihood, I will go full tilt with that.
I start playing CIV I and enjoyed when CIV II came to replace CIV I, many years ago, it was a nice game. But I was upset about CIV III and I stoped playing CIV for a long time. I don´t have much time to play, only on weekends and holidays, and now I´m getting used to CIV IV and I like it. So, I´ll be playing CIV IV for one year or two, at least.
If I like Civ5 then I'm gonna play Civ5, if not, I will continue playing Civ4.
Separate names with a comma.