How much has Civ V derailed from the series???

[Ricci]

Hello everyone! This thread is about how much do we think the new imminent release of the Civ franchise will fall apart the traditional features concerning it's predecessors, for good or for worse. So, given what we know so far I have a list here of some aspects traditionally present in all the previous civ games that we won't be expecting in ciV. Feel free to extend the list at will and take your stand in the poll please:

1) Square type tiles changed to hexes - Every Civ from 1 to 4 had the map organized in square tiles. I never could understand how was it confusing or granted "unfair movement", but all in all hexes seem as good as many other polygons and may prove to end up as a good derailment from the series.

2) Infinite stacking to 1 UPT - Major derailment, we'll test it in due time.

3) No more slider - Base commerce has been a common currency since the original Civ game, I have always found it very clear and fitting, and it makes up for some interesting strategies without to much micromanaging. Having it removed stands for, at first analysis, a more specialized economy (economy in the broad sense here.. culture, gold, sience, etc). This I embrace at first, given it doesn't mean you will get stuck with your first economical development or get doomed in the reformation process.

4) No more governments - Since the first Communism, Democracy, Monarchy & Republic choice we used to make in the original Civ towards the more specific civics system in cIV there has always been present the government concept in the series. This seems to have disappeared in the new game. Having a new social development system running on culture seems truly great, wish they would just add it into the game.. together with government.

5) ICBM - All right, if my memory doesn't fail I believe the original game had a nuclear missile with 16 range (probably the entire nibble used for this field/characteristic.. ha!), so this was not truly intercontinental but maps were much smaller and nukes could be carried in simple transports. Either way, most of the franchise had good old fashion ICBM. The lack of true ICBM in ciV is a major set back for me though, no more global nuclear threat and cold war true representation.. etc.

6) No specialized transport units - Major argumentation has been given in favor and against this major change. Better for AI? Less micro? I will just have it mentioned here with no further comment but that I don't like it a bit.

7) Giant Death Robots - Never before has the core civ game gone beyond the actual and modern civilization epoch. True, spaceship victory was since civ I an exception, and if you like the realization of an effective SDI (though this was a real and competent scheme in the 20th century). I don't know what to make out of this new bizarre/fantastic unit messing around in the core game. Maybe it was always a big joke co-engineered by Perfection himself!!!!

8) Spies - Since the diplomat unit in civ (which could buy enemy units and cities.. ha!) there has always been some kind of system representing spying. Probably added ahead, still it is weird they didn't include it already.

9) Random events - Always been around, though they cannot be taken as a core in game issue random events spice the game so much for me. True they didn't exist either in the vanilla cIV version (with the exception of the eventual mineral found while mining a hill).

10) Spearman Vs Tank - I still remember having lost a battleship to a diplomat (defense value 0) in the original civ. This will be the first time in the series odds would be tweaked as to deny this kind of chance to ever happen again... {.. tear drops over the keyboard}

11) Ubiquitous replay at end of game - Why was this ever lasting, nice and amazingly easy to deliver feature removed will test my wits for years to come.

12) Victory movies - No comments here..

 

[Afforess]

1) Square type tiles changed to hexes - Every Civ from 1 to 4 had the map organized in square tiles. I never could understand how was it confusing or granted "unfair movement", but all in all hexes seem as good as many other polygons and may prove to end up as a good derailment from the series.

I'm no mathematician, but as I understand it, moving on a diagonal in squares is ~1.6 movement, as compared to moving on a cardinal direction. So moving diagonally in CIV4 should cost 1.6 the movement of a cardinal direction movement, but it doesn't. Hex movement is the same every direction, which makes it fairer.

2) Infinite stacking to 1 UPT - Major derailment, we'll test it in due time.

Discussed to death already... IMHO, I'm in favor.

3) No more slider - Base commerce has been a common currency since the original Civ game, I have always found it very clear and fitting, and it makes up for some interesting strategies without to much micromanaging. Having it removed stands for, at first analysis, a more specialized economy (economy in the broad sense here.. culture, gold, sience, etc). This I embrace at first, given it doesn't mean you will get stuck with your first economical development or get doomed in the reformation process.

I'm in favor again. Commerce and Gold were and are still continually confused by new players. This will eliminate the confusion.

4) No more governments - Since the first Communism, Democracy, Monarchy & Republic choice we used to make in the original Civ towards the more specific civics system in cIV there has always been present the government concept in the series. This seems to have disappeared in the new game. Having a new social development system running on culture seems truly great, wish they would just add it into the game.. together with government.

Bugs me too, but it's room for mods anyway.

5) ICBM - All right, if my memory doesn't fail I believe the original game had a nuclear missile with 16 range (probably the entire nibble used for this field/characteristic.. ha!), so this was not truly intercontinental but maps were much smaller and nukes could be carried in simple transports. Either way, most of the franchise had good old fashion ICBM. The lack of true ICBM in ciV is a major set back for me though, no more global nuclear threat and cold war true representation.. etc.

Again, Bugs me, but I expect to see (or create myself) an ICBM mod. Anyway, ICBM's have never been used in any warfare in the real world, so it's not life we're missing out.

6) No specialized transport units - Major argumentation has been given in favor and against this major change. Better for AI? Less micro? I will just have it mentioned here with no further comment but that I don't like it a bit.

I'm adopting a "Wait and See" approach here.

7) Giant Death Robots - Never before has the core civ game gone beyond the actual and modern civilization epoch. True, spaceship victory was since civ I an exception, and if you like the realization of an effective SDI (though this was a real and competent scheme in the 20th century). I don't know what to make out of this new bizarre/fantastic unit messing around in the core game. Maybe it was always a big joke co-engineered by Perfection himself!!!!

Bothers me too. I have a sense of humor, and appreciate it, but GDR's aren't funny. I'd prefer an ICBM over the GDR... Guess who will be modding out the GDR in my game.

 

[StittsvilleJame]

I'm not sure I would characterize the changes as 'derailment'. Derailment to me is a bad thing, as in trains which get derailed are wrecked.

Semantics I suppose though...

 

[bjbrains]

No. Government types are still social policies, and as in real life, they are not all mutually exclusive. The hexes, 1UPT, the removal of the slider/ICBMS, and the new embarkation system strike me as positive things. Just because the game has changed from Civ 4, it does not mean that it's going to "derail" the game.

 

[Ricci]

You can vote now AFFORESS !!

As to diagonal movement, I take one movement cost as one movement cost, diagonal tiles are adjacent tiles too. But that's just me.

 

[bjbrains]

You can vote now AFFORESS !!

As to diagonal movement, I take one movement cost as one movement cost, diagonal tiles are adjacent tiles too. But that's just me.

But that doesn't work. It creates very, very strange situations, with movement - Diagonal movement is actually much faster in Civ 4. If you want to cross a continent, the best way to do it is to always travel diagonally. Hexes are all equidistant to eachother, as well as making more natural terrain (More rounded edges).

 

[mushroomshirt]

I'm not sure I would characterize the changes as 'derailment'. Derailment to me is a bad thing, as in trains which get derailed are wrecked.

Semantics I suppose though...

Agreed! Let's keep an open mind. A lot of the changes are intriguing. If things are bad we can always go back to civ IV.

I'm particularly excited about 1UPT and hexes. I'm anticipating the great feeling busting through someone's front lines and taking out their cannon. You never get that with stacks of doom.

I seem to remember similar hand-wringing when civ IV came out.

Side note: I've been checking out the fall from heaven 2 mod for civ IV while I've been waiting for civ V. There's a lot of things there that Firaxis seems to have copied. (units being more valuable, warriors actually being worth something, less interlaced tech tree) If you have been living in a hole in the ground like me and haven't checked it out yet, please do! It's keeping me happy until civ V.

http://forums.civfanatics.com/showpost.php?p=4696639&postcount=1

 

[Afforess]

As to diagonal movement, I take one movement cost as one movement cost, diagonal tiles are adjacent tiles too. But that's just me.

If you know your Pythagorean theorem, you know a hypotenuse of a triangle is equal to the square root of the squares of the 2 other sides of the triangle. Yes?

Moving diagonally in a square map is like moving along the hypotenuse. Thus, the movement is equal to the square root of 2 movement. (~17/12)

 

[Ricci]

I'm not sure I would characterize the changes as 'derailment'. Derailment to me is a bad thing, as in trains which get derailed are wrecked.

Semantics I suppose though...

Well, derailment has not a negative connotation though, it just means it went out of track against the entire rest of the series. That is what I try to emphasize in this thread.

No. Government types are still social policies, and as in real life, they are not all mutually exclusive. The hexes, 1UPT, the removal of the slider/ICBMS, and the new embarkation system strike me as positive things. Just because the game has changed from Civ 4, it does not mean that it's going to "derail" the game.

I don't know what you are trying to pull out here brains, but one thing is what a society is made off and stands for and another the government that rules, many many times these two collide and revolutions arise.
And, we are not concerned in this thread about changes from civ 4 alone. Please, be kind to read the header of the thread before posting.

 

[drowzyus360]

as mentioned, i agree that its not a derailment. I think it would be a derailment if ciV was a first person shooter or something... (or a RTS)

GDR -
i never really thought of the GDR as a bad thing because its the 'end game' unit for military victory (conquest, domination, etc...).

 

[Ricci]

If you know your Pythagorean theorem, you know a hypotenuse of a triangle is equal to the square root of the squares of the 2 other sides of the triangle. Yes?

Moving diagonally in a square map is like moving along the hypotenuse. Thus, the movement is equal to the square root of 2 movement. (~17/12)

Yes yes, this is all good man. For me tiles have always been an abstract of land, not realistic cartography. I will concede though that maximizing realism diagonal movement should be different. So many times I have been given the argument that this is a game and not a simulation, gameplay > realism, etc etc. It seems this time these arguments fit my own view.. ha!

 

[bjbrains]

Well, derailment has not a negative connotation though, it just means it went out of track against the entire rest of the series. That is what I try to emphasize in this thread.



I don't know what you are trying to pull out here brains, but one thing is what a society is made off and stands for and another the government that rules, many many times these two collide and revolutions arise.
And, we are not concerned in this thread about chances from civ 4 alone. Please, be kind to read the header of the thread before posting.

Derailment has a very strong connotation of negativity, what are you talking about? Stuff only derails when something is horribly wrong, hence "off the rails" as a term for a insane person.
Also, a society's government is as reflection of what a society is "made off" as it is anything else. The values of the people living in an area inevitably influence how they are governed (barring military occupation for obvious reasons). While there are definitely other factors, multiple conflicting cultural aspects, and many, many other variables, linking governmental development to cultural/societal development makes more sense than the previous tech-based system.

Oh, and about hexes: The directional movement isn't a realism thing primarily. It's just that it's a lot easier to understand/play when unit movement isn't variable based on what direction you move in.

 

[Thormodr]

Derailment does have quite negative connotations. Side tracked is much more neutral and is perhaps what you intended to mean.

A derailment is an accident on a railway in which a train leaves the rails, which can result in damage, injury, and death.

There are several main causes of derailment: broken or misaligned rails, excessive speed, faults in the train and its wheels, and collisions with obstructions on the track. Derailment can also occur as a secondary effect in the aftermath of a collision between two or more trains. Trap points protect main lines from runaway vehicles by deliberately derailing them to bring them to a stop. Flangeless wheels make it easier for a locomotive to negotiate curves, but make them more prone to derailment. Rerailing a train after it has derailed is not an easy task, and often requires the use of large rail mounted cranes.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Derailment

 

[Ricci]

Derailment does have quite negative connotations. Side tracked is much more neutral and is perhaps what you intended to mean.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Derailment

Thanks Thor, but I meant derailed actually, something that goes on rails refers to the so many features that were kept constant through out all the previous civ games and are changed in civ V. The rail symbolizes that constant, as it happens to mark the path already determined.

derail verb ( TRAIN )
US pronunciation of this word/ˌdiːˈreɪl/ v
[I or T] If a train derails or is derailed, it comes off the railway tracks.


We shouldn't trust that much on wikipedia right!!

 

[bjbrains]

Sorry Ricci, but you can't argue against what is the established meaning and connotation of a word. What you meant isn't relevant when trying to state something. What other people think you mean is.

 

[Ricci]

Also, a society's government is as reflection of what a society is "made off" as it is anything else. The values of the people living in an area inevitably influence how they are governed (barring military occupation for obvious reasons). While there are definitely other factors, multiple conflicting cultural aspects, and many, many other variables, linking governmental development to cultural/societal development makes more sense than the previous tech-based system.

Not always it does not, as you happen to mention between brackets yourself, also many times a changing society develops off pace with an embedded government retaining power; thus conflict, revolution, anarchy arise, represented in every other civ game but ciV as far as we know.
On the other hand, we are on the same side about linking government with social policies makes much more sense that with tech, if only they have kept the government part!. I think the new social development system is probably the best new feature in ciV (if well implemented and balanced).

 

[Carver]

Oh, there's nothing negative about that.

 

[Thormodr]

From dictionary.com

de·rail
   /diˈreɪl/ Show Spelled[dee-reyl] Show IPA
–verb (used with object)
1.
to cause (a train, streetcar, etc.) to run off the rails of a track.
2.
to cause to fail or become deflected from a purpose; reduce or delay the chances for success or development of: Being drafted into the army derailed his career for two years.
–verb (used without object)
3.
(of a train, streetcar, etc.) to run off the rails of a track.
4.
to become derailed; go astray.
–noun
5.
a track device for derailing rolling stock in an emergency.

Origin:
1840&#8211;50; < F dérailler, equiv. to dé- dis-1 + -railler, v. deriv. of rail rail1 (< E)

I suppose the two bolded quotes would be closer to your meaning. To be lead astray or deflected from a purpose. I guess it's not quite so negative as a train derailing which is always a negative meaning. So, fair enough.

 

[bjbrains]

Not always it does not, as you happen to mention between brackets yourself, also many times a changing society develops off pace with an embedded government retaining power; thus conflict, revolution, anarchy arise, represented in every other civ game but ciV as far as we know.
On the other hand, we are on the same side about linking government with social policies makes much more sense that with tech, if only they have kept the government part!. I think the new social development system is probably the best new feature in ciV (if well implemented and balanced).

Except that you're not correct about Civ 5 not representing that. If you switch between conflicting policies (Liberty/Freedom and Autocracy; Piety and Rationalism), you lose access to all the benefits from the previous tree and suffer a turn of anarchy. Seems as good of a abstraction as anything. You just don't suffer any upheaval if the policies can mutually coexist.

 

[Ricci]

From dictionary.com
I suppose the two bolded quotes would be closer to your meaning. To be lead astray or deflected from a purpose. I guess it's not quite so negative as a train derailing which is always a negative meaning. So, fair enough.

Yes, you are quite accurate Thor. In any case, the purpose of the thread is clearly explained in the header post of mine. I would like to read some other aspects which you notice have change against the traditional series.
True as brains said I cannot change a word connotation nor it is my intention, some people will take for granted a train crash and others will read my first post and go ahead voting and posting accordingly.