Infos from the new Computer Bild Spiele about Civ 5

[Thormodr]

Great. Tech trading was always one of the most abused aspects of the game. Not being able to rely on dealing for techs makes the decision of how to tech through the tree very, very different and much, much more interesting. People will cry because it takes away a huge crutch, but it's a great change for the gameplay experience.



Another good change. With a reach of 3 hexes in any direction plus the increased importance of tactical terrain/unit movement (because of 1 unit per hex), city placement gets much more interesting.



This is the most exciting news, for me. Sounds awesome. Having more ways to customize your Civ and access unique strategic/playstyle opportunities is always good.

Exactly. There is a great deal of whining and gnashing of teeth over change because people will have to adapt their strategies. This is a good thing. I want a new game instead of Civ 4.5

People just want to do what they've always done. Don't fear change.

 

[wabatt]

-what do they mean by city states?

"These are small, AI-controlled civilizations. They never grow big and doesn´t desire to win." Think minor civs in RoM that don't war.

 

[sbrylski06]

So it sounds like city-states could be rather peaceful entities, or at least some of them. If we are allowed to ally with city-states to increase our research output (there have been rumors of both increased research with allies and city-states playing a role in diplomacy), that would be really exciting. Imagine in the early or mid game, uniting an array of peaceful city states in the undeveloped country side as a loose federation. If they last long enough without being attacked (and dragging you into a war with the attacking empire or something), one-by-one they start defecting and joining your empire. Very cool.

You may be able to attack the city states that are allied with your rivals, without actually starting a war with the major empire. They might get pissed off, and maybe even attack, but they might just let you get away with it too.

 

[mechaerik]

Great. Tech trading was always one of the most abused aspects of the game. Not being able to rely on dealing for techs makes the decision of how to tech through the tree very, very different and much, much more interesting. People will cry because it takes away a huge crutch, but it's a great change for the gameplay experience.

Exactly. There is a great deal of whining and gnashing of teeth over change because people will have to adapt their strategies. This is a good thing. I want a new game instead of Civ 4.5

I wonder how the higher difficulties will play out, because if they keep the research bonuses, how could you possibly keep up?

Tech trading isn't a crutch. It can be vital on the highest difficulties.

 

[fandamage]

I wonder how the higher difficulties will play out, because if they keep the research bonuses, how could you possibly keep up? Tech trading isn't a crutch. It can be vital on the highest difficulties.

Hopefully it means the game will rely less on opponents receiving huge bonuses to production/research/etc and more on actual AI decision-making. The research cooperation should compensate for this, too - it will force civs to actually work together and form strategic partnerships rather than just going around dealing techs all over the place. As others have noted, tech trading is often turned off in multiplayer for a reason.

 

[war ensemble]

The new changes to technodiplomacy interest me at the very least. A system of joint research projects seems much more natural and realistic than a simple "I learned fusion. Hey Monty, teach me what that laser thingie is you're using and I'll hook you up with 5 hours of private tutoring from Einstein" instant tech-learning. I usually disabled tech-trading because it simply represents a catchup gimmick, OR the human with a tech lead manipulating the other civs.

This new strategy seems to involve more complicated diplomacy than Civ 4 in that you must stay friendly if you want your cooperative research to be remunerative. Sign me up for this.

 

[Ituralde]

I'm worried about the one unit-per-tile feature... So now we have to defend cities with just one unit?

To the OP: Can you post the article url? Would be nice to check it out...

That's exactly what they're trying to achieve. Since you can only have one unit in your city you CAN'T rely on that one unit to defend your city. The only option you have is to go out of your city and find some good defensive position between your enemy and your city and defend from there.

I really like this change! I mean how many battles were actually fough inside a city? The majority took place on some battlefield. The article specifically mentions that the idea behind this is to make cities themselves more vulnerable. You have to rely on your army in the field to keep your cities safe.

And there's no link yet as it's only in the print version.

 

[kolpo]

That's exactly what they're trying to achieve. Since you can only have one unit in your city you CAN'T rely on that one unit to defend your city. The only option you have is to go out of your city and find some good defensive position between your enemy and your city and defend from there.

I really like this change! I mean how many battles were actually fough inside a city? The majority took place on some battlefield. The article specifically mentions that the idea behind this is to make cities themselves more vulnerable. You have to rely on your army in the field to keep your cities safe.

I guess and even hope that this also shall allow blitz conquests, once you now defeat the enemy his battle front can you now quickly conquer his whole nation. Rather then slugging it out over cities with gigantic stacks in it, in a war you known you have already won.

I like this change because I always thought that civ4 was too static. History is full of massive and big changes in territory in what would in civ terms be no more then a few turns. Things like the raise of the roman empire, The fast creation of the massive mongol empire, napoleon his quick raise and collaps and especially WWII where quite impossible to happen in a normal civ game in the time scale they did happen.

 

[Tee Kay]

I think I might not like Civ 5 after all.

 

[Ituralde]

I guess and even hope that this also shall allow blitz conquests, once you now defeat the enemy his battle front can you now quickly conquer his whole nation. Rather then slugging it out over cities with gigantic stacks in it, in a war you known you have already won.

I like this change because I always thought that civ4 was too static. History is full of massive and big changes in territory in what would in civ terms be no more then a few turns. Things like the raise of the roman empire, The fast creation of the massive mongol empire, napoleon his quick raise and collaps and especially WWII where quite impossible to happen in a normal civ game in the time scale they did happen.

But then you have no mechanism to reverse those changes as also happened quite often in history. So I would be careful in demanding the ability to conquer a lot of land quickly.

 

[ColdFever]

Since you can only have one unit in your city you CAN'T rely on that one unit to defend your city. The only option you have is to go out of your city and find some good defensive position between your enemy and your city and defend from there. I really like this change! I mean how many battles were actually fough inside a city?

Sorry, I have a totally different opinion. The heavy fortification of cities was a key element in many ancient and medieval wars, and this often lead to days, weeks or even months of siege. All these historic scenarios now will be impossible in Civ5, from the historic battles of Troj, Jerusalem, Constantinople to hundreds of other historic scenarios.

Further: What will be the use of building city walls in Civ5 that only can hold one defensive unit? What will be the use of building Castles that can hold only one archer unit but no knights or vice versa? Sorry, but from a historical background this new one city - one unit concept smells like nonsense, as the dumping of Religions to "improve diplomacy" smells like nonsense. I know Civ was never meant to be a history simulator, but IMHO so far it provided the best taste of history of all computer games. Now the say Civ5 will orientate on 19th Century, but then they should not call this Civ. Lets name it "Panzer War" or something like that, but do not try to sell me this as a Civ. A Civ that does not care about real history anymore IMHO would not deserve that title. I am so sorry that I have to write this.

 

[Tee Kay]

We can always mod the game.

 

[the Falcon]

…

 

[Lucky The Fox]

I really like this change! I mean how many battles were actually fough inside a city? The majority took place on some battlefield. The article specifically mentions that the idea behind this is to make cities themselves more vulnerable. You have to rely on your army in the field to keep your cities safe.

As a Panzer General veteran, I can say that this new system definitely has its perks, especially in the later eras since now we'll get proper fronts, artillery that has a proper support role and zero stacks of doom. The only drawback is that the system may not work so well in the earlier eras. The map will have to be a lot bigger than in earlier games, or we'll either have archers that fire their bows as far as howitzers or artillery that reaches overseas.

 

[Ituralde]

Sorry, I have a totally different opinion. The heavy fortification of cities was a key element in many ancient and medieval wars, and this often lead to days, weeks or even months of siege. All these historic scenarios now will be impossible in Civ5, from the historic battles of Troj, Jerusalem, Constantinople to hundreds of other historic scenarios.

Further: What will be the use of building city walls in Civ5 that only can hold one defensive unit? What will be the use of building Castles that can hold only one archer unit but no knights or vice versa? Sorry, but from a historical background this new one city - one unit concept smells like nonsense, as the dumping of Religions to "improve diplomacy" smells like nonsense. I know Civ was never meant to be a history simulator, but IMHO so far it provided the best taste of history of all computer games. Now the say Civ5 will orientate on 19th Century, but then they should not call this Civ. Lets name it "Panzer War" or something like that, but do not try to sell me this as a Civ. A Civ that does not care about real history anymore IMHO would not deserve that title. I am so sorry that I have to write this.

No need to apologize for your opinion. I can see where you're coming from, but for me Civ games aren't so much a simulation of history. Of course there is a strong historical element but it should always come second to interesting gameplay choices.

It's hard to find a combat system that works equally well in ancient and modern wars, so I'm fine with a system that offers enjoyment, even if it can be unhistorical.

I thought about the siege/castle thing too, but if we're honest you were never able to truly besiege an enemy town in any Civ game, since Armies don't need food or supplies. And sieges lasting for decades also doesn't strike me as being historical.

So there have always been these huge asymmetries between the game and history and there always will be in future incarnations.

 

[funat]

1. Tech trading is abolished.
2. Alliances give special boni (per example the possibility for a quicker research of a technology)
3. Cut-out of religions as known in Civ 4 confirmed
4. Cities can grow bigger than in former versions of the civ series as they there are 3 tiles for a city in every direction to be worked on.
5. New leader Wu Zeitan ( approximately for China)
6. New "Civilisation tree": This tree has a lot of astles, called "Social Policies". These astles contain certain paths, one of them is the path of "Tradition". Each of these astles gives a civ a certain advantage (per example special units). A civ can follow one of these paths strictly and make a deep progress in that tree on that path, but the civ can also follow parallel several different paths but doesn´t make such a deep progress in each of these paths.
7. New battle system one unit per tile confirmed:

a) New troops must leave a city at once, as there is only one unit per tile
b) Distance fighters (archers, artillery and so on) can shoot over the front units, lakes and other tiles
c) One philosophy is to form front lines for battles far away from the cities.

8. City States confirmed.

1. I agree. Finally. Some bonuses OK, but trading?? It NEVER happened (for some realist fans)
2. Great
3. Well - we'll see about that yet. Religions are ok.
4. This is OK - but let us see it in practice. To few cities on the map may be bad consequence.
5. I couldn't care less.
6. Great. A little refresment on concepts.
7. G R E A T !!!!!
If they make Panzer General style warfare - it will be - FABULOUS!!
Then we'll have it all! IMHO - PG warfare style (slightly modified) is IDEAL for a CIV game.

8. sympa

 

[chips2150]

Sorry, I have a totally different opinion. The heavy fortification of cities was a key element in many ancient and medieval wars, and this often lead to days, weeks or even months of siege. All these historic scenarios now will be impossible in Civ5, from the historic battles of Troj, Jerusalem, Constantinople to hundreds of other historic scenarios.

Further: What will be the use of building city walls in Civ5 that only can hold one defensive unit? What will be the use of building Castles that can hold only one archer unit but no knights or vice versa? Sorry, but from a historical background this new one city - one unit concept smells like nonsense, as the dumping of Religions to "improve diplomacy" smells like nonsense. I know Civ was never meant to be a history simulator, but IMHO so far it provided the best taste of history of all computer games. Now the say Civ5 will orientate on 19th Century, but then they should not call this Civ. Lets name it "Panzer War" or something like that, but do not try to sell me this as a Civ. A Civ that does not care about real history anymore IMHO would not deserve that title. I am so sorry that I have to write this.

We don't know anything about the actual siege mechanics (except range bombardement), so why should we already rant about possible historical imprecision?
Why shouldn't walls and a castle give that much of a bonus to city defense that one unit suffices to defend even against a "large" army?

Who knows, maybe they changed the way city defense works in a sense noone would have expected. All of it depends on the context and we have only acquired a few (in my opinion very intriguing) infos about the upcoming "war system".

I, for one, am exceedingly exited!

 

[ColdFever]

Why shouldn't walls and a castle give that much of a bonus to city defense that one unit suffices to defend even against a "large" army?

Because in an ancient and medieval context it would be utter nonsense to defend a fortified city from inside with only one single unit, no matter if this unit is an archer unit (wide range attack) or sword unit (melee range) attack. The concept of fortifying cities and building Castles at that times based around defending a limited number of valuable fighters of all classes against the often almost unlimited numbers of attacking hordes. If this is not possible anymore in Civ5 then it is probably just is not good enough for ancient and medieval scenarios anymore. The only working expansion of the "One Tile- One Unit" I could think of would be if fortified cities actually could get larger than one tile. However, so far we did not see this yet.

 

[chips2150]

Because in a historic context it would be utter nonsense to defend a fortified city with only one single unit, no matter if this unit is an archer unit (wide range attack) or sword unit (melee range) attack. The ancient and medieval concept of fortifying cities and building Castles bases around defending a limited number of valuable fighters of all classes against the often almost unlimited numbers of attacking hordes. If this is not possible anymore in Civ5 then it is probably just is not good enough for ancient and medieval scenarios anymore. The only working expansion of the "One Tile- One Unit" I could think of would be if fortified cities actually could get larger than one tile. However, so far we did not see this yet.

Well, in a historic context it would also be utter nonense to be able to defend a very small city with an army a few times the size of the cities population (which would be resembled by an exceedingly large stack of units). To me the new arrangement seems a bit more "historically correct" then the old one.

Once again: we don't know anything about the actual siege mechanics (as well as city defense) involved. Why not wait a little longer before predicting civ's downfall?

 

[Rowain deWolf]

It could be that the walls/castles/ other defense-boni not only count for the one City-tile but for the all the controlled tiles of said city. Then you still have your various defenders against a big Army.

OTOH alot of the famous open-field battles of old were fought to keep the enemy away from the cities as that usual spelled doom for all. The turtling up in cities and waiting till the enemy is on open land to collateral him to death as it is common CIV-tactic is historically not accurate. The Greek defeated the Persians not thanks to city-walls and turtling up but with victorious land and sea battles.