Infos from the new Computer Bild Spiele about Civ 5

[Öjevind Lång]

My first thought is that with the potentially different tech system, it may not be as realistic or make as much sense to exchange techs anymore. Additionally, it will create much more depth to the game by not being able to trade techs (or for that matter have the AIs all trading techs behind your back).

You will no longer be able to beeline to a specific tech and then backfill with trades to catch up in other areas. It sounds like you will now have to be much more careful in how you research to maintain your competitiveness. It also opens up new avenues for cooperation with other civs.

All of this is good in my book. I didn’t really think about the tech system/trading being super broken before reading this thread, but it just kinda clicks now. The old way was just that – old and stale.

I completely agree. Tech trading is stupid, and boring. Joint research ventures with other civs are an excellent idea.

 

[Berba]

My first thought is that with the potentially different tech system, it may not be as realistic or make as much sense to exchange techs anymore. Additionally, it will create much more depth to the game by not being able to trade techs (or for that matter have the AIs all trading techs behind your back).

You will no longer be able to beeline to a specific tech and then backfill with trades to catch up in other areas. It sounds like you will now have to be much more careful in how you research to maintain your competitiveness. It also opens up new avenues for cooperation with other civs.

All of this is good in my book. I didn’t really think about the tech system/trading being super broken before reading this thread, but it just kinda clicks now. The old way was just that – old and stale.

I also agree, with tech trading out of the game i becomes much more realistic and like Öjevind Lång said

Tech trading is stupid, and boring. Joint research ventures with other civs are an excellent idea.

Indeed it's an excellent idea

 

[rpv173]

For those not familiar with Panzer General. This is what the new CIV 5 combat system will look like. I know it sounds confusing to have one unit per city, but it makes for a much more tactical warfare.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ar9aeo1pNT4

 

[KrikkitTwo]

One unit per tile can work one of 2 ways

1. Hard, Low cap on number of units (ie only 1 Military units allowed per each Barracks in your empire+3 for your capital, +1 for every modern 'Military instalation', etc.)

2. Units can combine and be of any "size" (Attacking a unit does not 'Damage it' Attacking 'Shrinks it')


Also units need to have a move of 2 at least and be able to move Through each other (if they are friendly)


Otherwise you have the "Puzzle problem" of large numbers of units clogging each other up and making for very complicated moves.


I personally favor #2, but I think they might be going with #1



Note: IMO, Civ warfare is already Too tactical, it needs to be less so.

 

[mechaerik]

One unit per tile can work one of 2 ways

1. Hard, Low cap on number of units (ie only 1 Military units allowed per each Barracks in your empire+3 for your capital, +1 for every modern 'Military instalation', etc.)

2. Units can combine and be of any "size" (Attacking a unit does not 'Damage it' Attacking 'Shrinks it')


Also units need to have a move of 2 at least and be able to move Through each other (if they are friendly)


Otherwise you have the "Puzzle problem" of large numbers of units clogging each other up and making for very complicated moves.


I personally favor #2, but I think they might be going with #1



Note: IMO, Civ warfare is already Too tactical, it needs to be less so.

Or they could make it so that you can have one unit per tile, with nothing else influencing it.

 

[Cipherium]

No tech trading? Then perhaps providence of weapons or cultural influences? The French Revolution was ignited after the American Revolution due to poor political climate and cultural influence (and one marquis de Lafayette).

The middle east is totally equipped with AK 47s and not muskets (perhaps a few riflemen, I don't know well enough).

Was the stirrup so much of a new discovery to the western cavalry- they didn't learned it from earlier civilizations like the mongols?

What about the United states trading arms with Japan, and how did Japan catch up so fast (industrially speaking) anyway? Not to recall The Last Samurai which is only a nice romance, but the Japanese did pay considerable amounts of money to be taught technology.

 

[Cipherium]

Religions and mythologies should remain a strong part of Civ, I'd think. I'm a secular guy though, and try to remain unbaised. Perhaps it's a political correction. I vote deeper religion (In establishing civilization culture and stability and whatnot). If my civ discovers polythiesm after another civ, there should be another polythiestic religion in the world, unless the first religion became imported. Maybe that is too much. I like too much. We'll have to see how the tech tree works anyway.

I agree with the majority on the 1 unit per tile issue.

 

[kivanc]

Computer Bild Spiele is a German computer gaming magazine (which gave the first massive informations about Civ 4). Now this magazine gave some informations about Civ 5 (but not as massive as some years ago for Civ 4).

I don´t know what of the following is known yet, but I tell you some of these informations here:

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.

hello friends.
most new gameplay changes seems to be for simplifying the game. (religion and espionage seems to be OUT. 1leader per civ.) well, i'm generally not satisfied with the game up till now.

still, i shall make my comments to these

1) because it wasn't reasonable. it also means a nerf to AI. i wonder how they will manage to make AI smarter in high levels, then.
2) very good
3) i am in wait-and-see mode for this one. let'S see how they will improve other dynamics. if they replace sth for it, it may be ok for me.
4) means less cities with higher rates. simplifies the game
5) they cannot fool me with names. new leader name, so what?
6) seems like good but i hope unique bonuses for civs aren't limited with only this one
7) seems bad
8) good

 

[awesome]

wanting to keep tech trading isn't fear of change or losing a crutch, but i'm not going to bother explaining why because that's already been covered in this thread. also, though there are elements of it in the game that aren't realistic, you can say that about pretty much anything in there.

 

[heihojin]

The preclusion of tech trading limits one's strategic options, and renders the game far less interesting. There is less incentive to dissolve collaborative partnerships, as there is no way to catch other players "up to speed." Hence there will be less intrigue and backstabbing, and the correct strategy becomes simply to pick a research partner early and hope that you have picked the right partner. Without a mechanism for giving away technology, players become trapped into agreements that they might otherwise want to break.

Furthermore, precluding tech trading punishes the strategic choice of forgoing research in pursuit of other priorities (such as military production). Currently if I am granted a sufficient advantage in production (hammers), I have the option of emphasizing military production at the expense of technological research and leveraging that against my neighbors. I might extort technology from them, or I may offer my military services to them in exchange for technology. But to remove those options from me puts me at a disadvantage when I shouldn't be.

I play only epic multiplayer PBEMs, and both of these situations have occurred in my games. All the work being done to make Civ V prettier and its combat more engaging is pointless if the strategic game is less interesting. Reducing strategic options is a death knell for multiplayer Civ; tech trading is an integral part of the game, and removing it would be a big, big mistake.

 

[KrikkitTwo]

Or they could make it so that you can have one unit per tile, with nothing else influencing it.

No they couldn't... If you have empires with 50-100 units then the micromanagment of them is going to be horrible if you cannot stack them (and you can't reasonably move as a 'block' because the terrain changes from one area to another.

If they have 1 upt, they need to have a very small number of units... (which is confirmed)

 

[Takeda]

the only thing that concerns me is the lack of tech trading

 

[Berba]

Why? You can buy techs from your neighbor for 50 gold and 2 iron? It's like:
Ah! Can you sell us the knowledge of fusion so we can eliminate you with huge bombs?
Sure, but no less than a piece of iron!

 

[Öjevind Lång]

Why? You can buy techs from your neighbor for 50 gold and 2 iron? It's like:
Ah! Can you sell us the knowledge of fusion so we can eliminate you with huge bombs?
Sure, but no less than a piece of iron!

I've disliked tech trading since the original game. At last they do away with that white elephant.

 

[kivanc]

tech trading is a rather easier way of tech partnering. you could just trade techs like exchaning between dollars and euroes. i suppose they are just trying to make it more disciplined.

i liked the tech partnering that permanent alliances has. you decide a tech together and your additive beakers count for how many turns the tech learning will take.
but still that solution is not the best neither. that would help smaller countries much.

maybe they do sth like this, i expect this kind of a thing; when you pick a civ to tech partner, you get a 10-20% of that nations beakers added to your beakers (or whatever the news science learning way is) and your partner has 10-20% of your beakers similarly. still, it helps smaller allies more than the bigger ones but a rather more balanced partnering this is. this way, each player can make multi-partners as well.

 

[Rabid Weasel]

We need a game play demo here, guys. Screenshots are nice, but this is the 21st century.

Exactly. I need to see how this plays before I pass any judgements on CiV. And remember, if you're worried that a feature that you love will be cut out, learn to code and start a mod team to put it back in.

 

[mordenkien]

..after a tech is first discovered its reseach cost should decrease for other civs ie -1% per 2 years

 

[Azrune]

Personally in multiplayer I turn tech brokering off so only the one has researched the tech can trade it, or spys can steal it. Cutting units and cities will ofc take away the fun of stacks of doom, which in mutilplayer required a keen sense of logistics and tatical know how. Personally I loved modern navel war fair with carrier air support and making beach heads and the good old paratropper. I think Troops being able to make their own transports seems to make a mockery of oceans (being that it doesn't so much as offer a barrier to units, rather making them prone to attack) and also logistics. Plus isn't this now just a civ version of Panzer Genreal, as apposed to inspired by. Although all being said it might work well, not knowing the full facts and all.
The idea that u can trade hex tiles sounds good and also how the cites expands one hex at a time also sounds good too, perhaps because of this culture has a different effect in game hence the statement about the religions. I would hope they keep some sort of religion thou and also corperations. Although it would be cool to make some sort of hostile take over bid option (may be a silly option thou) Would also like to see global economy have a greater role ie banking being an entity in its self (perhaps City States could have a roll in this respect and perhaps do in a way)
Improvements to diplomacy and UN for example u could abolish the un and have alliances which have their own votes and names. Another thing i found daft is that of nuclear non proliferation not letting states make nukes, Personaly i would have it so that states would agree to down grade to set number and if a state refused then they would be kicked out of the alliance or UN and sanctioned by the rest if they so chosse to stay. A bit of point there i suppose

 

[MatrixTheKitty]

..after a tech is first discovered its reseach cost should decrease for other civs ie -1% per 2 years

In Civ IV, actually, research does cost less for subsequent civs after the first civ that researches it, and decreases in cost for each civ that knows the tech.

So it can be reasonably expected to be in Civ V.

 

[kivanc]

Personally in multiplayer I turn tech brokering off so only the one has researched the tech can trade it, or spys can steal it. Cutting units and cities will ofc take away the fun of stacks of doom, which in mutilplayer required a keen sense of logistics and tatical know how. Personally I loved modern navel war fair with carrier air support and making beach heads and the good old paratropper. I think Troops being able to make their own transports seems to make a mockery of oceans (being that it doesn't so much as offer a barrier to units, rather making them prone to attack) and also logistics. Plus isn't this now just a civ version of Panzer Genreal, as apposed to inspired by. Although all being said it might work well, not knowing the full facts and all.
The idea that u can trade hex tiles sounds good and also how the cites expands one hex at a time also sounds good too, perhaps because of this culture has a different effect in game hence the statement about the religions. I would hope they keep some sort of religion thou and also corperations. Although it would be cool to make some sort of hostile take over bid option (may be a silly option thou) Would also like to see global economy have a greater role ie banking being an entity in its self (perhaps City States could have a roll in this respect and perhaps do in a way)
Improvements to diplomacy and UN for example u could abolish the un and have alliances which have their own votes and names. Another thing i found daft is that of nuclear non proliferation not letting states make nukes, Personaly i would have it so that states would agree to down grade to set number and if a state refused then they would be kicked out of the alliance or UN and sanctioned by the rest if they so chosse to stay. A bit of point there i suppose

try not to pick any unusual selections in civ4, i would suggest. playing default rules teach more. i believe, even a pick of AGG AI might make the game easier for some cases.
yet, your other comments are nice, similar to my view.