Looks like Civ V is a totally different game

[Chazcon]

After reading through what little information available right now, it seems that Civ V will have a completely different game mechanics, and a different feel than all previous versions of Civ.

I am looking forward to being pleasantly surprised by this new game. I have faith that it will be another huge success.

But I also see so many of you demanding that this and that not be changed in Civ V - a petition against 1 unit per tile - feature requests - and planning for mods even before release.

To all of you I say, WAIT and enjoy Civ V without rushing to make it into Civ 4.1.

If you like Civ 4 - as we all do - there is nothing stopping you from still playing and modding it, alongside Civ V.

My 2 cents worth.

 

[largedarryl]

One could argue that the changes from 3 to 4 were game mechanic shifts.

In my view, I don't know how you could clarify it as a different game. Last time I checked it looked like another 4X game based around the rise of mankind from the stone age, combined with competitive AI controlled nations.

You know it sounds just like the previous 4 civs, but the truth is if the series isn't changing (advancing or not), it is stagnating, so I will choose the former.

 

[Gamemaster77]

No one knows for sure if it is one unit pertile, do they? That just seems stupid if so.

 

[Hypernova]

I think what makes it feel so radical is the new one unit per tile rule. Civ always changes a lot with every new sequel, but this is probably the biggest single change ever.

 

[Gamemaster77]

Can anyone confirm that that is a new rule though?

 

[Tholish]

If you like Civ 4 - as we all do - there is nothing stopping you from still playing and modding it, alongside Civ V.

Thanks, I will.

The objection to one unit per tile is not that it is radical. The objection is that it is cramping and forces other bad mechanics to compensate. In my imagination, whatever it can do can be done with a two unit per tile rule. Why is two an arbitrary limit but one isn't?

 

[Hypernova]

oh I'm not saying that the objection to the one tile rule is that it is too radical. I was saying that it may be the main thing that makes ciV seem like a "totally different game". Some may say that two units per tile is an arbitrary limit whereas one isn't because one unit per hex forces you to think in an entirely new way about military tactics, whereas limited stacks - even of only two units - retain the old feature. It seems some people like the idea that you could flank some melee units with some cavalry which then attack the archers behind them, but it would only require stacks of two for those archers to be defended by spearmen, so it detracts from that aspect of one unit per tile.

 

[Dale]

I agree with the OP. We don't actually know how the game will play with all the components working together. We may find that 1upt works perfectly in context within the entire game.

Well said OP!

 

[Chazcon]

Thanks, I will.

The objection to one unit per tile is not that it is radical. The objection is that it is cramping and forces other bad mechanics to compensate. In my imagination, whatever it can do can be done with a two unit per tile rule. Why is two an arbitrary limit but one isn't?

Everyone is assuming Civ V will simply be Civ 4 with a 1upt change.

My point is as Dale said - we have no idea how this will work in the context of a completely new game. Have faith!

 

[the343danny]

IMO one unit per tile is a great addition, provided its true (Danish magazine seems to confirm it).

Im going to take from another thread, but more units per tile = every tile can have counters to every unit -> no weaknesses, and that defeats the entire purpose of the new combat system.

I wouldnt mind if there was... say a 3 unit of the same class per tile rule, and numbers might be a lot off depending on the size of the typical army, limited by the resources

 

[Arakhor]

When do Danish magazines with Swedish web addresses write in Swedish?

 

[AlpsStranger]

I totally agree with the OP. I already own Civ4 so I do not require another Civ4.

 

[Aussie_Lurker]

Hey Chaz, I definitely want Civ V to be different from *all* its predecessors. However, talking of "Faith", thats the one thing I do *not* want them to remove-religion. Its addition to Civ IV-along with Civics-is what helped Civ IV to utterly re-define the Civ genre IMHO, so it would be a terrible shame to see it taken out again. Changed & improved, yes! Removed, *no*!

 

[Dale]

Hey Chaz, I definitely want Civ V to be different from *all* its predecessors. However, talking of "Faith", thats the one thing I do *not* want them to remove-religion. Its addition to Civ IV-along with Civics-is what helped Civ IV to utterly re-define the Civ genre IMHO, so it would be a terrible shame to see it taken out again. Changed & improved, yes! Removed, *no*!

Sorry, but Civ4 was only catching up to the genre. Call to Power II had religion in it, and it's as old as Civ3.

 

[Aussie_Lurker]

True, but I didn't enjoy the way they did religion in CtPII nearly as much!

 

[grant2004]

I'll also agree with the OP, picking out each individual feature and imagining what it would be like if it were stuck into Civ IV will of course make things look bad. Only by looking at Civ V as a whole will we start to get a sense of how this game is going to look. Right now we don't have enough detail to do that. All we can do is trust that the people who've brought us 4 of the greatest and most successful games in history aren't stupid.

 

[AlphaShard]

One could argue that the changes from 3 to 4 were game mechanic shifts.

In my view, I don't know how you could clarify it as a different game. Last time I checked it looked like another 4X game based around the rise of mankind from the stone age, combined with competitive AI controlled nations.

You know it sounds just like the previous 4 civs, but the truth is if the series isn't changing (advancing or not), it is stagnating, so I will choose the former.

I agree I don't want Civilization to turn into the Mega Man Franchise.

 

[Veshta]

The jump from Civ3 to Civ4 with the whole civics, promotions, health etc. was huge. Took me forever to adjust to, stirring the pot is what its all about. Resetting the learning curve is what makes it worth while.

If each hex can only accommodate one unit it will make movement/tactics a lot more important. But without knowing what the plans are for promotions and special abilities of the different units, further speculation is kind of self-defeating if you ask me.
I am a little disturbed about the whole bombardment thing, last time I recall it being present it almost ruined the entire experience for me since all you needed was a big stack of artillery and a few mop-up units. One can only hope there will be defences against it so it doesn't become archer vs archer

 

[Grimzag]

The look and feel are definitely different. Based on the trailer and the screens we've seen so far, it looks like it is taking itself more seriously. That probably will mean the game will have much more hard-core mechanics, which is good for us especially now that Civ Revolutions and other offshoots are catering towards the casual crowd.

I predict the mechanics will be a little more nuanced and the combat portion of the game will play more like a hex wargame, a prediction not a little bit fueled by the choice of changing the game tiles to hexes.

If so, as a wargamer I like it, but I don't know what it will do to the game's market appeal. *shrugs*

 

[AlpsStranger]

That probably will mean the game will have much more hard-core mechanics, which is good

This is impossible to ascertain from graphics. I am also not entirely sure what you mean by a hard-core mechanic. If I had to guess I'd say it involves really *really* slow turns and lots of fiddling If it doesn't I apologize in advance.

EDIT: Not everyone that doesn't want to fiddle with sliders every turn to prevent overruns wants to play Revolution. There is a whole hell of a lot of ground between the two and even perpendicular to the two.