Looks like Civ V is a totally different game

[Aussie_Lurker]

Actually, for the me the thing which really defined the change from CivIII to CivIV-in a positive way-was the end of "Whack-a-mole" pollution, introduction of religion as a separate game component & the end of strait-jacketed government choices in favour of civics. If CivV is as revolutionary as CivIV was, then I will be extremely happy !

 

[BubbaYeti]

On the subject of one-unit-per-hex, does anyone know if there will be limits on the total number of military units a player can have?

Otherwise, won't we see a map crowded with a unit on every hex (for smaller maps, anyway)?

 

[Mesodius]

On the subject of one-unit-per-hex, does anyone know if there will be limits on the total number of military units a player can have?

Otherwise, won't we see a map crowded with a unit on every hex (for smaller maps, anyway)?

Good point, and that is exactly what's going to happen if there are not production limits.

However, I read in another thread- and keep in mind, I don't remember if it was speculation or fact, or what thread it was in- that there may be limits to the number of units you can have in the field per resource used to create that unit.

Anyway, this would certainly solve the problem of every hex of everyone's empire being inhabited by units. It would also solve the old problem of suddenly being attacked by over 9,000 units from someone who has done nothing but build and hoard units without going to war for the last 5,000 years (nothing like being suddenly attacked by 40 swordsmen in 1500 AD). Instead of just spamming units forever, the AI and player would be forced to keep upgrading existing units.

 

[BuckyRea]

It's ridiculous to assume it's one unit per tile. I've already played a turn based, one unit per tile game--it's called chess.

What we saw in the screenies were (1) teases and (2) demo mode experiments being made by the programmers. These were not realistic depictions of how the game would look like in actual play. When have you ever had five different armies gather around a lake and face each other like that?

They may limit the number of units per tile--that's a reasonable way to avoid the stacks-of-doomses--although quite a number of Civ 3 & 4 players seem to really enjoy that particular tactic. But if the point of the game is to replicate history, then disallowing the aggregation of large armies seems to work against the very idea of the game. Playing a civ game without mass carnage would be like riding a bicycle with no pedals.

 

[Danielos]

On the subject of one-unit-per-hex, does anyone know if there will be limits on the total number of military units a player can have?

Otherwise, won't we see a map crowded with a unit on every hex (for smaller maps, anyway)?

The best way to solve this would be to introduce the concept of manpower, which would put a natural limit on the number of military unit a civ can have at a certain time.

 

[Jewman]

The best way to solve this would be to introduce the concept of manpower, which would put a natural limit on the number of military unit a civ can have at a certain time.

i think theyre just gonna make having troops far away from home and possible even in stacks more costly. They seem to be focusing a lot on developing and controlling land from what i hear, so i wouldn't be surprised if they made it so that if a lot of army is in one particular piece of land it cost a lot to support them especially if theyre distant from the homeland.

 

[The_J]

It's ridiculous to assume it's one unit per tile. I've already played a turn based, one unit per tile game--it's called chess.

So you haven't played Heroes Of Might And Magic, Panzer General, Battle For Wesnot, Fantasy Wars or any other game with only one unit per tile?

 

[Bostock]

i think theyre just gonna make having troops far away from home and possible even in stacks more costly. They seem to be focusing a lot on developing and controlling land from what i hear, so i wouldn't be surprised if they made it so that if a lot of army is in one particular piece of land it cost a lot to support them especially if theyre distant from the homeland.

If that could be done in a non-tedious way, it certainly has its benefits, in terms of it no longer being possible for the Chinese to discover Spain in 100 BCE.

 

[Ahriman]

So you haven't played Heroes Of Might And Magic, Panzer General, Battle For Wesnot, Fantasy Wars or any other game with only one unit per tile?

Yes, I have played HoMM. Many times. Its not one unit per tile. You can have 999 archers in a single tile, or 30 dragons, or 93 knights. Its one *type* of unit per tile, and that on a separate tactical combat map. The main strategic map, you wander around with your entire army on a single tile.

 

[BubbaYeti]

The best way to solve this would be to introduce the concept of manpower, which would put a natural limit on the number of military unit a civ can have at a certain time.

Seems reasonable...and if you build your military too much manpower gets drained from farming and industry so these should suffer (maybe citizens get taken from cities and less tiles can be worked).

I didn't mind the large stacks from earlier civs very much...if a player chooses to concentrate his forces in such a fashion, so be it.

 

[thungrim]

Whatever features are on our love / hate list, there's simply no way to change now. If the game is targeted for fall of this year you can bet your bottom dollar they won't be making major feature changes just because someone who hasn't played the game doesn't like the sound of it.

 

[Bandobras Took]

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.

Wasn't that Civ IV?