Recent Civ5 Previews

[Hypernova]

i.e. You may only have 1 "unit" defending a city, but if that unit has 25 hp and can only lose on average 3 hp per "attack", then unless your city is surrounded on all 5 sides by attackers + supporting ranged, its still going to be hard to kill it in 1 turn. Although I still think cities & forts should still get to stack extra units (maybe just cities with walls). Also as other people have pointed out, hopefully the limit doesnt apply to air & sea units (at least while in harbor).

Ah, but you are still in the old mindset of defending against attacks by turtling in cities. The frontlines means defending your empire will be entirely different, the fighting in the actual city will probably either be one final last ditch effort to stave off capture or non-existent. So worrying about city garrisoning is unnecessary (besides I think it was implied or confirmed cities would act like units in their own right in terms of defence?).

 

[CaptTightpants]

I just had a thought, and maybe someone has mentioned it already: but wouldn't it be interesting if the front warfare that is emphasized in Civ 5 would lead to political control over the map shifting along the military fronts, with "occupied territories" having their own dynamics? (On second thought, that doesn't seem to fit with the screenshots we're seeing. But still, it's an interesting idea.)

Also, if front warfare is emphasized, perhaps positioning would be a factor: for example, attacking a unit from behind while it is already engaged with another enemy on the other side, or a unit being strengthened because it is next to other units. I've never played Panzer General before or other war games, so I have no idea whether I'm mouthing off kooky unimplementable ideas or not lol.

 

[pi-r8]

as far as one unit per hex, im looking forward to that. you can't think of it like civ4 with only one unit per tile, its a new game with new mechanics ect. i think it will lead to alot more involved strategies. lets be honest, in civ 3 and 4 the extent of military strategy has been:

step 1: produce as many units as possible.
step 2: stack all units on one tile, then move that stack to your opponents city.
step 3: if your stack is bigger than his, congratulations! you win a new city! if his is bigger, return to step 1 and repeat till successful.

I think you left out a few steps:
step 4: march your huge invincible stack deep into enemy territory
step 5: when he begins bombarding your invincible stack with catapults, and then mops it up with obsolete units
step 6:quit in disgust, rant on the forums for a while, and then beat up the noble AI.

I think people really underestimate how complicated military strategy is in Civ 4, mostly because they've spent too long playing against a dumb AI.

 

[King Flevance]

For every person I see assuming negatives about the information I see people making putting words in Firaxis's mouth as to why it will still be good. We all know that we don't have enough information on the game to make a sound decision however, what shall we do till we do?

I think people really underestimate how complicated military strategy is in Civ 4, mostly because they've spent too long playing against a dumb AI.

Well, get used to this though as Sid has said that Civ 5 will not be catering much to the multiplayer crowd. And as much as they seem to want to tote a strong AI in Civ 5, it will only be strong until the players learn the game. When Civ 4 was released the AI had a good 3-5 month run where it was genius. Then it was quickly referred to as ********.

Actually better AI seems to be a bit of a catch 22. When Blake was working on it he actually had people complaining his AI was too hard and he had to tone it down. As he put it - a good AI would have you play at noble. You would win 1 out of X games where X represents the amount of total players in the game if you are a good player. However, someone who loses 17/18 games on noble does not feel like a good player.

I agree there is a sort of more complex flexibility in Civ 4 but I would say that the model is still simplistic. I personally am a fan of the implementations brought in by Civ. Artillery seems to be lacking somehow but that is easily overlooked as it always has.

From what I hear and with the information at hand, Civ 5 will be Civ 1 again. Back to 1991.

I hope not as that's what Civ Rev was aimed towards more. I am curious to see how much Civ Rev will be influencing Civ 5 in honesty. Hopefully, we will hear more on the 9th.

 

[Sync]

However, someone who loses 17/18 games on noble does not feel like a good player

Heh, it's funny because that's actually how I like it.

I tend to get bored when I find myself winning games, so I play one difficulty level higher than what I'm suited to. I tend to enjoy the game more when I'm floating around the middle of the scoreboard, struggling against a superpower AI.

 

[choxorn]

But winning is still more fun than losing, it just needs to be a challenge to win. Sending 20 billion units in the general direction of the AI's capital city isn't much of a challenge.

 

[CoffeeMug]

But winning is still more fun than losing, it just needs to be a challenge to win. Sending 20 billion units in the general direction of the AI's capital city isn't much of a challenge.

For over 14 years i had been playing civilization since the first one appeared and my favorite way to win was always by Alpha centauri mission. (i know it was the only second option back then).

Okay i know its not so exhausting as engaging into full combat. But you gotta admit is dramatic to race against the clock with other civs also competing to build the spaceship before you do so.

Whatever, experience over the time as civ progressed always shown me, clever guys at microprose (then) and firaxis (now) are always working into a new ways to win on this game.

I hope as always,.. space victory remain in civ 5. I love it'. is a classic.

 

[blitzkrieg1980]

i think your over-reacting to extremely limited info. first off, regarding religions it doesn;t say they are gone completely, it says they will different than in civ4 without explaining how.

as far as one unit per hex, im looking forward to that. you can't think of it like civ4 with only one unit per tile, its a new game with new mechanics ect. i think it will lead to alot more involved strategies. lets be honest, in civ 3 and 4 the extent of military strategy has been:

step 1: produce as many units as possible.
step 2: stack all units on one tile, then move that stack to your opponents city.
step 3: if your stack is bigger than his, congratulations! you win a new city! if his is bigger, return to step 1 and repeat till successful.

by making fewer units and forcing them out of cities and into the countryside, they have created an enviroment where you have to think strategically. if you do not, enemies will be able to out maneuver you, flank your artillery and deny your frontlines the support they need to hold. at which point a hole is opened up and the enemy can push through, but they are just as limited as you are, so you can bring in reinforcements and cut off their thrust, surround them and destroy them. all of this taking place miles from a city in some otherwise unimportant desert that only matters for its strategic value and would have been utterly ignored in the civ4 system.

stroke and counter-stroke. the new system will make things like forts actually useful, and imho will make this military aspect of the game infinitely more interesting.

some people commented on the difficulty of arranging units with one unit per tile? i would imagine that that has alot to do with giving units 2 movement tiles per turn, as friendly units will likely be able to pass through each other so long as they don't stop.

regarding mods, i can almost guarantee it will be just as moddable as civ 3 or 4. games don't have that level of moddability by accident, i cant imagine why they would decide to stop doing it now. Mods have kept civ 4 alive and selling copies YEARS after other games released at the same time were long forgotten.

I think you may be right about combat... however...

I'm NOT looking forward to this kind of in depth unit "strategery" [lol]. I rather enjoy the fact that the depth of the game remains in formulating an empire with technologies, economy, civics, and diplomacy being just as important as the military without over detailing the military end of things. Putting a denser emphasis on the military end of things may make games just too much detail to bother with.

And, as already said, I'm not in the mood to relearn a game that I'm finally starting to master after 5 YEARS! Then again, maybe I'll master Civ5 in 1 year... who knows. I guess I can wait until more specifics come out before I go 100% negative on civ5.

 

[General Balls]

i think your over-reacting to extremely limited info.

You just described a good portion of the thread.

I love speculating about any game, but you always get the cynics and the optimists facing off, jumping to conclusions, not reading the information properly, and flat out making crap up during the process. I'm not attacking anyone here, just stating how it generally turns out.

I'd prefer it if it didn't.

 

[The Q-Meister]

Honestly? You're right. She's not all that noteworthy compared to the three Chinese leaders of Civ4 (Taizong, Mao, Qin Shi Huang), and there are still many ahead of her in terms of leadership abilities and notability.
She's the token female.
Just be happy the token female wasn't Cixi, at least.

I agree. You know I really don't understand why Firaxis just doesn't put out a poll for Civfanatic members registered at least 1 year to vote on what leaders WE the loyal fans want to see. OK they do not have to be bound by it but at least they have some idea of what we want to see.

I am a huge fan of Chinese history and choice of Wu over any of the "big 3" Chinese leaders (Mao, Taizong or Qin) is so lame and reeks of trying to be PC over history.

I know Firaxis always does this; always need a token female leader over an obviously better male choice but the fact of the matter is male heads of state (for better or worse) dominated world history. I don't understand what's wrong with having Elizabeth, Catherine or Isabella be your (deserving) female leaders while not doing a Joan D'Arc (Civ3) Hatshepsut (Civ4) or Wu (apparently Civ5) over much more deserving candidates.

 

[The Q-Meister]

The problem with it is picking women leaders solely because they're women, and not because they're great leaders.

Well put. I would add: and over much more deserving candidates. It's not about male or female it's about being PC at the expense of being historically accurate and thus removing/eliminating much more worthy representatives of the civilization.

Does anyone honestly believe that a poll among Civfans OR historians would have chosen Wu as the top Chinese leader?

As to the other features mentioned

Religion - As others have stated that sentence is confusing so I'm withholding judgment until more is known. That being said, removing religions entirely from the game is a mistake and will definitely keep me playing Civ 4 until mods/patches are made.

1 unit per tile - Sounds excessive at first glance, but again will withhold judgment until I see the full picture of how the combat system works in Civ 5.

No Tech Trading - Mixed feelings about this: on one hand I know it was definitely abused by some players and seemed particularly tedious at times. I also disliked how the AI would stop trading techs with you regardless of their attitude towards you or common strategic interests simply because you were "too advanced." My big concern is what will be done for civs that are woefully behind the tech race; I don't want a deterministic scenario to come about where the most advanced/backward civs in the classical era remain so for the duration of the game.

I would encourage Firaxis to look at what someone like Rhye has done with his mod to keep the game fresh and interesting throughout the different epochs of history.

Deeper Diplomacy - Excellent and about time! Though to be fair, they also said that before Civ4 was released though I'm somewhat optimistic they will do a better job this time as diplomacy was IMO the weakest and most disappointing aspect of Civ 4.

 

[Mustakrakish]

The Q-Meister - "it's about being PC"?? I'm lost here what does that mean?
Oh and I don't think they'll put a "token" leader (whatever that might mean...) as the sole leader of a civilization. There is no sole token leader in civ4 right? (I believe you think of Hatseblabla as the token leader right?) But ramses came in later if I remember correctly. So you can always NOT include the tokens in your game if you don't want to, I don't see any problems here (unless there will be only one leader per civ)

As for the historical accuracy... well I don't find leaders that live for thousands of years really that accurate no matter how great and "deserving" they were.

 

[dcmort93]

PC I believe here means Politically Correct

 

[brandonjm8]

all in all said people we just dont have enough info to know what or how civ5 will be.

if anything the info released thus far is misleading and is used primarily for building up the excitement for its release, remember that. you'll know when THEY want you to know kinda thing.

 

[Hypernova]

Does anyone honestly believe that a poll among Civfans OR historians would have chosen Wu as the top Chinese leader?

Since when does a Civ leader have to be the "top" one? As I've already said, being the only female leader of a 4000 year old civilization ever is very good notability on its own. They could have found female leaders from Civs that had more than one of them, or younger Civs, but this Wu was a better choice because of the way she stands out in China's history. I actually find it amazing that, from the Xia Dynasty to the People's Republic, Wu was the only female leader.

 

[The Almighty dF]

Since when does a Civ leader have to be the "top" one? As I've already said, being the only female leader of a 4000 year old civilization ever is very good notability on its own. They could have found female leaders from Civs that had more than one of them, or younger Civs, but this Wu was a better choice because of the way she stands out in China's history. I actually find it amazing that, from the Xia Dynasty to the People's Republic, Wu was the only female leader.

What about Cixi?

 

[Ffistometer]

From what I've read so far from many different sources I'm thinking 3D chess on a hexagonal board with ranged attack & arial & naval warfare becoming even more important. I wonder how they'll deal with carriers and transport vessels though!

Also I hope the game/unit designers are allowed a little head, one of the aspects I liked of CTP was the imagination used with post-modern units like robotic War Walkers etc.

 

[Hypernova]

What about Cixi?

Cixi was admittedly de facto ruler of China, but Wu was the only officially acknowledged, de jure ruler of China ever.

 

[The Almighty dF]

Cixi was admittedly de facto ruler of China, but Wu was the only officially acknowledged, de jure ruler of China ever.

Also, I have to say, Lu Zhi also had a large amount of control. Then, in the same ship as Cixi, you have Ci'an.
Though I will give you that Wu ruled in a more traditional way than the above. I just feel it's unfair to claim China only had one female ruler in its entire history.

 

[GoodGame]

One troop per tile sounds stupid unless they're adding in armies and ZoC.

Also, I think they should go with the Revolutions mod idea of barbians growing into 'players' rather than just static city states.

Also, don't see the reason for doing away with religions completely.

But looks like it's still a game about leveraging tile values.