Recent Civ5 Previews

[King Flevance]

Also I am pretty sure to all of the people complaining and whining about one unit per square thing, you'll be able to combine units, and strengthen each unit per square accordingly. So it's not as bad as you think.

As for those of you concerned about the one unit per hex idea I put to you that perhaps the system allows for strengthening of each unit. For example You might make a swordman but you may also be able to add other units to it to strengthen that one unit to a strength of, say, 4 swordsmen or more. This would work.

I see Civ 3 armies coming back in then if this statement is true. Which really doesn't solve the SOD issue either. One unit per tile is just a bad idea I think. It's possible for me to have to eat my words but I think it unlikely. But I will gladly do it if it means I can see how it can be done. But Civ 3 AI couldn't figure out how to use armies that well. And I ask what the difference is on shifting 100 units around that are 2 as opposed to 6 I see alot of micromanagement on combat added in. At least in Civ 4 I could group the units in a stack and not have to individually shift units around to get my sword from point A to point H.

I will admit that bringing armies back in on this system (1 unit per hex) will help reduce map unit clusters. But you could load up Civ 3, imagine that only 1 unit is allowed per tile and see how it suits you. (Based on what we know so far.)

 

[DroopyTofu]

I'm assuming theire would be a few exception to the 1 tile per turn rule. How would you do a naval invasion with only one unit per tile. You'd need to have at least one land unit and a boat, if not more. You'd also need something to protect your settlers. Surely you can put something to defend your settlers. Plus, I'm guessing that you could have multiple air units on the same tile as a defense unit, probably in a city or on the same tile as a, um, I don't know, maybe aircraft carrier?

 

[Rub'Rum]

I hope the AI won't feel the need to plug every possible hole in the map with useless cities. Leave my continent alone if you're just going to put that one POS city one tile away from the ocean surrounded by desert.

 

[Elian]

Honestly, for the people wondering about movement. . . I suspect we'll be able to move squads of units at once, via a multiselection kind of mechanism. This reduces micro [always a goal of their team], and allows for really cool strategy. I'd expect a full group of hotkeys with grouping too.

Otherwise, uhhh.. waiting for other players?

 

[Böle 1]

Hmm.. One unit per tile... No stack attacks?

I wonder if there still were a way to make stacks: maybe we could spend in cities to upgrade our existing armies. Make a unit in a city --> choose an army where you want to attach it --> one army per tile.

Would this make any sense?

 

[robertb]

i like the sounds of this new game. I thought that the Civ series would not evolve anymore.

I like the new thech feature. I mostly play with the no-tech-trade option. I hate to the se AI arriving with riflemen against my axemen. (roughly like that).
And the joint tech development probably force you to maintain good relation with some nations and thus your diplomacy is likely going to be more important.

About the battle. YEAH that's probably what's needed in order to improve the civ series.
I really like it since it hopefully will make some tactical descisions in the game. As it is now, the only hard descision you have to make is how big does your stack need to be before you attack, and how many sieg-weapon do you need.

As it look, I will probably be a BIG map, and i will start saving money for a new computer at once

 

[Hypernova]

But WU??? I'm 99.9999999999999999999999999999999% positive that she only got in for her gender. Seriously, Firaxis, aren't Cathrine, Hatshepsut, Boudica, and a potential Theodora enough?

Being the only female leader ever of a 4000 year old civilization is a great enough achievement in itself.

 

[LegioCorvus]

Being the only female leader ever of a 4000 year old civilization is a great enough achievement in itself.

China actually has a long history of females in places of power and even fighting in the military. I do agree with those that are saying that Qin Shi Huang would be a better leader, but I think it's a bold choice, and it's nice to see some variation in the typical leader sets.

Isn't she wife of an emperor, a la Isabella, rather than the head leader?

 

[Hypernova]

China actually has a long history of females in places of power and even fighting in the military.

Absolutely true, but Wu was the only de jure female ruler of China.

Isn't she wife of an emperor, a la Isabella, rather than the head leader?

She originally ruled through her husband and sons but later became de jure ruler of China i.e. Empress Regnant (she had always been an Empress but before this only as the Emperor's wife i.e. Empress Consort) and founded her own dynasty, interrupting the Tang Dynasty.

 

[ferenginar]

I not certain about this. There seem to be some reasonable developments, but this idea of limiting it to one unit per tile is ridiculous, an army would take up too much territory. If you are limited to overall numbers, it removes the chances of a surviving if you get behind in Techs.

Ranged units are also daft, as they represent unrealsitically large ranges in relation to the terrain. It seems that the English could station a few longbows on the coast, and take out the French whilst they sleep in their Parisian beds.

Still, lets hope we can MOD it back out.

 

[blitzkrieg1980]

Sounds like I'll be playing Civ4 until they start previewing Civ6. None of these changes sound good to me. I don't want to have to relearn how to play Civ in order to have fun with #5. I think they got a lot of things right with Civ4 and they're abandoning a lot of the stuff that makes Civ4 my fav game ever. This is a travesty! Of course, that's only my opinion. Maybe a lot of people will like the all-new civ.

 

[Mathalamus]

Sounds like I'll be playing Civ4 until they start previewing Civ6. None of these changes sound good to me. I don't want to have to relearn how to play Civ in order to have fun with #5. I think they got a lot of things right with Civ4 and they're abandoning a lot of the stuff that makes Civ4 my fav game ever. This is a travesty! Of course, that's only my opinion. Maybe a lot of people will like the all-new civ.

you pretty much had to relearn from civ 3 to civ 4. also your experiance in civ 4 will make the game easier to learn.

 

[blitzkrieg1980]

?? I thought I just got done saying that I DIDN'T have to relearn playing from Civ4 to Civ3. I had to tweak a bit of my understanding with regards to cityspam / maintenance, but the very basic gameplay was left basically in tact. I actually started playing civ3 AFTER getting a grasp on civ4. I made the transition pretty smoothly after understanding how maintenance worked and the differences in some of the units. Really, though, it wasn't a complete overhaul of the game.

Civ 5 looks like an entirely different setup. 1 unit per tile? no more religions (already!?) octagonal tiles? Culture spread 1 tile at a time?

I did NOT have to relearn civ from 4 to 3 (my progression). I'm not psyched at all for Civ5.

 

[trevort]

Firaxis really needs to get on the ball and get more info out. They are going to have a hard time overcoming all these negative thoughts people are already having.

 

[Lillefix]

Firaxis really needs to get on the ball and get more info out. They are going to have a hard time overcoming all these negative thoughts people are already having.

Don't you remember when they first showed previews of Civ4? It was waaay worse. People were complaining about the graphics, the "simplified" combat system, the "smaller" maps, the "faster" pace and the way they made huge empires almost impossible.

The reason I use "", is that the complaints for the most part turned out to be unsubstantiated.

 

[Mathalamus]

why would they complain about the graphics?

 

[Rub'Rum]

Firaxis really needs to get on the ball and get more info out. They are going to have a hard time overcoming all these negative thoughts people are already having.

I'm pretty sure they're just giggling at the predictable reactions that they had anticipated.

 

[AlphaShard]

I'm pretty sure they're just giggling at the predictable reactions that they had anticipated.

Yeah it's a given that you can't please all of the people all of the time. Only some of them some of the time. There's always going to be sour grapes no matter what you do.

 

[Optional]

Hard caps are a good idea, but I think 1 unit per tile is a bit excesive as I said before. Limiting it to 3-5 would be better IMO. Still allows for combined arms but not SoDs.

Good to see you still posting, King Flevance!
I'm expecting combined arms, even with 1 unit per tile. Battle won't be 1 hex against 1 other hex. The game developers might not go for a system where all troops on adjacent hexes will automatically join in the battle, but from the given info I don't see how ranged units like archers and artillery would not join in at the least.
The battle system in Civ until now has been very basic, tile against tile, with numbers being important - well, Civ III is like that, Civ IV I'm not familiar with, I only know there's just 1 combat value there, which doesn't sound very sophisticated. I think they're trying to do it a little different this time, which I would only applaud.
Reservations, yes, and I like your puzzle picture, King Flevance, but let's see what they come up with.

 

[Lillefix]

...Civ IV I'm not familiar with, I only know there's just 1 combat value there, which doesn't sound very sophisticated.

Actually, it's far more sophisticated since this value depends on what type the unit is, and which upgrades it has(civ2 and possibly civ3 had also some of that, but nothing even close to civ4).

Anyway, my wish is that there will also be upgrades in civ5.