Swedish PC Gamer preview of Civilization 5 in March 2010 edition

[peteraske]

Seems like it would be the best thing to get this back on track. No need for latintalk in the middle of everyones civgasms

 

[Sherlock]

All they need to do is not screw up the DRM and this sounds like the ultimate game.

 

[the Falcon]

…

 

[Berba]

I post the following text in all topics about the recent Civ V previews, sorry if it counts as spam

But if there's only one unit per hexagonal tile, there'll be a almost completely new combat system as you'll not be able to defend your city and therefore you must take out the enemy before it gets to the city?
And the text mentions that there's one unit per tile including cities, does this mean that there's a maximum of one unit per city or does it mean that you can't have any unit defending/sleeping in a city at all?
That's my two questions hope you can answer them

 

[Captain_Rage]

All they need to do is not screw up the DRM and this sounds like the ultimate game.

Indeed! The latest patch to Civilization IV that removed the CD requirement after installing the game was truly a godsend. That is the way as it should be. I really hope this will be the case for Civilization V when it is launched (and it seems to be shaping up very nicely ).

 

[livin1492]

Panzer General:

The new hexagonal change is specifically useful in the new, improved combat system. Now you may only have a maximum of one unit in a hexagon. This includes the cities. Shafer says that Panzer General was the main inspiration for this change into a more tactical battlefield. The new system forces your units out of the cities and out into the terrain, forming natural frontlines and taking advantage of good defensive positions.

Bombardment:

Some units may attack other units more than one hex away, for example archers.

Just about everything seems fairly welcoming, aside from these two points. I don't mind the bombardment that has been introduced thus far in the series, but units, such as archers, shouldn't be included. I think they should leave it to siege units, catapults, howitzers, and such.

The one unit per square makes me very nervous. What of falling back to a safe square, using the geography to an advantage? If you want to block off Central America, or the Sinai Peninsula, during medieval eras, is one supposed to spread units from the bottom of the Nile to Turkey just to secure that point from a large offensive power? You can't establish a couple fortresses and prevent assault by land, and force them to the sea instead? I am sure many of you have intentionally built cities in these tactical spots, just to get a one up on defending access to your whole empire.

 

[beestar]

I post the following text in all topics about the recent Civ V previews, sorry if it counts as spam

But if there's only one unit per hexagonal tile, there'll be a almost completely new combat system as you'll not be able to defend your city and therefore you must take out the enemy before it gets to the city?
And the text mentions that there's one unit per tile including cities, does this mean that there's a maximum of one unit per city or does it mean that you can't have any unit defending/sleeping in a city at all?
That's my two questions hope you can answer them

If I were designing Civ 5, I would give each city a magic Garrison Defender Unit which can't leave the city. This unit would be auto-upgraded as time passes. Also, its strength would be partially dependent on how long the city had been established for, so that a newly conquered city could be easily recaptured.

The purpose of the magic G.D.U. would be so that invading armies couldn't just sweep into your city unopposed, and you don't have to worry about shuffling units in and out of your city to defend it.

This unit might also be able to attack outward from the city to pre-emptively attack enemies, but it couldn't leave the city after it won.

Actually, there was some quote from some magazine that says cities (and forts?) can attack by bombarding, so it may in fact be something like what I've said.

P.S. Yeah, I think that counts as spam Berba - if you're really interested in the question you could start a new thread.

 

[Öjevind Lång]

leaders will now speak in their native language. That sounds like a great addition

I hope the Vikings/Scandinavians will no longer speak Americanized modern Norwegian...

 

[Öjevind Lång]

The key word in my sentence was primary. I know Latin is not extinct, but it is no longer used as a primary language.

Latin is extinct. It is no one's mother tongue.

Berba wrote: "But if there's only one unit per hexagonal tile, there'll be a almost completely new combat system as you'll not be able to defend your city and therefore you must take out the enemy before it gets to the city?
And the text mentions that there's one unit per tile including cities, does this mean that there's a maximum of one unit per city or does it mean that you can't have any unit defending/sleeping in a city at all?
That's my two questions hope you can answer them ."

I think it's quite obvious that one unit per tile means one unit, but no more, in a city.

 

[Berba]

But the text said that military unit must leave the city at once?

 

[beestar]

But the text said that military unit must leave the city at once?

Newly constructed military units must leave the city at once. This would be consistent with the city always having its own magic garrison unit (since the newly constructed unit would then violate 1 unit per tile)

I suppose this would not be consistent with cities being defendable by a regular military unit.

 

[Clrdk]

It seem "from the danish PC gamer" that if your got one Horse ressource in your trade network, you can only produce one Horse unit, and can first produce a new horse unit, when the old unit is killed.

 

[Loppan Torkel]

Sounds pretty interesting, the fight for resources will be much tougher, but there also seems to be a greater risk for snowballing.... hmm

 

[the Falcon]

…

 

[dimon]

Hello everyone! First time post from a long-time lurker.

I've been following the threads on Civ V for a while, and I just want to chime in with a new idea re. the one unit per hex discussion (entirely unsubstantiated, just a wild guess): Armies.

An army could be one unit in terms of occupying a hex, but would actually be composed of several units that travel together, maybe under the leadership of a Great General or similar. Such units would be far more powerful than lone units, as they would allow combined-arms and troop concetrations. Presumably there should be a limit on the number of armies a civilization could field, as well as the number of units they could contain. The capability of fielding armies should of course be tied to technological progress, and later technologies should allow more/larger armies. That would allow well-organized civilizations to outperfom less well organized civilizations, even if their weapons technology itself isn't that far ahead, like e.g., the Romans vs. the Germanic tribes.

For example, in the Ancient Ages, the army of Alexander the Great would be the one army that the Greeks could field. Later, medieval civilizations become able to field more, larger armies during the Crusades etc., and later still (Renaissance, Napoleonic, Industrial), increasingly large field armies become the focus of military campaigns.

What do people think?

Cheers,
Jan

 

[dimon]

Another random thought re. the one unit per hex rule and city defences:

What if, instead of building city walls as a "building," in Civ V you can build walls/fortifications in the hexes surrounding the city? These would then have to be manned by garrison troops in order to function properly, and conquered by assaulting troops before the city itself can be threatened. That would allow defence in depth, and the defender would not be restricted to having only one unit in the city itself. I think I personally like that idea

 

[dimon]

One more thing... I'm another one of those who think tech trading is just a tad too "gamey". I think I like the idea of being able to trade/share "research" rather than actual technologies. I hope that it will also be possible to conquer "research" by military or espionage means. That way, a backward civilization may be able to catch up to a weak, yet technologically advanced nation (historical example: Romans and Greeks) through military means, but only by winning research that can be invested into the civilization's own, current research tree.

And Civ V needs more different military units between the Medieval and Industrial ages, by the way. Where are the Tercios? The medieval siege artillery? The dragoons?

I'll shut up now.

 

[livin1492]

Hello everyone! First time post from a long-time lurker.

I've been following the threads on Civ V for a while, and I just want to chime in with a new idea re. the one unit per hex discussion (entirely unsubstantiated, just a wild guess): Armies.

An army could be one unit in terms of occupying a hex, but would actually be composed of several units that travel together, maybe under the leadership of a Great General or similar. Such units would be far more powerful than lone units, as they would allow combined-arms and troop concetrations. Presumably there should be a limit on the number of armies a civilization could field, as well as the number of units they could contain. The capability of fielding armies should of course be tied to technological progress, and later technologies should allow more/larger armies. That would allow well-organized civilizations to outperfom less well organized civilizations, even if their weapons technology itself isn't that far ahead, like e.g., the Romans vs. the Germanic tribes.

For example, in the Ancient Ages, the army of Alexander the Great would be the one army that the Greeks could field. Later, medieval civilizations become able to field more, larger armies during the Crusades etc., and later still (Renaissance, Napoleonic, Industrial), increasingly large field armies become the focus of military campaigns.

What do people think?

Cheers,
Jan

Dimon,

This discussion also got me to sign up and post. After making my posts, which were done largely on emotion, I came to my senses a bit. The reason, I started thinking of a greatly expanded, and more realistic, army feature. If armies, as you mention, are a far more intricate part of the game... then this would certainly be a welcomed innovation. However, in Civilization III, which is the latest I have played, armies are extremely difficult to come by, that is, unless I change all the rules, which isn't necessarily fun. Again, if armies are changed and are a far more prevalent feature, then I actually would change my stance from nervousness and fear, to wonder and anticipation.

Again though, armies have to become THE option early. That is, by the time legionaries come about... I better be able to regularly have the ability to put together an army of catapults, archers, and horseback units all in the same spot. It would have to be dependent on the size and riches of the civilization, not necessarily the era.

 

[dimon]

Hi Livin,

Thanks for your comment.

Please bear in mind that it's pure speculation, but... I just feel that the concept of armies (not necessarily in the Civ III sense, more in a general "vehicle for troop concentration" sense) would be a great compromise between the one-unit-per-hex rule and the "get there fastest with the mostest" Stack-of-Doom approach. A civilization would only be allowed a certain number of armies (think about the American Civil War; there were, what, four Union and three Confederate armies throughout the entire war?), which would put a natural limit on the SoD problem. On the other hand, it would still reflect the historical emphasis on the large army making its way across the land (Hannibals invasion of Italy, crusaders in the Holy Land, Fredericks maneuvers in Saxony, you name it...)

At the end of the day I guess I see the army concept as something tech-enabled rather than something brought about by a Great General, after all.

 

[sputnik323]

Another random thought re. the one unit per hex rule and city defences:

What if, instead of building city walls as a "building," in Civ V you can build walls/fortifications in the hexes surrounding the city? These would then have to be manned by garrison troops in order to function properly, and conquered by assaulting troops before the city itself can be threatened. That would allow defence in depth, and the defender would not be restricted to having only one unit in the city itself. I think I personally like that idea

Great idea! And those hexes could be improved upon (eg. moats, stronger walls ect.)