The Biggest, Baddest Unit

[12agnar0k]

where you getting that info from?

Civilopedia screen shots show GDR will cost 1k hammers, and other screenshots show that Utopia which wins the game costs only 800 hammers, other towards the end of the game wonders such as Manhattan / Apollo Programme also all cost 800 hammers, so the GDR is expensive. It would be too, its basically a walking wonder. But its not that much more expensive than other end-game units for example a normal tank costs 400 hammers and the GDR is over 3x as strong.

Spoiler :

Cant find the GDR screenshot but meh, they will cost 1k Hammers, or atleast they did in the latest build.

I don't think they won't be built, its just a will the game last all the way up to the future era. We will see.

 

[Mathalamus]

the uyopia project should cost 8000 hammers since it immediately wins the game.

 

[Bad Brett]

the uyopia project should cost 8000 hammers since it immediately wins the game.

I thought there was a prerequisite, such as you needed to unlock a certain number of social policies first...

 

[Ahriman]

Yes, you have to completely finish 5 trees (so 5 tree unlocks plus 25 policies).
Cultural accumulation is the main barrier to the Utopia win.

 

[MrBanana]

First of all, 1000k for a GDR? Wow, that is one expensive robot.

This also makes culutaral victoires a lot cooler. I've never actually won a cultural victory in Civ4, but I probably will in Civ5 because of this project that makes it make sense.

 

[12agnar0k]

Well Utopia need not cost more, the main "cost" of building it is unlocking it in the first place, i.e completeing 5 whole trees.

800 hammers will mean it will take a little while to build, so if you see someone "completeing" the cultural victory, just as you can see someone transporting space ship parts, or see how many allies someone has in the game, or see how many capitals someone has taken, then you can do something about it, i.e send a vast armada towards them, to stop thier victory if you can't beat them by winning first.

 

[MemyselfnI]

This will probably be the sole reason I buy Civ5. I can't wait for my small group of GDR's to roam the countryside, blasting everything in sight. Honestly, this will probably be my sole reason for actually trying to finish a game instead of just abandoning them all. Although, I will probably end up chucking my computer out the window if one of my GDR's is killed by a spearman.

All to our supreme robot overlords!!

 

[12agnar0k]

Yeah thats true, in civ4 when I got to the modern era and my conquest victory was assured and only a matter of time I would usually just abandon the game. I just wish their was more in the future era as it will make you want to play longer and longer.

 

[choxorn]

In civ4 and 3, I usually never get there, because someone will SOMEHOW manage to win around half-way through the Modern Age.

 

[Inhalaattori]

There is good sense of humor and there is bad sense of humor. Blizzard games for example have humor that is not stupid but between the lines. This is just plain stupid. Not the biggest problem with this game, but bad anyway.

No religion, no health, no espionage, stupid "natural wonders" and now this kind of idiocy. What are they doing to Civ series?

 

[Darkshadows]

No religion, no health, no espionage, stupid "natural wonders" and now this kind of idiocy. What are they doing to Civ series?

They are turning Civ into a war oriented kiddy-land.

I hope someone will mod those features, or they will add them in expansions.

Otherwise my money will stay with me

 

[logarithm64]

From what we've seen of the game, I don't think that Civ 5 will benefit warmongers too much, but simply make the game more interesting for them (as combat was one of the mechanics that definitely needed to be improved from Civ 4). Larger empires will face happiness problems from number of cities; will gain about a 30% social policy cost penalty per city; annexing cities causes unhappiness; puppet states do not build units to further increase military strength; other nations will be more cautious with you if you backstab a civ; advanced units will be much more able to beat weaker units (so technology matters more), luxury resources only require one to make the empire happy, etc.

The reason religion and espionage were removed is that they weren't particularly good for gameplay (also, espionage was very limited in the original game anyway and the developers tried very hard to find a suitable way to incorporate religion). Diplomacy has been enhanced a lot more. There are now city states, there are more diplomatic treaties and options (research agreements, pacts of co-operation, pacts of secrecy, don't settler near us), your relationship with other civs remains hidden, leaders are more unpredictable in their behaviour, leaders are more intelligent and human-like, and so-on.

In addition, city and empire management has also been expanded. There are social policies, gold, science and culture are independent, gold has a lot more uses, non-radial border expansion, building maintenance costs...

I could go on, but chances are you've stopped reading this by now.

 

[azzaman333]

No religion,

No real loss, it was merely a diplo modifier.

no health,

I'm sure they've introduced other, better ways to keep city size reasonable.

no espionage,

BTS espionage is flawed and quite easy to exploit.

stupid "natural wonders"

Different =/= stupid.

and now this kind of idiocy. What are they doing to Civ series?

Making it more fun?

 

[Caeserportugal]

In my opinion I belive that Firaxis is gonna rework both the religion and espionage system in the game reintroducing them in an expansion of or in civ6

 

[Terefor]

This isn't fun. It's a very bad thing named " à la Master of Orion III"

FREE AZAZELL!!!

 

[stealth_nsk]

This isn't fun. It's a very bad thing named " à la Master of Orion III"

MoM 3 was like Civ 4 driven to absurd, IMHO - as much real world staff as possible, without looking for its gameplay value.

 

[vorlon_mi]

So I read through most of the posts in the 24 pages about this, and would propose that we think about this another way.

During their playtesting, the Firaxis folks realized that they needed or wanted a late game land unit. Not just spaceship parts, but a new military land unit (not naval or flying). The specs for said unit included combat str of 150, movement 3, penalty attacking cities, and no defensive bonuses. Now, what to *name* this unit?

Since it comes after modern armor, and relies on late-game techs and resources, we could call it "post-modern" armor. Or a military-sounding acronym, like Advanced Multiweapon Land Assault Vehicle (AMLAV). And we would all be excited about how many "Lavvies" we should build and how to use them. But noooo....

Civ has a history of injecting humor, or a bit of whimsy into the game. Remember the video clip advisors in Civ2 ("You're the King, King!); the Civ3 quips, science advisor with Sid's face, and the Elvis units; the Civ4 pic of Al Gore in the icon for the Internet. So the Firaxians decided to give a big shout-out to the fans in general, and CFC in particular, and named this unit "Giant Death Robot", which includes humor as well as generous portions of awesomeness and cool.

I understand that some folks' taste (and sense of humor) run in a different direction. A goofy-named unit spoils some of the mood/game sense for them. And there will probably be a patch to change the name of the unit. But it has a role in the game.

But the more interesting question is: What were the gameplay needs/wants which gave rise to a late-game land unit? Remember, there are no Stacks of Doom, Civ3-style armies, or Civ4-style great generals. What are the interactions with victory conditions that it would make sense to build a powerful land unit, rather than bombers, missles, or sea power? Far from modding this AMLAV out of the game, I am curious about what the role will be for late game warfare? Is it more likely to be used in multi-player, or single player?

 

[stealth_nsk]

What were the gameplay needs/wants which gave rise to a late-game land unit?

For me answer is quite obvious - they needed uranium-based unit to compete with nukes.

 

[Venereus]

For me answer is quite obvious - they needed uranium-based unit to compete with nukes.

Could still have been a tank. Tactially useful, sense-making tank, with a proper tanky name, and a fear of spears, for *good* humor

 

[beestar]

Hmm, for game balance reasons, maybe the GDR should be a non-uranium based unit, so that civs without nukes have a chance to fight back against a nuclear power.