Who is happy about Civ5?

[Gamemaster77]

I am generally happy about what I know so far. The graphics are better even in the early version. I hope that units can travel on moutains (or at least certin types). I like the leaders they have shown so far because I absolutely hated the Civ4 'cartoonish" look. As far as the one unit per tile rule I think it is rubbish to believe that that is fact. The hexas I think will e a great imprvement, adding more strategic blocades(only six sides to defend from), etc. I will try to think of it as Civ5 when it comes out, not Civ 3.1 or Civ 4.1. Overall it looks promising.

 

[Shiggs713]

yes I am happy. I don't even care about the graphics much so long as its a slight upgrade from civ4. Leaders look a ton better, I agree. Please kill the cartoons all together. I want civ units, terrain and everything else in between to at least have a realistic approach. Have faith in Fireaxis with the 1 unit per tile or whatever the rule is... I think they know what they're doing. You don't want another copy of civ4, so some drastic changes are welcomed.

 

[Gamemaster77]

Im not saying its a bad rule, ill be welcome to it if it is implemented, but i am still yet to see confirmation that it is a rule.

 

[SJSerio]

I voted yes, but to be honest, there is just too little information to determine at this point. Hopefully, after the next GamePro hits stands (still can't believe I am actually excited for an issue of GamePro), we will learn enough to give a better answer to this question. My suggestion would be to revisit this poll after that and add an option for "still undecided at this point" (in case we don't get any real info... and for those who want to wait until the game is out... or close enough to coming out... to make the determination).

 

[exorbit]

yes !
+ graphics
+ hexes
+ (no small units ) armies
i hope it will be more like civ 3 than 4

 

[mrt144]

The only things that seem vaguely more fun than Civ IV is...wait, nothing seems more fun at this point. Hexes are an improvement, I guess, but the core game mechanics just seem to be a departure from the entire package that made Civ IV a great game.

 

[NBAfan]

I can't say yet, much to early right now.

 

[Buddy3101]

I'm happy that Sids way of Civ will go on

 

[Quintillus]

I can't say yet, much to early right now.

Yeah, it's too early. I'm excited about it, but from what we've seen we can't gather much about the game or how fun it will really be relative to previous iterations. And I know from past experience that I'll only really be happy in the end if I feel the new version is the most fun version yet. So the bar is set pretty high, and I can't tell if it'll make that threshold yet.

 

[ahmedhadzi]

I'm not that happy. Reason is mainly obvious radical changes to the gameplay that they (Fireaxis) are doing. I understand that this is game for NEW generation and old followers, mostly in their late 20ies and 30ies are used to old system of gameplay. I'm just skeptic taht this new direction will be able to pass the level that civ iv set up and will be able to make me play thos game in my 40ies.

 

[Tholish]

I'm happy it is coming out, like the hexes, looking forward to the economy changes, tile conquest. Don't particularly mind spreading warfare out over the terrain.

Still, I voted no, and here's why: because of two things that look likely: no combined arms and rocket arrows. One unit or one unit type per tile, either way it's just dumb and necessitates rocket arrows. Rocket arrows are arrows with the range of modern artillery rockets. Bombardment is fine, but archers, catapults, and premodern cannon all had ranges less than a kilometer, basically all in the same ballpark. If they can shoot into the next tile, that's fine--the battle is on the line between hexes. But if they are shooting two tiles away I can't handle it. But they have to because you can't have archers undefended (that would be unrealistic) or missile weapons with no more range than swords (unrealistic again) and with only one unit type per tile you can't defend archers with spearmen. And we have to have one unit per tile because two units per tile doesn't do the same thing. (No its not realism, we only care about playability) Well, it might make it unplayable.

I'm not asking for painstaking realism, and can suspend disbelief, but there comes a point where the same gameplay benefits can be attained without the cost in credulity stretching but instead the disregard is flaunted. Yes a single truly bad feature can ruin the whole game.

Perhaps it will work out, and I will be pleasantly surprised.

 

[TheDS]

I'm pretty "meh" about it because I don't think it's necessary. The only thing I really like about it is the hex tiles, what "city-states" might be, and the possibility of a better diplomacy system. Excepting the hex tiles, it's nothing that couldn't be modded into Civ4 with an expansion.

The graphics look even worse than Civ4. Not ugly, but WORSE. I already have to have all the aids turned on so I can see what I'm looking at, which obliterates the whole point of the pretty pictures. With LCD monitors being crap, with graphics being too indistinctive, and with so much emphasis on eye-candy instead of usability, I fear this will be one more pile of wasted effort.

Animated leaderheads? Who cares?
Wonder movies? Who cares?
Music? Who cares?
Speech in native languages? Who friggin cares?!?!
Non-useful imagery that I can't use to distinguish a wheat field from a unit? Who cares?
A product that costs a fortune to buy because it got bogged down with all kinds of crap that it didn't really need and that takes my computer ages to just load a game? Do we really need that?

At least with the "cartoony" look I can tell what's what at a glance, and I don't have to have 50GB of free space on my hard drive to play it.

 

[SJSerio]

I'm pretty "meh" about it because I don't think it's necessary. The only thing I really like about it is the hex tiles, what "city-states" might be, and the possibility of a better diplomacy system. Excepting the hex tiles, it's nothing that couldn't be modded into Civ4 with an expansion.

Well, those are almost all that we know at this point. The rest is purely speculation. As it stands, we won't learn anything more until, at least, when the next Gamepro issue hits shelves.

The graphics look even worse than Civ4. Not ugly, but WORSE. I already have to have all the aids turned on so I can see what I'm looking at, which obliterates the whole point of the pretty pictures. With LCD monitors being crap, with graphics being to indistinctive, and with so much emphasis on eye-candy instead of usability, I fear this will be one more pile of wasted effort.

I really don't see where the graphics look "worse" than Civ IV! I see some issues with it (like the farm land hanging into the sea), but those are issues that are fixable and likely due to early development. People make too big a deal about graphics, these days... brainwashed by the yuppie reviewers at those big sites like IGN and the like. If it doesn't look better than Halo 5 or Crysis 8, then it looks like crap! The graphics that we have seen so far are fine.

Animated leaderheads? Who cares?
Wonder movies? Who cares?
Music? Who cares?
Speech in native languages? Who friggin cares?!?!
Non-useful imagery that I can't use to distinguish a wheat field from a unit? Who cares?
A product that costs a fortune to buy because it got bogged down with all kinds of crap that it didn't really need and that takes my computer ages to just load a game? Do we really need that?

Again, there have been very few details released about the game... how about waiting until we learn more before you send the villagers with torches after Firaxis.

At least with the "cartoony" look I can tell what's what at a glance, and I don't have to have 50GB of free space on my hard drive to play it.

Again, you are basing your speculation on a couple of screenshots that don't reveal a whole lot and are likely not final. While there is nothing wrong with speculation, it is still prudent to reserve judgement until we know much more details then that which has already been released.

 

[mrt144]

A product that costs a fortune to buy because it got bogged down with all kinds of crap that it didn't really need and that takes my computer ages to just load a game? Do we really need that?

Stop being poor.

 

[Gamemaster77]

I'm just putting this out there. I could totaly see some civ5 programmer or developer looking at this forum and laughing at how they know eerything and we no nothing. I could just imagine the look on one of their faces when the see some of the conclusions that we have come i
up with that are way off or obvious facts we have totaly overlooked.

 

[King Lewie XIV]

I was bummed when I first heard they were doing a Civ for Facebook, cause I thought that meant it was all they were working on. When I found out they were doing a Civ V I was very happy. I don't see based on what we know how too many people who read these posts could not be happy about the new Civ V.

 

[dreadknought]

I think it is great news that they are doing a new version and Im sure some will love the combat changes and some will hate them but I do think they are trying to make the combat more epic feeling. I seem to recall the system in Romance of the 3 kingdoms where you could group different units under a warlord and it would then generate a total str number, you could add troops up to a certain max size that occupied 1 tile. The combat in that game was actually quite fun. The ranged units in a group would inflict damage first in combat which would reduce the str of the remaining foot soldiers but by themselves archers were very weak in the ground combat phase and if attacked directly would get wiped out quickly. I think there was a ranged combat turn followed by a tactical movement turn where the armies could engage if next to each other.

What it did was force many different grouping of troops to be sucessfull in battle and then the commanding general also added unique properties. That system could work well in civ and then your great generals would directly add bonuses to the group he commands and each hexagon grouping would represent an entire army on the field. Another plus is that you can have large army groups in one hex( talking 5k troops) cant remember the max allowed . The obsolete troops would be very weak in this type structure though because you are making the amount of troops much higher and the days of a single weak troop having any chance would be over.

I dont know if thats what they are going to but it sure looks like it could be along those lines.

 

[Rexflex]

I like but I don't mind if others hate it.As long as I like it is fine for me, and I don't care what others say.

Well, if only one person liked it then multi-player wouldn't work very well.

Seriously though, we only have a few concepts to work on, most of them vague. While some of the changes don't necessarily feel comfortable because one may have liked the old way, these changes may turn out for the best in game play. As one person has already said in this forum - do we want Civ 4.1 (or would that be 4.3 after Warlords and BTS) or do we want Civ 5? A new game should explore a substantial amount of new ground rather than just polishing the old ground.

 

[Louis XXIV]

I'm content, but it's too early to say if I'm happy. It's good that they're making changes. To see if they're for the best will have to wait.

 

[Shiggs713]

Well, if only one person liked it then multi-player wouldn't work very well.

seriously, multi-player I have a feeling with be 10x better than civ4. Civ4 multiplayer was a joke with between LameSpy and the little gamey cheats and tricks people knew. The double move at the end of the turn garbage, moving diagonally to gain 14% movement due to the mechanics of the game. Both of these are addressed with the hex system. Double moves will no longer get you around an enemy, but only still next to him, and obviously there will be no more 14% movement bonus for going diagonally.

Plus it seems there will be less overall units on the map, perhaps actually increasing performance as well. With less units on the map it will be more about tactical maneuvering than sheer numbers I hope. Lets all just hope they get the AI right once and for all, and this would really be a game for the ages.