Will Civ V be better than Civ IV?

[Ricci]

Thank You!

I'll allow that you and I, and everyone at CFC may not be entirely objective on the issue.

Ha ha..!! Seriously, Civ V will be better off without CIV IV only if it out ranges civ iv in every aspect and feature of the game, almost as it has happen before with each and every one of civ releases. I've known civ from it's first version and I can asses that this was always the formula for it's transcendence. The final civ iv version, BTS with last patches and even if you want to mix it with some good mods, has achieved a degree of depth, variety and complexity difficult to overcome by some drastically arranged version. Of course there were more than two things to upgrade in civ iv, some of which I read about will come to be in 5 (barbarian system remodeled, city states, and many others). The fact is that if there is at least one somehow mayor feature ripped off the game other than improved civ iv will eternally have it's stand against it's successor.

For instance, No tech trading would be awesome really if there is some contemplated new system which makes technology diffusion more natural and less prone to abuse. If it's just taken off the game will be diminished. Same with religión, it was a great feature, deeply integrated within the entire game at it's proper scope. Removing it or making it more shallow just demotes the depth and historic quality of the game.

I don't know folks, always trusted Sid Meier mainly because what I stated above, every release was undoubtedly better than the previous. I'm just not sure this will be the case again.

 

[Slayan]

Civ lV will be better because there is no steam

 

[Rusty Edge]

This is longboats acting as transports. Not as warships. And I conceded a few cases like Quebec of ships acting as transports.

But its land units that do the attacking, not the warships.

In Civ5 transports don't even show up, they're just part of the land units.

Whereas having warships actually able to sail up rivers means they can engage in combat with land units.

Besides Quebec and Paris there was the capture of Forts Clinton and Montgomery on the Hudson River ( near West Point )about 40 miles north of New York City during the early part of The Revolution. The British Navy did shell the American forts. I would classify all of these as amphibious assaults.

I guess that having troops that can walk on water makes this moot if their artillery can walk on water , too. I just realized that we can do a Moses Red Sea scenario if it applies to settlers...

My idea wasn't so much to give you inroads into enemy territory, but to give you some seaports that aren't on the sea, where you could still get the trade routes, build a harbor, lighthouse, drydock and a navy, where you could lick your wounds beyond the reach of the enemy fleet. A couple of navigable tiles on a few rivers on current sized maps should do it.

Would you believe that they built 28 submarines during WWII in Wisconsin and floated them down the Mississippi one at a time on a drydock pulled by a tugboat?

 

[migkillertwo]

Do you think that Civ V will be the best version of Civ yet?

based on what I've seen so far, I'm gonna say that it's definitely going to be better than civ IV

 

[civ_king]

Besides Quebec and Paris there was the capture of Forts Clinton and Montgomery on the Hudson River ( near West Point )about 40 miles north of New York City during the early part of The Revolution. The British Navy did shell the American forts. I would classify all of these as amphibious assaults.

I guess that having troops that can walk on water makes this moot if their artillery can walk on water , too. I just realized that we can do a Moses Red Sea scenario if it applies to settlers...

My idea wasn't so much to give you inroads into enemy territory, but to give you some seaports that aren't on the sea, where you could still get the trade routes, build a harbor, lighthouse, drydock and a navy, where you could lick your wounds beyond the reach of the enemy fleet. A couple of navigable tiles on a few rivers on current sized maps should do it.

Would you believe that they built 28 submarines during WWII in Wisconsin and floated them down the Mississippi one at a time on a drydock pulled by a tugboat?

hehe my town is on a river and we built a battleship! We also built 517 other ships (mostly subs and sub tenders)

 

[Rusty Edge]

hehe my town is on a river and we built a battleship! We also built 517 other ships (mostly subs and sub tenders)

Are you near the mothball fleet?

 

[Dermo]

I think that if hexes were designed so that rivers ran through them, instead of bordering them, it shouldn't be too difficult to allow naval units to travel along rivers

 

[MAHRana]

I think that if hexes were designed so that rivers ran through them, instead of bordering them, it shouldn't be too difficult to allow naval units to travel along rivers

Rivers running through hexes would seem a bit weird unless the tile would have all the same capabilities of an average one (eg. you could found cities or make farms on them) but would otherwise make the game much more interesting.