Civilization V - Page 2

Canadave · February 21 2010, 02:36 AM

^ I love his narration in Civ4. It makes everything just a tiny bit more dramatic. Not to mention logical.

CTM · February 21 2010, 02:46 AM

SG-17 wrote:

From what info was posted on Apolyton about it, Civ5 seems to be much more like Civ3 than Civ4, which is awesome.

- Changes to combat. More depth in combat, no more stacking of units. This will lead to bigger focus on terrain.

You just made my day! Hi. I'm CTM and I'm a CIV addict... however the stacking of units has royally pissed me off forever. In the real world you cannot have a functionally infinite number of units on the same terrain. The deployment of armies has always been about having space to maneuver - something that CIV has not done well with to date. That is the one big change I have been wishing for since my first game.

MeanJoePhaser · February 21 2010, 04:12 AM

Sounds intriguing. I never got into Civ 4, bought it for my father, who didn't like it (he still plays Civ3). I didn't like the graphics, but I didn't play it that much, though. I was gonna load it on my current computer, but he lost one of the discs.

I'm not sure Civ3 can be topped. It had a few good and bad quirks.

Limited horses seems silly. Resources could be exhausted in civ 3, so it's not new. Horses never were, though, because they can be raised.

Stacking was somewhat acceptable in past games because of the scale of the world, there should've been a limit though. 2 or 3 Infantry units occupying a space is one thing...30 is something else.

Lor'Vela · February 21 2010, 04:21 AM

Awesome! I've only ever played Civ IV, but I find it hugely addicting. I'm sure Civ V would be just as good.

Canadave wrote:

^ I love his narration in Civ4. It makes everything just a tiny bit more dramatic. Not to mention logical.

Best feature of the game, IMO.

Beep, beep, beep, beep...

Chaos Descending · February 21 2010, 04:42 PM

TheGodBen wrote:

- Switch from squares to hexagons changing the way the game plays. More room for maneuvers and more tactical options.

Technically there will be less since you can only move in 6 direction as opposed to 8, but the more I contemplate a hex board the more I like it.

Forgive me for being obtuse, but how do you get eight degrees of freedom from squares?

Lindley · February 21 2010, 04:46 PM

Chaos Descending wrote:

Forgive me for being obtuse, but how do you get eight degrees of freedom from squares?

You can move diagonally.

Chang · February 21 2010, 09:09 PM

This is the best news I've heard all year. I've been playing Civilization since the original.

Chaos Descending · February 21 2010, 10:01 PM

Lindley wrote:

Chaos Descending wrote:

Forgive me for being obtuse, but how do you get eight degrees of freedom from squares?

You can move diagonally.

Ah, so you could. I keep forgetting that you didn't have to use two moves to move diagonally in the previous Civ games.

Thanks!

Canadave · February 21 2010, 11:32 PM

Chaos Descending wrote:

Lindley wrote:

Chaos Descending wrote:

Forgive me for being obtuse, but how do you get eight degrees of freedom from squares?

You can move diagonally.

Ah, so you could. I keep forgetting that you didn't have to use two moves to move diagonally in the previous Civ games.

Thanks!

Which actually always threw me off, as the diagonal move made it seem like your units could move "faster" than by moving horizontally or vertically. Or maybe I'm just weird, but that's how it always seemed to me, so the move to a hex-based map will be welcome on that basis at the very least.

DBR · February 22 2010, 07:25 AM

Holdfast wrote:

You know, I've never really properly played Civilisation. I mean, sure, I've dipped into it a bit in the past, but never properly tried to learn it. I might just try out Civ5 when it comes out, see what all the fuss is about.

Don't forget to let us know.

The games in the series just seem like so much work to me.

Capt. Vulcan · February 22 2010, 12:32 PM

Wow some huge changes there. I love hex games, but then I'm not sure I want my hex war games mixed in with my civ game. I agree that stacking was just stupid, but there needs to be some way to mass forces without bulding generals to build armies. In the end unless the game changes to a full war game, you'll essentially stack units laterally and it'll still come down to who has the biggest pile of guys.

I can't say I'm looking forward to the finite resources thing. Seems like we'll just become scavengers now waiting to ambush a unit to get whatever it drops. Seems to favor turteling since you can just take whatever the invaders drop to increase your forces. I didn't really like religion in the first games, but it seems kind of retarded to get rid of it entirely. Just for the story of the game, having the various nations sort of drawing the lines against each other based on religion increased the realism and enjoyment for me.

Everything else looks good though.

D Man · February 22 2010, 07:27 PM

I miss the "colony" aspect of Civ III where you could set up a garrison on any given resource and use it. In Civ IV it was annoying to have to put a city somewhere not so convenient just so you could grab something important like marble to make Wonder building quicker. But I DO NOT miss the asenine way that game handled corruption, making any city barely too far from your capital produce basically no shields. Civ IV fixed that perfectly by making it cost money, instead. I hope Civ V improves on that.

Canadave · February 22 2010, 08:04 PM

^ In CivIII, I always gravitated towards Communism, since (ironically) it was one of the only ways to make corruption handle-able in a large empire.

Holdfast · February 22 2010, 08:14 PM

DBR wrote:

Holdfast wrote:

You know, I've never really properly played Civilisation. I mean, sure, I've dipped into it a bit in the past, but never properly tried to learn it. I might just try out Civ5 when it comes out, see what all the fuss is about.

Don't forget to let us know.

The games in the series just seem like so much work to me.

That's exactly what's put me off the previous editions, but I always figured I'd give them a proper go one day, and a new game would be the obvious way to go about it.

Ometiklan · February 22 2010, 10:39 PM

I think this is great news. I have played Civ since Civ I and was disappointed that I didn't get addicted to CivIV like I had all the rest. I think it was the promotion system that kinda turned me off, though I liked the rest of the improvements.

I have always wanted them to convert over to some kind of armies-only approach. The way I am thinking of kinda is like the board game "Samuari Swords" (aka Shogun) where you had an army with a limited number of slots for samurai and peasants. I would like to see something similar in Civ - in the early years your army is one slot, getting more technology allows you to add slots for bowmen, mounted units, (maybe for HQ units) etc. That way armies prevent SODs while enhancing technology and promoting combined arms.

But enough of fan-speculation. I hope religion is kept in the game but improved, and as always I would like to see AI, diplomacy, and espionage improvements as well.

February 21 2010, 02:36 AM	#16
Canadave Vice Admiral Location: Saint Catharines, ON	Re: Civilization V ^ I love his narration in Civ4. It makes everything just a tiny bit more dramatic. Not to mention logical. __________________ My blog!

February 21 2010, 04:12 AM	#18
MeanJoePhaser Admiral Location: Missile Command	Re: Civilization V Sounds intriguing. I never got into Civ 4, bought it for my father, who didn't like it (he still plays Civ3). I didn't like the graphics, but I didn't play it that much, though. I was gonna load it on my current computer, but he lost one of the discs. I'm not sure Civ3 can be topped. It had a few good and bad quirks. Limited horses seems silly. Resources could be exhausted in civ 3, so it's not new. Horses never were, though, because they can be raised. Stacking was somewhat acceptable in past games because of the scale of the world, there should've been a limit though. 2 or 3 Infantry units occupying a space is one thing...30 is something else.

February 21 2010, 09:09 PM	#22
Chang Admiral Location: Upstate New York	Re: Civilization V This is the best news I've heard all year. I've been playing Civilization since the original.

February 22 2010, 12:32 PM	#26
Capt. Vulcan Vice Admiral Location: PlanetExpress Ship	Re: Civilization V Wow some huge changes there. I love hex games, but then I'm not sure I want my hex war games mixed in with my civ game. I agree that stacking was just stupid, but there needs to be some way to mass forces without bulding generals to build armies. In the end unless the game changes to a full war game, you'll essentially stack units laterally and it'll still come down to who has the biggest pile of guys. I can't say I'm looking forward to the finite resources thing. Seems like we'll just become scavengers now waiting to ambush a unit to get whatever it drops. Seems to favor turteling since you can just take whatever the invaders drop to increase your forces. I didn't really like religion in the first games, but it seems kind of retarded to get rid of it entirely. Just for the story of the game, having the various nations sort of drawing the lines against each other based on religion increased the realism and enjoyment for me. Everything else looks good though. __________________ She's so great. I feel like I can almost remember the magical thing I did to make her love me. But I guess I never will.

February 22 2010, 07:27 PM	#27
D Man Commodore Location: Tropical Minnesota	Re: Civilization V I miss the "colony" aspect of Civ III where you could set up a garrison on any given resource and use it. In Civ IV it was annoying to have to put a city somewhere not so convenient just so you could grab something important like marble to make Wonder building quicker. But I DO NOT miss the asenine way that game handled corruption, making any city barely too far from your capital produce basically no shields. Civ IV fixed that perfectly by making it cost money, instead. I hope Civ V improves on that. __________________ Do re mi, do re mi, fa mi re do. ---DS9 "Chrysalis"

STAR TREK

CSI

ABOUT US

February 22 2010, 08:04 PM	#28
Canadave Vice Admiral Location: Saint Catharines, ON	Re: Civilization V ^ In CivIII, I always gravitated towards Communism, since (ironically) it was one of the only ways to make corruption handle-able in a large empire. __________________ My blog!

February 22 2010, 10:39 PM	#30
Ometiklan Commander Location: Silver Spring, MD	Re: Civilization V I think this is great news. I have played Civ since Civ I and was disappointed that I didn't get addicted to CivIV like I had all the rest. I think it was the promotion system that kinda turned me off, though I liked the rest of the improvements. I have always wanted them to convert over to some kind of armies-only approach. The way I am thinking of kinda is like the board game "Samuari Swords" (aka Shogun) where you had an army with a limited number of slots for samurai and peasants. I would like to see something similar in Civ - in the early years your army is one slot, getting more technology allows you to add slots for bowmen, mounted units, (maybe for HQ units) etc. That way armies prevent SODs while enhancing technology and promoting combined arms. But enough of fan-speculation. I hope religion is kept in the game but improved, and as always I would like to see AI, diplomacy, and espionage improvements as well.