Discussion in 'Gaming' started by Hermiod, Feb 18, 2010.
You can move diagonally.
This is the best news I've heard all year. I've been playing Civilization since the original.
Ah, so you could. I keep forgetting that you didn't have to use two moves to move diagonally in the previous Civ games.
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.
Don't forget to let us know.
The games in the series just seem like so much work to me.
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.
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.
^ 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.
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.
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.
Here is the Announcement Trailer, no gameplay but still epic.
Keith David continues his quest to get his voice into every major game franchise, I see. Not that that's a bad thing.
It'll probably be well-made since almost all Firaxis games are. The question is if the changes they make it will make the game better than Civ4. They are removing many cool things, so I hope they've replaced them with equally cool things. Better diplomacy would be a great one for me. Generally, they've been pretty good at simplifying or removing a feature in order to add other cool features. I'm hoping that's the case with religion because it was a very welcome addition (one I was actually initially skeptical of, but they pulled off so very well).
^The only problem I had with the religion aspect of Civ IV was when your missionary would fail...in one of your own cities. I get that that sort of thing would certainly happen in real life (kinda,) but it's just one of those things that makes me want to pull my hair out for some reason. It was especially annoying in the late-game when you have free religion and want every city to have as many religions as possible for more happiness, more temples, more culture, etc. "Missionary Failed." NOOOOOOOOOO!
I did not enjoy Civ4 nearly as much as Civ3. I hope that Civ5 has a more Civ3 feel to it.
Ah Civilization wasted a lot of time on em , glad conquest is changed to capital cities (for multiplayer reasons heh).
For the first time in my life the announcement of a new Civ game didn't do anything for me
I loved the game, but the last 2 years I just can't bring myself to play it any more. Just can't balance the time required to get good with things like spending time with my wife...which she likes me to do
Man! That trailer is fantastic! If the game play lives up to it, it should be a great time-destroyer.
I have a problem with the historical howlers in that trailer, for all it was pretty.
Decently detailed preview from IGN. Gives a good idea where they're heading this time around.
Separate names with a comma.