Civilization V

[Calax]

They did that because it got SO bad in Civ 3 that spearmen would just hold up an ARMY of tanks in one city due to the bonuses.

[Tigranes]

Yeah. And it still happened in Civ4, just not quite as stupid. If you ask me the entire combat system is due an overhaul, it doesn't really work to Civ's strengths and it's not particularly entertaining. Either make it more of a grand army management thing with very basic supply lines and upkeep, and making large-scale strategic orders, or make the current model develop at least basic features. They're surely going for the latter with hexes and no-stacking, but I'm not sure how far they'll go.

[Calax]

Yeah. And it still happened in Civ4, just not quite as stupid. If you ask me the entire combat system is due an overhaul, it doesn't really work to Civ's strengths and it's not particularly entertaining. Either make it more of a grand army management thing with very basic supply lines and upkeep, and making large-scale strategic orders, or make the current model develop at least basic features. They're surely going for the latter with hexes and no-stacking, but I'm not sure how far they'll go.

well they did say that they were changing it so that you actually had to manage and position your army with indirect fire etc

[Enoch]

I haven't been geeked about Civ since Civ 2, to be honest. To me Civ 3 was oversimplified and Civ4 was a step back in the right direction but the AI cheating was still way too obvious. That said, I'm a sucker for my Grand Strategy. So I will "always" line up for anything with Civilization, Europa Universalis, Galactic Civilizations, or Alpha Centauri in the title.

 

The AI only cheats if your difficulty is above the 2/3 level or so. Its only the last handful of top levels it cheats. The low and mid levels it follows the same ruleset as the player.

And even at the highest levels, the Civ4 AI cheating is straightforward-- it gets a few starting advantages (units and techs) and gets a % discount on everything (research, production, upkeep costs, food necessary for city growth, trade rates with other AIs, etc.) relative to the human player.

[Walsingham]

Ah, Civilization and it's massive fortification boni.

 

You know which civ is still the most hated in Beyond the Sword circles? That's right, the freaking Koreans. Protective and Financial is a recipe for disaster the second they get to archers. Then it's turtling time.

 

And I freaking hate the turtling time.

 

I have this really vivid image in mind of a turtle behind you stopping in mid stride and then turning sadly away.

[Enoch]

PC Gamer Interview

 

We're really excited about the changes we're making to the combat system. Anyone who's familiar with the old SSI [strategic Simulations, Inc] games like Panzer General will recognise the change that we've made. That's the inspiration behind the system. We really liked the mechanics in that game, so we took the basics from it and iterated on it.

 

Some of the details on that is that instead of having big stacks of units like players are used to, you're only going to be able to have one military unit on each tile. So you'll see fronts form on the battlefield more, instead of these big masses. We're also going to be introducing ranged units to the game, like archers and catapults. They'll be able to fire over multiple tiles and hit enemies away from them. We think those things will make the combat really exciting.

Edited March 12, 2010 by Enoch

[Darque]

Bah, where's my Alpha Centauri 2

[RPGmasterBoo]

Bah, where's my Alpha Centauri 2

 

Yeah

 

It was always the better game IMO.

[Darque]

[cronicler]

Wonder how good the editor will be. It is probably going to be a bear to copy all the AC text into the game. I need to find some artists to port the on screen assets too. What a hassle.

[Walsingham]

PC Gamer Interview

 

We're really excited about the changes we're making to the combat system. Anyone who's familiar with the old SSI [strategic Simulations, Inc] games like Panzer General will recognise the change that we've made. That's the inspiration behind the system. We really liked the mechanics in that game, so we took the basics from it and iterated on it.

 

Some of the details on that is that instead of having big stacks of units like players are used to, you're only going to be able to have one military unit on each tile. So you'll see fronts form on the battlefield more, instead of these big masses. We're also going to be introducing ranged units to the game, like archers and catapults. They'll be able to fire over multiple tiles and hit enemies away from them. We think those things will make the combat really exciting.

 

I applaud the SSI link, but shudder at the thought of archers firing over strategic distances. I already have conniptions over cavalry moving at really fast strategic speed. It's not tactical speed that governs these things it's logistics you wankers! If anything ALL units should have attached logistics which can be upgraded separately as tech becomes available. Viz British riflemen who moved slower than zulu tribesmen, and German ww2 armies which were using teh same tactical assets as the allies but had no decent logistics.

[Mera]

PC Gamer Interview

 

We're really excited about the changes we're making to the combat system. Anyone who's familiar with the old SSI [strategic Simulations, Inc] games like Panzer General will recognise the change that we've made. That's the inspiration behind the system. We really liked the mechanics in that game, so we took the basics from it and iterated on it.

 

Some of the details on that is that instead of having big stacks of units like players are used to, you're only going to be able to have one military unit on each tile. So you'll see fronts form on the battlefield more, instead of these big masses. We're also going to be introducing ranged units to the game, like archers and catapults. They'll be able to fire over multiple tiles and hit enemies away from them. We think those things will make the combat really exciting.

 

Last game I played from the series was CivII but with these changes it looks like a day one buy.

[Magister Lajciak]

It certainly looks good! And according to the website, it will not only have online play, but also have LAN and Hotseat Multiplayer, which is great !

 

That said, not much information is available yet to assess how good the game will actually be. Still, I find it likely they will do a good job with it.

[Magister Lajciak]

Am still a bit astonished though that they don't get sick of all these Civ games.

 

Why would they get sick of them if they are selling well? Civilization IV sold over 3 million copies by March 2008. That's not too shabby for a PC only game that caters to the turn based strategy market!

[Deraldin]

WHY 2K WHY?!

 

All copies of Civilization V use Steamworks.

 

[Tigranes]

In the space of a year or so the whole DRM mess has really gotten worse. Another game I'll have to forget about...

[Deraldin]

In the space of a year or so the whole DRM mess has really gotten worse. Another game I'll have to forget about...

 

I'm really disappointed in this news. Civ5 was by far my most anticipated game this year, but the inclusion of Steamworks for all copies completely kills it for me. I've put up with a lot of crap from Steam in order to play Valve titles with friends, but there is no way that I'm doing that for a third party publisher.

[Magister Lajciak]

In the space of a year or so the whole DRM mess has really gotten worse. Another game I'll have to forget about...

 

Agreed in detail. DRM is getting worse and worse very fast and nefarious practices like online activation are now becoming standard. Ubisoft's DDRM is only the worst of the worst, as it requires a permanent internet connection, but I draw the DRM line at any external DRM rather than internal DRM. By external DRM, I mean DRM that relies on some sort of external connection/action to permit the playing/installation/activation/... of the game and creates a dependence of the product on the continued existence of the activation/validation/whatever service. As such, Civilization V will now have to mvoe off my radar. In fact, as things stand at the moment, the only games on my radar will probably be games from Blizzard (DRM not yet announced for Starcraft 2 and Diablo 3), games from BioWare and games from Obsidian and I strongly suspect that some of those will also drop off my radar as they move to server-based DRM systems. I am still interested in other games too, so this list may expand if some companies back off from these sorts of DDRM shenanigans - Ubisoft, for example, own the excellent Heroes of Might & Magic franchise that I would be interested in if they get rid of their DDRM before the next installment is released, but I am not holding my breath.

[Undecaf]

In the space of a year or so the whole DRM mess has really gotten worse. Another game I'll have to forget about...

 

****! First post I read about this, and immediately bad news! Someone needs a beating.

[Meshugger]

WHY 2K WHY?!

 

All copies of Civilization V use Steamworks.

 

 

Wait, even if you buy a non-online copy, you still have to connect to Steam?

 

In that case, sayonara Civ V.

[Deraldin]

Wait, even if you buy a non-online copy, you still have to connect to Steam?

 

In that case, sayonara Civ V.

 

Yes. If you go buy a retail version of Civ V, it will still require you activate and play it with Steam.

[Kissamies]

Might as well buy it on Steam then. I don't like it, but my dislike isn't strong enough to keep me from buying it. Not bothering to get a physical copy of series I respect is a step to that direction, though. So far I've only bought discount games I didn't care about so much on Steam.

[Walsingham]

I'll be honest: I don't mind Steam checking on me. Because they give me stuff to stay amused, like chatting to friends, coop gaming made easier, and the in game web browser. I have no beef with it.

[Deadly_Nightshade]

Well, speaking of Civilization and Steam, I picked up the Civ IV bundle there, but only because it was about 75%-80% off the regular price of the games and there's been reports of bugs occurring when patching the bundled sets to the latest version. But, yeah, I'd rather not use Steam for games but if sometime is a good deal, or Steam exclusive, I don't mind using it - and, yes, I know that is actually more restrictive than most other forms of DRM.

[Tigranes]

*shrug* even though my computer hates it and I'd never use it, I appreciate what Steam does and think it's a good thing overall. I just don't get why you'd force retail copies to use steam.