Civilization V

[Thorton_AP]

Wouldn't Steamworks take care of connectivity for MP and whatnot?

[Deadly_Nightshade]

I just don't get why you'd force retail copies to use steam.

 

I wish more games did what Prey and Unreal Tournament III did, making the game playable via the retail disc and over Steam (via the code that you register). That gives customers the best of both worlds, a digital copy for those who like Steam and a physical backup that is assured to work if something goes wrong.

[Deadly_Nightshade]

Wouldn't Steamworks take care of connectivity for MP and whatnot?

 

In theory sure, but unless you have dedicated severs there will be a whole other set of issues (look at MW2 and the debate about it's multiplayer).

[Calax]

http://kotaku.com/5565685/civilization-vs-...er-to-pc-gamers

 

 

It ships with mod tools, built in community support, and will spotlight awesome mods WITHIN the game. And the ability to host tournaments and such.

 

Also, you can choose your music tracks that you'll listen to between Peace and War.

[Enoch]

Release date: September 21 NA, September 24 internationally.

[TheHarlequin]

I am not sure how I feel about the new no more then 1 military unit per hex rule... seems odd and counter to launching a ww2 type war. But like some of the other changes we will have to see it in action before making a firm opinion.

[deganawida]

Hahahahahahahahaha! http://e3.gamespot.com/video/6266697/#toggle_video

[Spider]

I agree that the one unit per hex is a drastic change. I'm a bit hesitant about that myself. but if it leads to a requirement of fewer units to wage war, I think I'll grow to like it (I hate building troops). But if it doesn't work, I can always go back to Civ 4, which I still play regularly.

[cronicler]

1upt (unit per tile) is a drastic and (I have to admit a bit) unrealistic move but I think it was needed from gameplay perspective. After the initial city boom period the game usually stumbled on stacks of doom going this way and that way, cleaning the map (or continent).

 

From a realistic point of view, until 1600s most nations (except a handful of militaristic nations like romans, chinese,maybe ottomans after Janissaries) didn't even have standing armies or real national armies until 1800-1900s.

 

Throughout the history most of the fighting was done by militias, feudal levies and warrior castes. So I am not really bothered by low number of regular units (and city militias defending cities.)

 

If I am not mistaken even US, after its war with England had to reduce its army to 7 infantry divisions and 4 artillery divisions (with 1 to 3 theoratical militia "divisions" per state) and 0 cavallary or dragoon divisions due to expenses. This was with 22 or 24 states' combined treasury mind you.

[Thorton_AP]

The thing I didn't like about the old stacks was the stacks of doom.

 

Someone pointed out the complexity of doing WW2 style battles. At the same time, the Ardennes Offensive would have been a lot easier with limitless unit stacks

[RPGmasterBoo]

I don't like the new changes. I predict its gonna make things too simple. I like the shift of the art style to a more serious tone, but its still too cartoony for me.

 

I'll just have to repeat this until someone takes notice:

 

Give us Alpha Centauri 2: the Remake (in which we didn't try to fix what ain't broke)!

[Raithe]

I don't like the new changes. I predict its gonna make things too simple. I like the shift of the art style to a more serious tone, but its still too cartoony for me.

 

I'll just have to repeat this until someone takes notice:

 

Give us Alpha Centauri 2: the Remake (in which we didn't try to fix what ain't broke)!

 

Heh, I reinstalled Alpha Centuari a couple of months back because I was feeling nostalgic. I suddenly lost a weekend.

[Walsingham]

The thing I didn't like about the old stacks was the stacks of doom.

 

Someone pointed out the complexity of doing WW2 style battles. At the same time, the Ardennes Offensive would have been a lot easier with limitless unit stacks

 

ROFL

 

 

Historian joke.

[RPGmasterBoo]

I don't like the new changes. I predict its gonna make things too simple. I like the shift of the art style to a more serious tone, but its still too cartoony for me.

 

I'll just have to repeat this until someone takes notice:

 

Give us Alpha Centauri 2: the Remake (in which we didn't try to fix what ain't broke)!

 

Heh, I reinstalled Alpha Centuari a couple of months back because I was feeling nostalgic. I suddenly lost a weekend.

 

The only thing that's keeping me from playing it is how awful it looks on my 22" screen. Although it always looked awful, apart from the faction portraits and the LSD color palette.

 

What worries me is not "if there will be a sequel", that sort of thing is inevitable but the stupidifying policy that goes into most remakes/sequels. And that developers won't want to make such a thematically and visually dark game. When you see Civ 4's Stalin smile like Santa you know something's horribly wrong.

 

Christ, why does everything have to be made to appeal to the lowest common denominator.

[Spider]

Although to be fair, the comical part was already in Civ 2 (the advisors), so it's not like the series has taken itself too seriously at any point (apart maybe from the first game).

 

Also, I'm not so sure the new combat system will be simpler. The stack of doom system is fairly simple, this could very well lead toa stronger emphasis on strategy. Firaxis has proven to know what they're doing in the past.

 

For instance, the removal of the defense stat in Civ 4 was something I thought would simplify the game too much. But with the addition of promotions and a greater emphasis on terrain bonuses, I certainly don't think combat has become simpler compared to it's predecessor.

 

That being said, I'm not sure I'll like the new combat system, that remains to be seen. but I don't think it will be less complex. I remain hopeful, but a little skeptical.

[Enoch]

Yeah, if you're going to be complaining about the dumbing down of the games industry, the flagship Civ games are probably the last place where you should cast your ire. They are proudly wonky, and still sell quite well for it. Yes, they did a console spinoff (and soon, *gasp*, a Facebook spinoff), but Civ 5 is still going to be a PC-only (with Mac version probably following in 6 months or so), hex-based (!), multi-layered, mod-friendly, turn-based strategy game.

 

If "It's not SMAC2" is the best criticism you can come up with, then it's still a day-one purchase for me.

 

(For my part, Alpha Centauri was a fascinating game, but less replayable than whichever Civ is current at the time. The melding together of 4X gameplay with actual narrative content was a shockingly pleasant surprise, but the faction balance in the game isn't particularly good, so once you've seen all the narrative, the rewards upon replaying diminish pretty fast. And, moreso than CRPGs, 4X games are all about the replay value.)

[RPGmasterBoo]

Yeah, if you're going to be complaining about the dumbing down of the games industry, the flagship Civ games are probably the last place where you should cast your ire. They are proudly wonky, and still sell quite well for it. Yes, they did a console spinoff (and soon, *gasp*, a Facebook spinoff), but Civ 5 is still going to be a PC-only (with Mac version probably following in 6 months or so), hex-based (!), multi-layered, mod-friendly, turn-based strategy game.

 

If "It's not SMAC2" is the best criticism you can come up with, then it's still a day-one purchase for me.

 

(For my part, Alpha Centauri was a fascinating game, but less replayable than whichever Civ is current at the time. The melding together of 4X gameplay with actual narrative content was a shockingly pleasant surprise, but the faction balance in the game isn't particularly good, so once you've seen all the narrative, the rewards upon replaying diminish pretty fast. And, moreso than CRPGs, 4X games are all about the replay value.)

 

First of all I never found Civ as fascinating as Alpha Centauri. The lack of a real grounding in history and logic made it less enjoyable for me. Granted AC is pure sci-fi thus even less grounded in reality, but I found the universe excellent and supported by its own internal logic, with truly interesting sci fi concepts. On the other hand the mix of real world civilizations completely mismatched in their time and place in history was especially jarring to me.

 

I've no idea why you think the faction balance isn't good. Each faction has its strenghts and weaknesses that are far more pronounced than Civ's. Indeed the gameplay actually changes according to which faction you choose, which was never really an issue in Civ. I will agree that the expansion factions are quite unbalanced though.

 

In terms of game mechanics AC's are more complex than any other Civ game. Indeed Civ 4 tried to do the Social Engenieering thing with Civics (although not as well). Diplomacy in AC, although clunky is still far better than Civ's. The faction leaders also have a lot of personality, which civ leaders dont. You can also design your own units, while Civ is stuck with a handful of pre defined ones. Also in AC: the voice acting is better, the quotes are better and the wonder movies are better. The tech tree is open to blind research which makes more sense. The mind worms are a much more consistent and threatening enemy than civ's barbarians. Factions in AC have significantly different AI scripts which also makes them more unique. Overall in regards to factions it always felt like you were picking a side because the 21st century ideologies are so cleverly represented:

 

Gaia - Ecologism

Santiago - Fascism

Morgan - Liberal capitalism

Miriam - Religious fundamentalism

Yang - Totalitarian communism

Lal - Democratic/Internationalist

Zakharov - Scientism (this one isn't major really but whatever)

 

Since the core gameplay is the same I don't see how either is more replayable than the other. You play Civ for the gameplay, not for the story. AC has the gameplay and a story, plus a lot of flavor that if it appeals to you makes the experience that much better.

 

I think AC was the pinnacle of the Civ idea, taking everything that was good about the series and improving it.

 

In regards to Civ 5, the issue I see with having less units is: it will probably simplify production, combat (because less units is less units no matter how you look at it) and overall lessen the level of micro managment. Given the limitations of the world map in terms of size that will mean less options available to the player.

My experience with games that include tactical combat is that there is always a set of actions (more or less quickly discovered) that make combat a rote thing. Stacks of doom might not have been a terribly complex thing but you still have to produce all those units while balancing with other aspects of gameplay.

It seems to me that they are unnecessarily streamlining things instead of giving Civ what it really lacks since Civ 2- flavor.

 

I'm playing Civ 4 now, but its soooooo bland. All the leaders have the same dialog, techs are predictable, AI is predictable... nothing to look forward to.

If it wasn't for the Rhey's and Fall mod and its historical goals I'd never play Civ 4.

 

 

*Curiously the designers of Civ 4 really botched some things. Like Hagia Sophia having minarets.

Edited June 28, 2010 by RPGmasterBoo

[Zoraptor]

The Hagia Sophia does have minarets...

 

...since ~1453

[Meshugger]

I order to maintain historical accurancy, i demand that the Hagia Sophia will be without minarets for 1000 years, then with minarets for 500 years. After that, it will loose its status as a world wonder, and its stats, and turn into a regular museum with its new corresponding stats.

[RPGmasterBoo]

I order to maintain historical accurancy, i demand that the Hagia Sophia will be without minarets for 1000 years, then with minarets for 500 years. After that, it will loose its status as a world wonder, and its stats, and turn into a regular museum with its new corresponding stats.

 

Sarcasm aside, its either that, or including it without minarets or not including it at all.

 

I mean this way its misleading. There is a S

[Thorton_AP]

This is obviously an outrage and I'm flabbergasted that Civ 4 has been so successful in light of such atrocities committed by Firaxis!

[Nemo0071]

AFAIK Hagia Sophia was built as a church (cathedral?), then became a mosque, then became a museum.

 

Civ IV took the modern setting of our world and viewed it in a retro way (like USA being a seperate nation from the very beginning, while it was actually formed from British colonies, etc.).

 

So, I'd say Hagia Sophia being a "world wonder with minarets" (the most recent form) is more or less accurate, in the context of Civ IV.

 

 

Civ IV didn't care about being historically / chronologically accurate, anyway...

[Nepenthe]

AFAIK Hagia Sophia was built as a church (cathedral?), then became a mosque, then became a museum.

 

Civ IV took the modern setting of our world and viewed it in a retro way (like USA being a seperate nation from the very beginning, while it was actually formed from British colonies, etc.).

 

So, I'd say Hagia Sophia being a "world wonder with minarets" (the most recent form) is more or less accurate, in the context of Civ IV.

 

 

Civ IV didn't care about being historically / chronologically accurate, anyway...

 

Having been there, I kind of doubt that it's a wonder of the world as a museum. Considering it was built as a church (to Holy Wisdom), and was later converted into a Mosque, it kind of defends on what bonus the wonder gives, is it faith based (look towards original use), or epic war booty...

 

That said, the "current" image is probably the most sensible way of approaching it, the one that doesn't seem like an obvious political statement.

[Gorgon]

I could never get into any of those Civilisation, Alpha centaury, Age of Empires or whatever type games. Boredom set in after 5 mins.

[RPGmasterBoo]

AFAIK Hagia Sophia was built as a church (cathedral?), then became a mosque, then became a museum.

 

Civ IV took the modern setting of our world and viewed it in a retro way (like USA being a seperate nation from the very beginning, while it was actually formed from British colonies, etc.).

 

So, I'd say Hagia Sophia being a "world wonder with minarets" (the most recent form) is more or less accurate, in the context of Civ IV.

 

 

Civ IV didn't care about being historically / chronologically accurate, anyway...

 

Having been there, I kind of doubt that it's a wonder of the world as a museum. Considering it was built as a church (to Holy Wisdom), and was later converted into a Mosque, it kind of defends on what bonus the wonder gives, is it faith based (look towards original use), or epic war booty...

 

That said, the "current" image is probably the most sensible way of approaching it, the one that doesn't seem like an obvious political statement.

 

It is also completely misleading as it implies (to those who may not know) that its the product of another civilization. It stood as a christian church for a thousand years and is the crowning achievement of the Byzantine civilization, not the Ottoman turks which just tacked on the minarets and ruined the internal decoration. It was a world wonder in a true sense up until larger cathedrals came to appear in Europe, and the only thing that makes sense to me is for it to be represented in its original form - in a tribute to those who actually created it.

 

Whatever was done after Byzantium fell is irrelevant as it doesn't change the fact that the Ottoman empire has really nothing to do with it.