Civilization V

[pmp10]

You think the AI is so much better than in Civ IV? Why didn't Civ IV had so high requirements then?

 

It actually did have quite high requirements at the time it was released I remember being quite surprised .. especially since I couldn't find anything that justified it.

And AI is looking even more worrisome in Civ 5.

Since the whole game focus shifted to warfare it can only cheat so much before players start noticing things.

[Thorton_AP]

Not sure where you get the idea that the whole game focus shifted to warfare.

 

They greatly changed warfare (which is a good thing), but the other aspects of the game are still very much present.

[Malcador]

Not sure where you get the idea that the whole game focus shifted to warfare.

 

They greatly changed warfare (which is a good thing), but the other aspects of the game are still very much present.

 

Well one can be forgiven for assuming that, bunch of previews I've read where the designer keeps mentioning Panzer General

I wonder how "streamlined" the game is.

[pmp10]

Not sure where you get the idea that the whole game focus shifted to warfare.

 

They greatly changed warfare (which is a good thing), but the other aspects of the game are still very much present.

Why do I think the focus has changed?

Lets see compared to civ 4:

removed - religion, tech trading ,health

simplified - improvements, happiness

added - hexes, ranged attacks, strategic resource use, city states

I do have a problem with this change as some of the most interesting civ games I had contained very little fighting.

But the real problem is in how warfare works. I think that since adding things like giant death robots was necessary things might not turn out too good.

[Starwars]

I don't like the robot myself but the thing that I suspect will make me adore Civ V combat is the one unit per tile. I think that will make a huge (positive) change for how wars play out. City States are also looking like they will have a pretty big impact on how things can play out.

[Thorton_AP]

Not sure where you get the idea that the whole game focus shifted to warfare.

 

They greatly changed warfare (which is a good thing), but the other aspects of the game are still very much present.

Why do I think the focus has changed?

Lets see compared to civ 4:

removed - religion, tech trading ,health

simplified - improvements, happiness

added - hexes, ranged attacks, strategic resource use, city states

I do have a problem with this change as some of the most interesting civ games I had contained very little fighting.

But the real problem is in how warfare works. I think that since adding things like giant death robots was necessary things might not turn out too good.

 

Happiness hasn't been simplified. It's been wholistically changed to something different. It's arguably more complicated now because in games prior, each city had it's own happiness rating that was very easy to manage on a city-to-state basis (i.e. get luxury resources and build happiness buildings), now it is civilization wide and influenced by factors such as the total population of your civilization, as well as the number of cities that you have.

 

Religion in Civ 4 was neat, but ultimately not something particularly interesting because they did the (understandably) safe route of their implementation. Given the new social policy progressions, I suspect Civ 5 will be as combat focused as my Civ 4 games were. Never mind that there are severe happiness penalties if you start to warmonger in an aggressive manner. You can go and annex cities or create puppets if you'd like to go Napoleon, but it's going to be a nightmare to your new global happiness rating. Which has effects such as slowing your population growth, as well as slowing/stopping any progression to a natural golden age for your civilization.

 

Tech trading is a wash for me. I often played games that prevented you from trading techs you didn't research yourself simply to stymie it. Especially with the AI going trade happy. There is, however, the diplomatic option of initiating research pacts with other civilizations in order to improve your research capabilities has now been added.

 

What I will probably miss is espionage though.

 

 

100% disagree with the "problem" of how warfare works. Individual units have become more valuable, and it's no longer a "one side MUST die" for each combat. Combat actually appears interesting now.

 

As for adding stuff like giant death robots.... I don't know how you could conclude it was "necessary." Seems to me to be something that was added for fun more than anything.

Edited September 20, 2010 by Thorton_AP

[entrerix]

i love the idea of giant robots being included.

 

in the year 2049 i expect all first world countries to have giant robots as the backbone of their armed forces.

[Thorton_AP]

Sometimes I wish that Civ would take a more alpha centauri like approach and allow some sort of unit creation, but it'd have to be mitigated within reason which is why I doubt it'd ever happen.

[Thorton_AP]

So excited so excited omg I'm so excited :D

[Tigranes]

fanboi.

 

I'm still thinking about it - I don't know. With both Civ 3 and Civ 4 I found that I liked it, and they were well made games, but I kept getting put off by a few weird things - that (a) it's really designed for random maps where Romans fight Brazilians and Napoleon, not any sort of historical games on world maps, (b) the make-work involved in stuff like railroads and pollution even though I think I like the endgame more, © the weird suspension of disbelief required in combat. I love how they killed stacking and I think combat will be more fun now, but I think it'll get even weirder as you're doing tactical combat on a strategic level, e.g. artillery firing over a river and a mountain or something.

[Walsingham]

What i don't really GET is how you get concentration of force if you have no stacking.

[Calax]

What i don't really GET is how you get concentration of force if you have no stacking.

Same way real armies have it, several units in formation with firepower that jumps over the frontliners.

[Bos_hybrid]

OMG, I was so caught up with F1 2010 I forgot this was coming out....

 

Time to stock up on food and beer.

[Malcador]

My CE won't arrive until Monday, bah. Ah well.

[Starwars]

I hate that I have to wait since I'm in the EU. Damnit.

[Calax]

AAAAANNNNDDD it's decrypting on steam... slowly

[Thorton_AP]

Decrypted!!! WOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!

 

STUPID WORK! >.<

[Morgoth]

I'm deliberately not trying the demo, lest I fall in love with it, which in return might ruin my life.

[Pidesco]

I'll probably have to wait until monday to play the full game. Woe is me!

[Starwars]

I've already been sucked into the demo, haha.

[Calax]

Ok, militairly Nobunaga is Overpowered.

 

His unique ability is that the japanese soldiers still have the attacking and defensive power as if they were full strength, even if they're at 1/503943151.

[Pidesco]

RPS is saying that the non military side of things is a bit gimped.

[Hurlshort]

Ok, militairly Nobunaga is Overpowered.

 

His unique ability is that the japanese soldiers still have the attacking and defensive power as if they were full strength, even if they're at 1/503943151.

 

Do not question the shogun!

[TheHarlequin]

What i don't really GET is how you get concentration of force if you have no stacking.

Same way real armies have it, several units in formation with firepower that jumps over the frontliners.

 

The problem with that concept is each hex is, roughly, a few hundred square miles. Granted its been awhile since I was in the military but I am pretty sure I could fit a few divisions, comfortably, in that sized area. Look at WW2 and the European theater for example and how many divisions and brigades were in a very small area. If there were micro maps and each hex a few square miles then I can swallow this. But looking and the size of the hex in relation to the world map size I can't don't follow that logic nor find it very realistic.

[Calax]

Honestly, it only really means that you don't need to build a skillion units to kill an empire because the cities don't have 15 troops within. Instead you encircle, and use bowmen/catapults to beat the city into submission.

 

Question: Do they only have support for 8 people overall in multiplayer online? Not 16 or whatever?

 

Me and my friends are trying to fit 5 players and 5 comps in a 10 player map, but the computer doesn't seem to like that at all.

Edited September 21, 2010 by Calax