Civilization V Catch-All

Hexes!

And I want a robust, in-game friends list for quick MP games.

Apollo0507 wrote:
Metropolis

With you on that.

AUs_TBirD wrote:
Civilization ends due to release of new Civilization? ...with hexes?

ubrakto wrote:
The loss of religion stings a bit. I genuinely liked that aspect of Civ IV.

Glad I'm not the only one.

Looking forward to what they do with this one.

Truly...spreading my religion(s) is a big part of my Civ IV experience, I'm not into Civ combat/warfare that much, I prefer to subdue the other civs with my unmatched wit and espiritual enlightment.

feeank wrote:
AUs_TBirD wrote:
Civilization ends due to release of new Civilization? ...with hexes?

ubrakto wrote:
The loss of religion stings a bit. I genuinely liked that aspect of Civ IV.

Glad I'm not the only one.

Looking forward to what they do with this one.

Truly...spreading my religion(s) is a big part of my Civ IV experience, I'm not into Civ combat/warfare that much, I prefer to subdue the other civs with my unmatched wit and espiritual enlightment.

I'm similar. I never was good at combat until I got armor which is very late game. The most fun ways claiming cities through culture and religion. Very Borg like. Usually I just kept the army powerful enough at each city to prevent it from getting overrun.

Civilization V has a page on the Steam Store, no pre-orders yet. The Steam store has the release date pegged to September.

Here is the Steam write-up:

Steam wrote:
Sid Meier's Civilization® V is the fifth offering in the multi-award winning Civilization strategy game series featuring the famous "just one more turn" addictive gameplay that has made it one of the greatest game series of all time.

In Civilization V, players strive to become Ruler of the World by establishing and leading a civilization from the dawn of man into the space age, waging war, conducting diplomacy, discovering new technologies, going head-to-head with some of history’s greatest leaders, and building the most powerful empire the world has ever known.

  • Believable World: More than just a strategy game -- the expanded visuals and immersive audio invite would-be kings to take up the reigns of power and forge a mighty empire. Civilization V offers a limitless variety of vast, realistic and diverse landscapes for players to explore, battle over and claim as their own.
  • Inviting Presentation: An intuitive interface eases both new players and Civ veterans into the game. Guided by a set of trusted advisors who will explain game functionality and provide counsel for significant decisions, even first-time players will be confident in the choices they make.
  • Huge Battles: Combat is more exciting and engaging than ever before. Wars between empires feel massive with armies spreading across the landscape. The addition of ranged bombardment allows players to fire weapons from behind the front lines, challenging players to develop clever new strategies to guarantee victory on the battlefield.
  • In-Game Community Hub: Compete with Civ players from all over the globe via the Internet and Play by Email, or compete locally in Hotseat and LAN matches, offering endless ways to rule the world. The game itself now serves as the hub of community activity, featuring the ability to share scenarios, compare scores, brag about achievements and visit one of the thriving Civ fansites without leaving the game. It’s now easier than ever for players to become involved in the global Civ Community.
  • Modability: With unprecedented modding tools, players will have unlimited options for modifying Civilization V any way they like.

Sid Meier's Forum Poster

I want them to include more late game tech and units in the default game. Stuff that goes beyond the modern age.

Also, I think the way they did religion in Civ4 was rather well done.

Yonder wrote:
That resource thing is a good point, I wasn't really thinking about the fact that a turn can be hundreds of years. On those timescales you would be continuously using new horses to replace aging ones. I still think that a one-one match up is a little low, but thinking about it at lunch today I think that they are going for a much smaller military in general, so it will probably all remain pretty balanced. I'm also guessing that the change in the nature of the game from this and the lack of stacking will make the bombardment and whatnot make more sense too.

I figure the overall idea will be that if you have something like this:

__<br /> __/2 \__<br /> /1 \__/3 \<br /> \__/5 \__/<br /> /4 \__/6 \<br /> \__/* \__/<br /> \__/

then if a unit in 5 is attacking the asterisk, and has allied units in 4 or 6, they can support the attack. And then the advantage of ranged units would be that they can support from a bit further back. Maybe. Honestly, I'd find it more sensical if artillery and strong mobility units (like horse archers, say) could support from a greater distance, while archers would have a different sort of advantage.

I guess we'll see when we see.

AUs_TBirD wrote:
ubrakto wrote:
The loss of religion stings a bit. I genuinely liked that aspect of Civ IV.

Glad I'm not the only one.

Looking forward to what they do with this one.

I hope they include something similar, like what they did with corporations. There were always two solid problems with Civ religions: first, they're tied to specific technologies (why does the first person to get meditation found Buddhism? etc. That's not even vaguely realistic—a realistic view of early state religions would involve various city-state based deities agglomerating into pantheons via conquest, maybe the rise of mystery religions, etc. There's a variety you can have here, and what Civ has is definitely not it.) Second, they weren't just tied to specific techs, they were tied to real-world religions, which is always going to get somebody's goat.

I'd love to have a Civ game that featured a more realistic religion model, but I doubt they'd want to go there primarily because it's a significantly more fluid and complicated beast.

And if you're going to try to tame that beast, you might as well make it more general. Languages and "cultural values" share significant traits with religions. If you abstract the whole thing away to some sort of gestalt "cultural bias" thing, you could potentially get a lot more mileage out of it and avoid irrational responses to the effects of having or not having something specifically called "religion".

(In case it's not obvious, I would really really love this. It models so many more sorts of real world things. Russia's aristocrats' infatuation with western European life really had nothing to do with religion or language, but it had a pretty significant impact nonetheless.)

F-15 Strike Eagle III?

wordsmythe wrote:
F-15 Strike Eagle III?

This.

Did anyone like corporations in Civ4? I did not.

Civ IV is a great game, but it's not perfect. For one thing, most of the time, the early BC and AD eras ALWAYS proceed very, very quickly, even when they're usually the strongest parts of the game.

You don't have an easy choice to play "only Classical," only "Medieval" or "Only Modern" games. In fact, the modern, steam, and Napoleonic era warfare in Civ IV could use a good deal of work, as did water warfare and intercontinental warfare in the Age of Sail.

Wow, that little feature list made me much more interested! Maybe it'll be time to give the full Civ series another shot

Quintin_Stone wrote:
Did anyone like corporations in Civ4? I did not.

Not really. I brought them up as a place where they were explicitly trying to provide a mechanic similar to the early-game religions for the late game. They don't make any more sense than the religions do--again, it's a strange set of pre-defined niches to represent what truly should be a sort of memetic cultural influence. (i.e. a cultural influence that's about contact between cultures at long distances, as opposed to along geographic borders--corporate cultural imperialism, trade contact, missionaries are all examples of this. It's about cultural exchange via travelers, instead of cultural exchange via neighbors.)

Holy sh*t. This thread was just started yesterday, and it's already up to 6 pages ... and I'm just now noticing it.

This is definitely going on my wishlist. If it turns out to be a significant improvement over Civ 4 (if that's even possible), I'll surely grab it during the next Steam holiday sale, assuming it'll be on Steam.

Also, HEXES!

So many inevitable expansions... It breaks my heart a little knowing that I probably will have the wait for this game's Gold Edition to drop to $19.99 in the year 2013 to buy it in good conscience.

Or you jerks will be enablers and stuff and I'll preorder it and get a fancy bonus or something. Gah! Video games!!!

Time to start budgeting - not so much for the $49.99, but the September-October Leave of Absence I'll have to take from work...

Oh my.

GIMME!!

That looks so awesome

I guess it's inevitable that the world is getting another iteration of Civilization...

IMAGE(http://lh3.ggpht.com/_KZ1GU-BLxVA/S377Jztti5I/AAAAAAAAADc/RYDQ6jR3pvA/rocky38ya0.jpg)

On a more serious note, I think Civilization is one of the finest video game series of all time, and there's no denying its standing as a cash cow for the Firaxis empire. As long as people keep buying it, it's reasonable to speculate that Firaxis will keep making it.

But...
I'm going to take what may be the unpopular side this time. I posted on another blog that I think the very polished and matured gameplay presented in Civilization 4 and Beyond the Sword has reached a point that approaches perfection for this franchise. In short, Civilization has had many year(s) in the sun, and is at a point where it can confidently retire "on top of its game".

It's in that vein I also took the opportunity to suggest that it's time for something conceptually new from Sid and his colleagues. There's really not been anything in the way of new game concepts from Firaxis this decade. Instead, we've seen many sequels and remakes (e.g. Civ3 and 4, their add-ons, Pirates!, Railroads!), some of which were quite good, while others were kind of...."meh".

In my other post I said that at this point in his career I'd like to see Sid get back in the studio and record some new material rather than just come out on tour each year and replay the beloved oldies. I know it sounds a little harsh, but it's coming from a fan who has played a lot of Sid's games going way back, and I'm just ready for something new, with the understanding that each attempt is not going to be as golden as the Civ franchise has been. The Civ series is, without doubt, very tried and true, but do you want the Da Vinci of our hobby to keep repainting the Mona Lisa over and over again? Certainly Sid has run out of great ideas for computer games!

Quintin_Stone wrote:
I want them to include more late game tech and units in the default game. Stuff that goes beyond the modern age.

Also, I think the way they did religion in Civ4 was rather well done.

Quintin_Stone wrote:
Did anyone like corporations in Civ4? I did not.

Agreed, and agreed. I never did any Civ4 multiplayer, and I'm definitely a turtler when it comes to that game. I love to just sit and defend and power up, turning off all the victory options other than conquest and territory control (domination?). Then build a huge army and start rolling. In BtS I found myself always playing the Next War mod, because it provided some options for the late-late game that I imagine no one ever hits in an adversarial multiplayer game.

Corporations were too irritating and confusing for me, so I always adopted whichever civil power made it so they didn't function in my territory. Religion, on the other hand, was entertaining and paid off large dividends when I managed to found one or two and then spread them all over the place.

The 4x genre is the only one in which I have zero interest in playing with others. I'm afraid that going online would teach me too much about the optimum way to play, and I'd be unable to go back to just dicking around like I usually do. Here's hoping that Civ5 won't try to reinvent the wheel too much, and will provide another five years of patient empire building late into the night, with the AI difficulty set just low enough to make my eventual victory inevitable.

Nightmare wrote:
- Some victory conditions changed. For example in Conquest you only have to capture all the other capitals. Eliminates boring mop up phase.

Huzzah!

- Built in webbrowser. Sid Meier is also working on a facebook application of Civilization.

BadKen wrote:
Yeah, boy, the one thing I always wished for in Civilization was a built-in web browser. It's so hard to hit alt and tab at the same time, and you really don't want to be away from the game when all that real-time action is going on.

[/sarcasm]


I wonder if the home page URL for this in-game browser will be hard-coded to have the words "civ" and "facebook" in it?
You see stupid feature, I see something a little more "marketing-driven".
[/cynicism]

And yet I see something like Spore's content browser.
You could have easy access to mods and contests like those hosted on sites such as Apolyton.net and Civfanatics, and as close a relationship as those two sites enjoy with the Civ makers, it would make a fair bit of sense.
Edit:
Tannhauser wrote:

  • In-Game Community Hub: Compete with Civ players from all over the globe via the Internet and Play by Email, or compete locally in Hotseat and LAN matches, offering endless ways to rule the world. The game itself now serves as the hub of community activity, featuring the ability to share scenarios, compare scores, brag about achievements and visit one of the thriving Civ fansites without leaving the game. It’s now easier than ever for players to become involved in the global Civ Community.

Wow, I feel like I really nailed that, though I should have read the end of the thread before posting.
End Edit:

I don't really see it as a pure browser, but a specialized tool. Maybe like (as mentioned) the Spore thing, or maybe more like Steam's browser that's more of a Steam-browser.

Who knows.

I'm just giddy for a new Civ and would be glad for a return to some more Civ3-like mechanics/features. Civ4 was clearly "superior", but I just like some of Civ3's things. Like food micromanagement in your cities. That was fun to optimize *sometimes*.

Tannhauser wrote:
Okay, apparently this is gleaned from a Danish gaming magazine. The original post is here, but their server is down from all the traffic. Anyway, some interesting info if it is accurate:
- Switch from squares to hexagons changing the way the game plays. More room for maneuvers and more tactical options.
- Changes to combat. More depth in combat, no more stacking of units. This will lead to bigger focus on terrain.
- Inspired by Panzer General.
- Reintroduction of Bombardment, now archers and siege equipment can shoot over melee units.
- Better diplomatic AI.
- More diplomatic options between players.
- Less "cheating" AI.
- Religion is not a factor anymore.
- Ressources are not infinite. For example one source of horse only supplies enough horses for 1 unit, but when that horseman dies the horses will respawn as a unit. (this confused me alittle, i guess we will have to watch it in action)
- City States as a sort of small countries that never develop beyond their single city. They can provide bonusses if you befriend them, or you can take over their land.
- Civics are out, now there is something called "Social Policies".
- About the same amount of wonders, the tech tree will feel familiar. Great People still in.
- Some victory conditions changed. For example in Conquest you only have to capture all the other capitals. Eliminates boring mop up phase.
- Unique Civ leader bonusses, no more standard "Spiritual" or "Financial".
- DirectX 11 support.
- Built in webbrowser. Sid Meier is also working on a facebook application of Civilization.


Got that magazine yesterday, I have not read the article thoroughly, but took a quick look just now to see if anything was described further.

It seems to imply that the built in web browser is meant for obtaining mods. Maybe it is just 'a list' of mods with auto-installs or similar. EDIT: Or maybe what was quoted in the post above mine

For the 'Social Policies', they mention 'a developmental path making it possible to fine tune your civilization over time. Every policy builds upon the former, so you have to plan your national identity', whatever that means. Maybe it is so you cant jump back and forth between police state and democracy every other year.

Reading the part about resources, I'm still not sure exactly what they mean. The actual text is as vague as the translation in the list above.
Anyway, a bit more about the resource change: 'Jon Shafer explained that the developers did not want the players to spent a whole lot of time each round calculating the optimal path for their economy'.
When horses gave unlimited access to building horses, you did not exactly have to calculate much on it, so I wonder if they might be talking about food and production resources as well (.e.g for the individual cities).

Wonder if they'll get a theme song that's as utterly, painfully gorgeous as IV's.

Mr Crinkle wrote:
Quintin_Stone wrote:
I want them to include more late game tech and units in the default game. Stuff that goes beyond the modern age.

Also, I think the way they did religion in Civ4 was rather well done.

Quintin_Stone wrote:
Did anyone like corporations in Civ4? I did not.

Agreed, and agreed. I never did any Civ4 multiplayer, and I'm definitely a turtler when it comes to that game. I love to just sit and defend and power up, turning off all the victory options other than conquest and territory control (domination?). Then build a huge army and start rolling. In BtS I found myself always playing the Next War mod, because it provided some options for the late-late game that I imagine no one ever hits in an adversarial multiplayer game.

Corporations were too irritating and confusing for me, so I always adopted whichever civil power made it so they didn't function in my territory. Religion, on the other hand, was entertaining and paid off large dividends when I managed to found one or two and then spread them all over the place.

The 4x genre is the only one in which I have zero interest in playing with others. I'm afraid that going online would teach me too much about the optimum way to play, and I'd be unable to go back to just dicking around like I usually do. Here's hoping that Civ5 won't try to reinvent the wheel too much, and will provide another five years of patient empire building late into the night, with the AI difficulty set just low enough to make my eventual victory inevitable.

This sums my feelings up as well.

SwampYankee wrote:
Mr Crinkle wrote:
The 4x genre is the only one in which I have zero interest in playing with others. I'm afraid that going online would teach me too much about the optimum way to play, and I'd be unable to go back to just dicking around like I usually do. Here's hoping that Civ5 won't try to reinvent the wheel too much, and will provide another five years of patient empire building late into the night, with the AI difficulty set just low enough to make my eventual victory inevitable.

This sums my feelings up as well.

Yep. I play the game purposely not learning whatever the min/max is for any thing. I like the way it feels like an epic story, rahter tha calculating strategy game. I use stratwgies that I think would work in the real world with out any regard to how they translate to the game. But I do leave every form of victory on, becasue I do't think there is an optimum way to win in real life. I just see where the game happens to take me.

This is also why I probably just stick to the easier difficulties.

I'd like to see them incorporate global warming better than just random tiles turning into desert every turn near the end of the game. I saw this on the Civ 5 forums and thought it was a good idea.

I am very excited for this.

Hexes are not an entirely novel idea: The open-source Freeciv has supported both a rectangular and a hex map for some time.

Sinkwater wrote:
I'd like to see them incorporate global warming better than just random tiles turning into desert every turn near the end of the game. I saw this on the Civ 5 forums and thought it was a good idea.

Only if they incorporate it being debunked within a decade.

I keed, I keed! IMAGE(http://mynameisearlkress.com/weblog/triumph01.jpg)

Like some others have said, some things they could definitely work a little more on would be:

1. Naval combat. Since owning the oceans were so very, very important for so very, very long and naval warfare has dictated at times who was a "superpower" the CivIV and previous incarnations of it have been just inadequate. It would be nice to see that certain ships in adjacent hexes offer bonuses to armies on land beside them more than just the battleship fire as a cannon into the hex of a city sort of thing.

2. Its always been a bit screwy with economics and the economics of war. I always hated when a Civ that I was trading with heavily, even if they're not exactly on 'friendly' terms with me just up and attacked me. The reason China and America won't go to war anytime soon, even though if you converted their governments to their IV equivalents would devastate not only their economies, but everyone else's. Imagine if your war didn't just affect your economy and the warring partner, but everyone's based on your GNP, which was always fun to see at the end, but wasn't rooted much deeper than the 'trade route' idea. Some sort of added diplomatic recourse would be very interesting. The ability to force embargoes, lay out sanctions and the like would be fun, but may be too deep for this sort of game. (of course, I haven't played BTS, though I have finally bought it so it may be there but the current slew of my games has kept me from really exploring this)

3. Starting barbarian cities almost immediately. Ones that start when the players start that are chosen in random locations outside of spheres of control set by players' initial cities.

4. More resources that change in value during gameplay phases. Take copper, for example. Important early, not so important in the middle of the game, but very important later when electricity comes back. They do this for some, but its just to the point of obsolesence -- ivory, whaling and the like. It would also be interesting if their values fluxuated some even during gameplay to mirror the economics of what's available to a degree.

5. I love the added depth of army units. Long overdue. It would be nice if each civilization had more than one special unit -- one for relatively early game and one for late game.

That's all I can think of for now, but I'm excited about this.

With Civ4, I don't know what it is, but late game starts dragging for me especially the military victory. According to sources on this forum the "capital capture" should help that a lot. Does anybody else experience the late game drag?