Civilization V Catch-All

cyrax wrote:
Prozac wrote:

EDIT: Damn... Tannhausered :(

Seven hours later. That's got to be a record.

Uh...look above...or below in this case:

Tannhauser at 10:28 pm PST on Thursday, February 25th wrote:

*Youtube of Civ V trailer*

Certis at 11:52 am PST on Friday, February 26th wrote:

A new, non-gameplay trailer here.

The big boss got Tannhausered by Tannhauser over twelve hours earlier. That's more impressive to me.

What's Captain Anderson doing in Civilization? Ooh, does this mean we get to go to Mars and uncover the Prothean ruins?! Maybe that will be our doorway into Alpha Centauri 2!

I welcome the changes, I'd be pretty disappointed if it was just a UI refresh for CivIV. I don't believe for a second that they'll tank the franchise.

So far all the screenshots make the terrain look way too small when you consider that units can't stack.

Like, each unit seems like it's 10 miles across.

One thing I always thought Civ games failed to model realistically was that you couldn't have a bunch of small farm towns in Kansas sending food to your metropolis in New York. Instead a city's food must come only from the lands immediately around it. Doesn't sound like this will change in Civ5.

Quintin_Stone wrote:

One thing I always thought Civ games failed to model realistically was that you couldn't have a bunch of small farm towns in Kansas sending food to your metropolis in New York. Instead a city's food must come only from the lands immediately around it. Doesn't sound like this will change in Civ5.

Well you sort of could. The last civ I played really extensively was Civ2 and you could setup a trade route with food to another one of your cities. I never remembered if it was permanent or a one time thing, but that would make sense as a means to ship food to a place that is in need.

Not entirely sure if I'm making things up.

Flaming arrows!

IGN Preview wrote:

The hex map and one-unit restriction makes combat much more tactical.

That's supposed to be a good thing? Tactical combat in a game about controlling the known world?

I always thought it would be cool to slip a bit of Sim City into Civilization, such as broadly dictating how city populations are settled. High density apartment buildings, stacked in rows like dominoes? Cottage country? Suburban mazes?

I suppose cottage improvements stand in for satellite suburbia in Civ IV, but I wouldn't mind seeing cities change depending on how much available space there is for their populations.

I'd like to see cities expand into multiple hexes. If I have a 1000 year old city with the largest population in the world, shouldn't that be a huge tract of land like Tokyo? Shouldn't battles in the city be fought across several hexes? Wouldn't it be visually more striking to see a megatropolis sprawling on the map, instead of a city with "12" or "16" next to it?

I'm pretty excited from what I've seen so far. It'll no doubt be different from previous Civs, but as others have said Civ4+expansions+mods is already a quite excellent example of traditional Civ that would be hard to improve upon in a big way. Hopefully by taking risks for Civ5 and going after a slightly different feel we'll be left with two excellent Civ games to choose from.

Moving away from the 'war as a sequence of city sieges' that has so characterized all of the previous Civs has me especially excited. While it may not, as Bruce Geryk would say, "be historically accurate" to have only one unit per tile, I think the overall character of combat should be more plausible and fun because of it.

Queueball wrote:

Well you sort of could. The last civ I played really extensively was Civ2 and you could setup a trade route with food to another one of your cities. I never remembered if it was permanent or a one time thing, but that would make sense as a means to ship food to a place that is in need.

Not entirely sure if I'm making things up.

Hmm, it's been a long long time since I've played Civ 2, so I can't say one way or the other. Civ3 and Civ4 definitely did not have this.

Quintin_Stone wrote:
Queueball wrote:

Well you sort of could. The last civ I played really extensively was Civ2 and you could setup a trade route with food to another one of your cities. I never remembered if it was permanent or a one time thing, but that would make sense as a means to ship food to a place that is in need.

Not entirely sure if I'm making things up.

Hmm, it's been a long long time since I've played Civ 2, so I can't say one way or the other. Civ3 and Civ4 definitely did not have this.

I have a vague sort of memory that this was in one of the Call to Power games, certainly you could do item specific routes.

davet010 wrote:
Quintin_Stone wrote:
Queueball wrote:

Well you sort of could. The last civ I played really extensively was Civ2 and you could setup a trade route with food to another one of your cities. I never remembered if it was permanent or a one time thing, but that would make sense as a means to ship food to a place that is in need.

Not entirely sure if I'm making things up.

Hmm, it's been a long long time since I've played Civ 2, so I can't say one way or the other. Civ3 and Civ4 definitely did not have this.

I have a vague sort of memory that this was in one of the Call to Power games, certainly you could do item specific routes.

They had it in Civ2. The caravan units you built could either give their destination city a lump of free shields or an ongoing exchange of one food.

Staats wrote:

I'd like to see cities expand into multiple hexes. If I have a 1000 year old city with the largest population in the world, shouldn't that be a huge tract of land like Tokyo? Shouldn't battles in the city be fought across several hexes? Wouldn't it be visually more striking to see a megatropolis sprawling on the map, instead of a city with "12" or "16" next to it?

I like it. It would also work well with their one unit per hex system. With a big city you can have multiple defensive units.

I haven't read any previews, is there word if you can stack on cities? If not, players are going to have to decide what's more important when settling: growth or defense. If you do choose a defensive location I'd imagine it would hinder not only your opponent's locomotion, but yours as well.

Gunner wrote:

They had it in Civ2. The caravan units you built could either give their destination city a lump of free shields or an ongoing exchange of one food.

Bwaha, I'm not (too) crazy.

I wonder why they took it out. Unless it was a really game balance changer (which I can't recall it being...).

cyrax wrote:

I haven't read any previews, is there word if you can stack on cities? If not, players are going to have to decide what's more important when settling: growth or defense. If you do choose a defensive location I'd imagine it would hinder not only your opponent's locomotion, but yours as well.

The IGN article says: "Cities will automatically defend themselves now, and can benefit from increased defense based on certain structures or technologies, so you don't necessarily need to garrison a unit for defense but you can if you want to."

Shack has a preview up now as well.

so....lets especulate a bit. I have my city, it is protected by a unit fortified on the tile, the city lies in a plain, it has 6, walkable, tiles next to it, each one is also occupied by a unit. So...I can't help but wonder, where the hell do I put the new unit I've just produced in my city cue?

Only having to capture Capitals for a Conquest victory makes a lot more sense. Sure, it might be silly or broken in a two player duel, but I see it making more sense in large games. I'm sure there will be some kind of option for "total domination victory: eliminate all cities" too.

*Edit*
Here's the relevant bit in the article about culture, to address the speculation on the last page:

Borders are also handled a bit differently. Instead of just dropping a big culture bomb at certain thresholds, a city's territory will keep better pace with population and grow one tile at a time. Now when you get a new tile, you'll probably have no other choice but to work it. It's still based on culture, and you can drop some cash to speed things up, but culture growth will be more relevant over the long term in Civ V. You also won't pick the tiles individually. Instead the game will weight growth towards "good" tiles like grassland or wheat and away from "bad" tiles like forests and mountains. It makes sense that culture would tend to spread quickest where people can settle and make a living, but we're not sure yet what impact this has on production-focused cities that need lots of mines and forests.

Even though there are no more city defections, the AI will pay closer attention to the growth of your borders. If you found a city right on the edge of Rameses' borders and suddenly start rapidly taking over all the land that produces the most food, you're likely provoking him to start a fight.

cyrax wrote:
Staats wrote:

I'd like to see cities expand into multiple hexes. If I have a 1000 year old city with the largest population in the world, shouldn't that be a huge tract of land like Tokyo? Shouldn't battles in the city be fought across several hexes? Wouldn't it be visually more striking to see a megatropolis sprawling on the map, instead of a city with "12" or "16" next to it?

I like it. It would also work well with their one unit per hex system. With a big city you can have multiple defensive units.

Agreed, it would be very cool to see your capital spread across multiple tiles, but only for large maps. I think small maps would need to stick to the one-tile city format, at least for multiplayer.

feeank wrote:

so....lets especulate a bit. I have my city, it is protected by a unit fortified on the tile, the city lies in a plain, it has 6, walkable, tiles next to it, each one is also occupied by a unit. So...I can't help but wonder, where the hell do I put the new unit I've just produced in my city cue?

You're not thinking with portals.

I feel like that with the word that there is only going to be one unit per square that we may be seeing the death of the worker unit, perhaps moving to a system similar to Call to Power where you had Public Works (PW) points that you could use to buy improvements?

Personally, I am OK with that idea, because it gets a little tedious in the early game to always have to look out for barbarians who go after your workers, meaning you have to stop building what you built and then move the worker away so he doesn't get taken. (Maybe my ire for this is amplified because this is the current situation I face in the GWJ 5 Pitboss Game?)

Apollo0507 wrote:

I feel like that with the word that there is only going to be one unit per square that we may be seeing the death of the worker unit, perhaps moving to a system similar to Call to Power where you had Public Works (PW) points that you could use to buy improvements?

Personally, I am OK with that idea, because it gets a little tedious in the early game to always have to look out for barbarians who go after your workers, meaning you have to stop building what you built and then move the worker away so he doesn't get taken. (Maybe my ire for this is amplified because this is the current situation I face in the GWJ 5 Pitboss Game?)

That's what the great wall is for.

Wembley wrote:
Apollo0507 wrote:

I feel like that with the word that there is only going to be one unit per square that we may be seeing the death of the worker unit, perhaps moving to a system similar to Call to Power where you had Public Works (PW) points that you could use to buy improvements?

Personally, I am OK with that idea, because it gets a little tedious in the early game to always have to look out for barbarians who go after your workers, meaning you have to stop building what you built and then move the worker away so he doesn't get taken. (Maybe my ire for this is amplified because this is the current situation I face in the GWJ 5 Pitboss Game?)

That's what the great wall is for.

For 1 out of 16 players, the other 15 have to slum it with the horde.

Wembley wrote:

That's what the great wall is for.

That's what archers on guard duty are for!

Apollo0507 wrote:

I feel like that with the word that there is only going to be one unit per square that we may be seeing the death of the worker unit, perhaps moving to a system similar to Call to Power where you had Public Works (PW) points that you could use to buy improvements?

Personally, I am OK with that idea, because it gets a little tedious in the early game to always have to look out for barbarians who go after your workers, meaning you have to stop building what you built and then move the worker away so he doesn't get taken. (Maybe my ire for this is amplified because this is the current situation I face in the GWJ 5 Pitboss Game?)

They've said that each tile can hold one civilian unit and one military unit. And workers were specifically mentioned. Maybe in Civ VI.

There's a nice info sheet thats been compiled on CivFanatics with just about everything we currently know -- if you're into that sorta thing. No tech trading is an interesting change.

I hold out some hope this one will be better than 4, that last one was a real dog. (yeah I know I am probably the only person in the world who thinks that)

I will probably pick it up but to me the way they do CIV games now just dont feel like CIV games.

Gunner wrote:

No tech trading is an interesting change.

I don't mind seeing it go... I think that the "joint research project" is a nice update from straight tech trading.