Civ V Announced

[CreepyD]

All I can say to this announcement is YAY

I always love going back to play Civ4, but always end up stopping because it gets too slow in the late game.
I always play mods, and they tend to have more detail and so suffer more from late slowdown, taking 1min or more.
At least it will have multicore support in Civ5, I just hope the late game doesn't suffer too much of the same.

Civ (in all it's incarnations) has to be my most played game of all games ever.

[Robert]

Seems like Firaxis has already been working on Civ 5 since March 2009!

http://apolyton.net/forums/showpost.php?p=5562666&postcount=6

Can you confirm, Jon?

[Tattila the Hun]

I wonder how unit support works, aside from raw resources... Always wanted to see Call to Poweresque mobilization level in Civ proper. "They just mobilized their armies, maybe I need to do the same...." And poof, we have a Great War to fight.

[AoA]

Hmmm.....I find myself....uncaring.
Weird, I'm usually psyched about a new Civ game.

I'll get it though and I'm sure I'll love it (unless its Civ3 again)

[AoA]

Also, anyone notice in the 3rd scrrenshot in OzzyKP's post that the what seems to be the city plot appears to be the traditional crossed square arrangement and NOT hexagonal.

Interesting....

[Robert]

It's a farmed tile! Not a city-cross!
It seems like tiles can be divided into parts as well.
Maybe farms grow over time?

[AoA]

Dividing tiles? The squares do form a hexagon. Hmmm...the plot thickens.

[Adagio]

- Switch from squares to hexagons changing the way the game plays. More room for maneuvers and more tactical options.

This could be both bad and good. I'm keeping my mind positive. I need to see it in action, before I can say if I like it or not

- 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.

I hope it doesn't end up becoming too much focused on combat, I like more focus on other areas. But let's see exactly what they have in mind before I can say if it's good or bad

Haven't played Panzer General, but based from screenshots, that's not the direction I would like Civ to go to

- Better diplomatic AI.
- More diplomatic options between players.

This is of course a big plus in my book. I hope they stop the AI from asking for the same things over and over again

- Less "cheating" AI.

Nice

- Religion is not a factor anymore.

I don't like this. Religion was interesting... not perfect, but interesting... Instead of removing it they should fix it. I have plenty of ideas how to fix it, maybe I'll share some other day

- 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)

Nice... never liked the idea that you could build 1000+ sword-units at the same time, only using one iron

- 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.

Sounds interesting

- Civics are out, now there is something called "Social Policies".

Are we talking more like in SMAc or something completely different? I'm looking forward for more information about this

- About the same amount of wonders, the tech tree will feel familiar. Great People still in.

IMHO they should get rid of great people
It's ok with the same amount of wonders, though I would prefer some changes to wonders:

- Get rid of national wonders
- When the game starts some random wonders are taken out, so you can't always use the same tactic (head for wonderX, do this, head for wonderY, do that)...
- Some wonders should require something, more than just "hammers". The Pyramids can only be built in a city near dessert. The Great Wall requires your cities to have a city wall (when the Great Wall is built, it adds protection to the cities with a city wall only)

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

I hope they fix the score so that it fits the victory. In Civ IV you would almost always get a higher score when winning by conquest, than you would by any other victory type, even how much better you played when going for the other victories

- Unique Civ leader bonusses, no more standard "Spiritual" or "Financial".

- DirectX 11 support.

Not sure how much DX11 can add to Civ???

[Norselord]

I am psyched as long as the series doesn't sell itself out.

What i mean by that is to sacrifice the gameplay for bells, whistles, and other shiny baubles that add nothing but glitz to the game. I also hope the game doesn't get dumbed down for the sake of accessibility to the mainstream.

I hope that the tech tree is more sophisticated in depth and breadth, i hope that multiple realistically achievable means to victory are possible (i recognize that CIV has this too, but most still warmonger)

I am afraid that changes are going to be made for the sake of changes, instead of improving on a tried and true formula.

Please don't have CV 'jump the shark'

[giblets]

I'm wondering, if they decide to have a strict limit of one unit per tile, will they get rid of worker units? It would be annoying to not be able to move units through a one tile wide chokepoint because a worker is trying to develop a tile. Or will workers and settlers not count towards that limit?

[vulture]

I'm wondering, if they decide to have a strict limit of one unit per tile, will they get rid of worker units? It would be annoying to not be able to move units through a one tile wide chokepoint because a worker is trying to develop a tile. Or will workers and settlers not count towards that limit?

The only information available so far is:

2. the allready (im)famous "one-per-tile" is only one military unit, civil units aren't a part of it

[LDiCesare]

Hurrah for Hex-based tiles!
Panzer General/Fantasy general game system was very fun. So is Battle for Wesnoth. Having one defender in a city would dramatically change the game though. Civ I and 2 were more or less non-stacked anyway, since stacking units could lead them to be all killed by one attacker in defense, but city-wise, it is a big change.

[Donegeal]

You are right... it is a big change. It forces the defence of the land and not just the city.

[Standup]

As someone else mentioned i would rather they did more with religion rather than removed it. Not surprised though considering how sensitive a topic it has become.

Limiting resources is a step in the right direction. Hopefully though there's still enough to make 'builder' games worthwhile. Most of my wars in CIV4 have been resource related as I tend to be a passive type player.

[wodan11]

As someone else mentioned i would rather they did more with religion rather than removed it. Not surprised though considering how sensitive a topic it has become.

People keep saying that, but the fix is quite easy. Simply ambiguate the religions.

When you found a religion, you are prompted for what you want to name it (with a list of real religion names if you care to use one of them, but you can call it anything you want from Zoroastrianism to Bobism). And, you can also pick what gameplay benefit you want (or else this benefit is derived through gameplay).

Problem solved.