Civ V Announced

[Krill]

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

Um, you had to defend the land in CIV. letting someone walk up to your city and collateral it meant you died very quickly in MP (against competent players). This isn't some huge change that has just happened out of hte blue.

[Donegeal]

Yeah... but most people play SP and didn't have to worry about it much. Now they do.

[wodan11]

Yeah... but most people play SP and didn't have to worry about it much. Now they do.

Even in SP, it's kind of foolish to permit the AIs unchallenged access to pillage your terrain.

(Unless playing a citadel defense strategy, but seems like the same situation will apply in ciV.)

[giblets]

Um, you had to defend the land in CIV. letting someone walk up to your city and collateral it meant you died very quickly in MP (against competent players). This isn't some huge change that has just happened out of hte blue.

Sure, counterattacking an enemy stack was usually the best defense. But the amount of firepower you could bring to bear on your opponent simply depended on how many units you could throw at them, while in civ5 it looks like the amount of tiles you control matters. So war isn't just about taking down enemy units and cities anymore, but also controlling territory. Front lines spanning the entire border instead of stacks. I think that's a pretty big change.

[Krill]

Sure, counterattacking an enemy stack was usually the best defense. But the amount of firepower you could bring to bear on your opponent simply depended on how many units you could throw at them, while in civ5 it looks like the amount of tiles you control matters. So war isn't just about taking down enemy units and cities anymore, but also controlling territory. Front lines spanning the entire border instead of stacks. I think that's a pretty big change.

Huh? That's exactly how it is now. You control as much land as possible, so that any aggressive move an enemy makes allows you to road up and hit them before they can hit you. That's how it is not just in your borders, but in unclaimed territories (which is why workers are settlers are so important in warfare). It's nothing new if you understood how warfare works in CIV. The strategy is identical, the tactics are identical, the only thing that is different is how the units themselves are balanced.

In CiV I can see roads playing a massive importance, with you trying to flank the enemy to bring as many units to bear at once. All the 1 unit per tile rule does is increase the value of fast movers (so that you can flank the enemy in terms of width on the map), which means fast movers and resources need to be balanced to perfection, no one should have multiple easy horse resources (due to the 1 resource = 1 unit rule), and the value of workers with which to road. If there is a public works system, then I'm reserving judgement to see how it works, but that could be either beautiful or fugly depending on the implementation. The way units themselves are balanced becomes important, but rock/paper/scissors type combat would be utterly broken and the defender (or whoever gets to attack first in neutral land) should have a very large advantage.

EDIT: Examples of how to interdict land in CIV:
MTDG on CFC, SANCTA v. Kaz, the power of a combat settler and truly mind numbing stupid research order.

Realms Beyond PB1, 11 player FFA. I had to take on a 3v1 and take out a specific city. I got the city, even though we were basically equally matched unit wise (yeah, I managed to slave out a pretty big army...) but I had to position the units in a very specific order to hold off any attack on my stack while it was out in the open.

[giblets]

Okay, I think I see what you mean, civ4 does have situations where controlling land helps with maneuvering a stack into position or intercepting an enemy stack. But I wouldn't say "the tactics are identical" when stacks are being done away with. To me it seems like war will have a very different character.

[Krill]

Fair point, on the surface the tactics probably won't be identical, but the meta-game underneath will be.

[Diadem]

I read that Civ5 was announced, and had to run back to this site to read more about it

The changes sound very good. Hexagonal squares, awesome. Better AI and being able to trade land. Gimme!

I'm a bit worried though. The game has only been in development since 2009? That's about a year. Sounds like a horrible rush-job.

Also, finite resources? This brings back nightmares from civ3. It was one of the worst features there.

[Nikolai]

A year of development is more than enough time to make a good game.

[Ming]

Also, finite resources? This brings back nightmares from civ3. It was one of the worst features there.

Yeah... that was pretty bad in Civ 3. I hope they learned from that. I have no problem with Hopefully they will find a a good middle ground between Civ 3 and totally unlimited use as it is now.

But they better be careful. I can understand how you want to make resources an important part of the game, but you have to balance availability of the critical resources. You can live without many resources, but playing with no copper or horses early in a game in Civ IV is a pretty big handicap.

[wodan11]

Most games these days are on a 6-month development cycle.

[Ming]

Plus, I'm sure they have been thinking about Civ IV "unofficially" for a long time already.

[Stuie]

Plus, I'm sure they have been thinking about Civ IV "unofficially" for a long time already.

Hopefully they've been thinking about Civ V, too.

[Krill]

I'm a bit worried though. The game has only been in development since 2009? That's about a year. Sounds like a horrible rush-job.

Also, finite resources? This brings back nightmares from civ3. It was one of the worst features there.

1) link on the development time? This is the first I've heard about it...

2) Civ 3 didn't have finite resources; it did have depleting and reappearing resources though. PTWDG2, with one continent (half the map) had 1 horse, and 1 iron, which depleted. Retarded on the part of the map maker

[giblets]

But they better be careful. I can understand how you want to make resources an important part of the game, but you have to balance availability of the critical resources. You can live without many resources, but playing with no copper or horses early in a game in Civ IV is a pretty big handicap.

They could make it so that strategic resources are very important for offensive operations but only somewhat important for self defense. Then people would want them but at the same time someone with an unlucky start still has a shot at winning.