A new Civilization game has been announced.

[Lorenzo_H]

Civilization V already? http://uk.gamespot.com/pc/strategy/c...om_clk=mostpop

What do you think? I haven't even had time to play Civilization IV that much yet, and now that I just got Warlords, I'm like "whoa there, slow down."

Yeah, granted I love Civilization (I think it is the best series of games so far), but I think that its too soon for a Civ 5!

I genuinely hope now that I can resist the temptation to buy it when it does come around, since I have studies to get to! PC games and life are not the best mix.

[sapi]

One day I'm going to find the time to play a civ game - but it hasn't happened yet

[Lorenzo_H]

Man, you really should play at least one in your life. There are numerous reasons. Its incredibly fun, clean and educational (a great excuse to play it - "mom, I'm researching the Roman tank invasion of the Incas"). It is also very accesible, ie anyone can get into a game, unlike Total War where some depth knowledge is required. If you play a Civ game once, you'll feel like every other game you've ever played were a series of distractions where the devil was trying to keep you away from Civ.

[Bob the Insane]

@Sapi - Classic "it is what time in the morning!???!!?!?" gameplay...

[English assassin]

As i haven't got round to CIV 4 I may not be the best person to comment, but whether this is "good news" depends on (1) if they are just churning the franchise or not and (2) whether Econ21 has mastered his CIV addiction yet.

If you ask me the trouble with CIV is, we've done it. Multiple times, in fact. There is only so much "start with a settler and end up in space" you need. CIV 4 didn't seem to me to offer enough of an advance over CIV 3 to be worthwhile, and unless they can add something really NEW to CIV 5 I will feel the same way. And I mean new new, not just a few more parameters to micromanage.

My prediction: it will be the same old game with fancier graphics.

OT did anyone ever do a CIV type game (or mod for CIV) in a fantasy setting? That might be mildly diverting for a change. Suppose Civfanatics would know...

[BDC]

Combat seriously needs to be improved. I don't know what they did in Warlords (name suggests they improved things), but in vanilla it was simply tagged on. Plus technological advance was so fast and unit movement so slow that everything tended to be horribly obsolete by the time it got half way across a continent.

[Geoffrey S]

OT did anyone ever do a CIV type game (or mod for CIV) in a fantasy setting? That might be mildly diverting for a change. Suppose Civfanatics would know...

Not sure if it counts, but Alpha Centauri springs to mind. Easily my favourite game of all time. The expansive backstory and futuristic setting allowed the makers to fit in game mechanics and create a believable world with unique societies and technology, rather than forcing this world onto artificial game mechanics.

Another feature I love is the fact that basically all factions are the same, with the same customizable units, but they are distinguished by the character of their leaders and the way the act on the map. There really is a clear difference between the behaviour of for instance Gaia's Stepdaughters and The Human Hive, with regards to military behaviour, policies persued and implemented, and their tone of diplomacy. Much better than differentiating factions with unique units in my opinion.

Those aspects and the developing story during the campaign made for a very rich game.

[English assassin]

Yeah, I got SMAC after someone raved about it on here.

They were right too. I'm not sure if any CIV has been any better, and SMAC was, what, 2001?

Probably the best 4.99 i have spent on a game.

[Lorenzo_H]

As i haven't got round to CIV 4 I may not be the best person to comment, but whether this is "good news" depends on (1) if they are just churning the franchise or not and (2) whether Econ21 has mastered his CIV addiction yet.

If you ask me the trouble with CIV is, we've done it. Multiple times, in fact. There is only so much "start with a settler and end up in space" you need. CIV 4 didn't seem to me to offer enough of an advance over CIV 3 to be worthwhile, and unless they can add something really NEW to CIV 5 I will feel the same way. And I mean new new, not just a few more parameters to micromanage.

My prediction: it will be the same old game with fancier graphics.

OT did anyone ever do a CIV type game (or mod for CIV) in a fantasy setting? That might be mildly diverting for a change. Suppose Civfanatics would know...

I wholly agree with this statement, though I faintly hope your prediction is wrong, though I doubt it. They should, under pain of an EA-type reputation, bring some big new features to impress. Maybe incorporate the Space Colonization SMAC type area?

[Mithradates]

I for one believe the next civ game should be Alpah Centauri 2 i loved that game tempted to reinstall it now. For years when i switched my computer off it would say "please dont go the drones need you they look up to you" sigh fond memories.

[pevergreen]

Warlords added new leaders and factions to the game, combat remains unchanged.

[TevashSzat]

The civ games are coming out too fast IMO, I remember getting civilization 3 gold and then not too long after that, civ 4's release date was announced and released. Haven't even bought civ 4 now and civ 5 is coming out already.

[Midnight]

Give me a worthy successor to SMAC and I'll be very, very happy. After Civ4 though, I'm not excited.

[Mithradates]

I doubt it will be civ 5 more likely SMAC or another revamped older game.

[Lehesu]

Eh, GalCiv2 + DA has quenched my previous desire for a new Alpha Centauri game.

[TinCow]

Give me a worthy successor to SMAC and I'll be very, very happy. After Civ4 though, I'm not excited.

Really? I've played every single Civ game that Sid's put out, including SMAC, and I've found Civ4 to be far better than any of them. SMAC was indeed great, but it had many, many flaws (Infinite City Sprawl alone was so aggravating it made long games unenjoyable.) Civ4 seems to have achieve what I thought was unachievable: Great SP and great MP. Massive games that take a week or more to play, and quick games that you can finish in a couple hours. It's the swiss army knife of Strategy games!

[econ21]

Off-topic: I agree about Civ4 being excellent. In terms of my Civ addiction, I recently learned that in the UK, heroin use has increased because of "brown heroin" which you can smoke rather than inject. To me Civ4 is the "brown civ" of the genre. Civ2 was horribly addictive, but strangely unfulfilling - so playing it was like sticking a needle into your body to get a fix. Once you had gone cold turkey, getting back into it was eminently resistable (I put it on my shelf with a label marked "poison"). By contrast, Civ4 is just as addictive as Civ2, but also rather fun. So even when you don't have "one more turn" to get through, the prospect of playing it is rather pleasant and attractive.

Fortunately, my computer keeps cutting out and threatening to melt down when I play Civ4, so my habit is under control. (Although now it has a taste of power, I fear for what my computer will do next when I get back into M2TW after the coming patch.)

On-topic: too soon for a Civ4, but I'd be interested in what other Civ product is produced.

Thinking about how they could improve Civ in the longer term, one thing that occurred to me - beyond hiring CA to do the battles - would be to develop the role-playing aspect. We now have great generals and interesting talking head AI rulers. Why not develop that more, to have families - dynasties - and move a little into roleplaying territory? It's one of the improvements in the TW series - the way the avatars have become more prominent and characterful.

[pdoan8]

One strange thing about the Civ series: it wasn't my favorite game, but everytime I played, I had to forcefully remove myself from the PC. Really strange. That's why I skipped Civ4, uninstalled Civ2&3 and locked up the CDs in the basement.

[CountArach]

Civ 3 was alright, Civ 4 was brilliant, Warlords just made it so much better.

I am so there!

[ChaosLord]

I really enjoyed Civ4 and Warlords, but this definitly feels to be too soon. I fear it'll be mostly graphical updates rather than what actually matters like is so common. I guess if Soren is still on the team theres a good chance the AI will be worthwhile, and Firaxis hasn't given a major dissapointment yet... But I still worry.

[frogbeastegg]

One thing which seems to have been over looked is this:

a new Civilization game is planned. The report did not specify whether or not said game would be the inevitable Civilization V or a spin-off like CivCity: Rome. The prospects of a console or portable Civilization title have also been rumored.

It seems to me very likely that it will be another CivCity (yay!), or a DS civ, or something. Not Civ5.

[Kekvit Irae]

I am pleased with the new features of Warlords, but I emulate the voices of the majority in this thread: "Give me SMAC2, or give me death!"

[screwtype]

If you ask me the trouble with CIV is, we've done it. Multiple times, in fact. There is only so much "start with a settler and end up in space" you need. CIV 4 didn't seem to me to offer enough of an advance over CIV 3 to be worthwhile, and unless they can add something really NEW to CIV 5 I will feel the same way. And I mean new new, not just a few more parameters to micromanage.

Yup, that pretty much sums up my feeling about the game too. In fact I prefer CivIII, there's something claustrophic and antiseptic about the CivIV map and interface that turns me off. What little changes they made to the gameplay from CivIII were mostly gimmicks, and many of the other changes they made actually worsened the gameplay instead of improving it.

My prediction: it will be the same old game with fancier graphics.

I might have been prepared to dispute that, except that after the disappointment of M2TW I can no longer blame a company's move to 3D (as in RTW) for an accompanying lack of gameplay.

[caravel]

Off-topic: I agree about Civ4 being excellent. In terms of my Civ addiction, I recently learned that in the UK, heroin use has increased because of "brown heroin" which you can smoke rather than inject. To me Civ4 is the "brown civ" of the genre. Civ2 was horribly addictive, but strangely unfulfilling - so playing it was like sticking a needle into your body to get a fix. Once you had gone cold turkey, getting back into it was eminently resistable (I put it on my shelf with a label marked "poison"). By contrast, Civ4 is just as addictive as Civ2, but also rather fun. So even when you don't have "one more turn" to get through, the prospect of playing it is rather pleasant and attractive.

Fortunately, my computer keeps cutting out and threatening to melt down when I play Civ4, so my habit is under control. (Although now it has a taste of power, I fear for what my computer will do next when I get back into M2TW after the coming patch.)

On-topic: too soon for a Civ4, but I'd be interested in what other Civ product is produced.

Thinking about how they could improve Civ in the longer term, one thing that occurred to me - beyond hiring CA to do the battles - would be to develop the role-playing aspect. We now have great generals and interesting talking head AI rulers. Why not develop that more, to have families - dynasties - and move a little into roleplaying territory? It's one of the improvements in the TW series - the way the avatars have become more prominent and characterful.

I was also a Civ2 (and Civ) addict, and I know exactly what you mean by "unfulfilling". For me the game had no longevity and this killed the addiction eventually. I have often wondered over the advantages of Civ3/4 over Civ2. Is it purely cosmetic or are they somehow more of a game? I haven't played a Civ game since Civ2 so I'm totally in the dark as to their progress.

[English assassin]

Well, its all incremental. I have or had Civ 2, CTP and Civ 3, and I would say Civ 3 was certainly a worthwhile upgrade over the earlier two. Strategic resources were good. Diplomacy worked better. So I would guess if you jumped straight from Civ 2 to civ 4 you would feel the same, only more so

There's no getting away from the fact that its basically the same game though. Either you get excited moving little men about the grid and fiddling with a tax rate or you don't.

As a recovered "addict" who knows exactly what Econ21 means I am not in a hurry to get any more Civ, personally. its too much like work.

[econ21]

I was also a Civ2 (and Civ) addict, and I know exactly what you mean by "unfulfilling". For me the game had no longevity and this killed the addiction eventually. I have often wondered over the advantages of Civ3/4 over Civ2. Is it purely cosmetic or are they somehow more of a game? I haven't played a Civ game since Civ2 so I'm totally in the dark as to their progress.

CivIV has some significant improvements over Civ2 (I found CivIII horrible and did not play it much at all):

(1) Perhaps the main thing is that the combat is rather satisfying now. I found Civ2's combat about its worst feature. My short experience with CivIII just underlined that: moving a mass of single units one square a turn for 100 years; it was excruciating. By contrast, in CivIV, combat centres around a few combined arms stacks of units - real armies - and seems faster paced. There is a decent RPS system in it, as well as a trade-off between stacking and greater exposure to bombardment. Units earn experience and get promotions, which make you care about them much more than you ever do in TW as well as make you customise your army in interesting ways. One of my most fun experiences was trying to fend off Catherine the Great's tanks with no oil; I felt like the 1941 Wehrmacht trying to cope with T-34s and KV1s. The brown underwear time only abated when I managed to get a few marines the AT promotion. The quality vs quantity issue (aka how can a spearman kill a battleship?) is very well handled: high tech gives you an edge, but the fuzzy-wuzzies will overwhelm you if you push it too far. For some reason, wars in the Ancient and Medieval period are more viable now - in Civ2, they tended to be too slow and costly to be worth pursuing. Plus the AI is rather nice - often it will emerge from the fog of war with several massive stacks and you are scrabbling to cope. I still don't play Civ as a warmonger (although this seems required for higher difficulty levels - I don't understand this: why call it "civilisation" if warmongering is the ultimate strategy?) - it is still too slow to be bothered with. If I wanted to conquer the world, I'd play TW which obviously has vastly better combat (those amazing battles). Still the combat is pretty decent - especially if you are peaceful turtling player, who has invested in tech and has a weak army, then must fight for your life.

(2) The silly OCS (one city sprawl?) strategy of Civ2 is gone and without the hateful cultural penalty to growth of Civ3. Often you want about 8 cities on large as your core; more are just extra. This makes the gameplay more relaxed - more about quality than quantity. The national wonders increase the emphasis on specialising your cities - commerce, science, production, military, religious, Great person etc. It's fun nurturing them.

(3) There is no "right way" to win. In Civ2, at one stage, I could win Diety by just picking a particular path (centred around OCS and particular wonders). Every game would play out the same. In Civ4 at moderate difficulty levels (Prince), there are multiple ways to play and no one Wonder is essential (in fact, they are probably not that worthwhile - but I just like them for flavour).

(4) The diplomatic AI - which even in Civ2 had fun distinct personalities - is even more characterful and this adds to the diplomacy. Dealing with Ghandhi feels different from surly Stalin, which feels diferent from psycho Monetzuma etc. There are quite a few diplomatic options and you can always see how you are regarded and why. It's very well done and TW could learn from it.

(5) The game has more rewarding historical flavour. I really like the element of religion - spreading it and how it affects diplomacy. The Great People are great fun - it is just so cool to be rewarded by having Elvis spawn allownig you to perform a culture bomb near an enemy city or having an Einstein who can establish a science academy. You can play so as to get more of these people and affect their type, or you can ignore them. The variety between factions is nice too - their traits, their unique unit and building.

It still sucks a frightening amount of time if you play it, as I prefer, on huge with terra. But for the above reasons, I usually end feeling it's time well spent. By contrast, in Civ2, I'd feel like I've just lost a weekend or two. I'm still not in a hurry to go back to it though. Too all consuming.

[doc_bean]

It still sucks a frightening amount of time if you play it, as I prefer, on huge with terra. But for the above reasons, I usually end feeling it's time well spent. By contrast, in Civ2, I'd feel like I've just lost a weekend or two. I'm still not in a hurry to go back to it though. Too all consuming.

One of the huge benefits of civIV, imo, is that you can play relatively short games, which take less than 10 hours. But I'm still keeping it on the shelf for now...

[TinCow]

One of my favorite aspects of Civ 4 is how multiplayer friendly it is. My wife and I regularly play games together and it's immensely easy and fun. There are even 'deathmatch' style maps that are designed for multiplayer and team games. So many options to make the game exactly what you want it to be. Pretty much any style of play you've ever had in any of the previous Civ games can be duplicated in some manner.

I agree that it's not really "new" in any sense, but I think the proper way to look at Civ 4 is that it comes closer to perfecting the game than any other version, especially if you play with the Warlords expansion. If there was one thing I could change about the game, it would be to make the tech tree larger. That said, they've done an excellent job of making sure that the game is balanced. There's nothing that's too overpowered or underpowered. Everything can be countered by something (except possibly Praetorians in the ancient era).

[Pindar]

Does CivIV have a real world map?

[TinCow]

If you mean does it have a map of Earth, yes. If you mean does it have a setting that generates 'realistic' maps, yes. I think the "Fractal" map setting which comes with Warlords is the best 'natural' map generator I've seen. It's comparable to the generator in SMAC, which was very good.