Civilization V!!

[Pannonian]

I want Alpha Centauri 2.

[Boohugh]

With release approaching later this month, thought I'd link a couple of articles from one of the esteemed writers at RPS and their thoughts on the game from the build they were allowed to play:

- http://www.rockpapershotgun.com/2010...ivilization-v/
- http://www.rockpapershotgun.com/2010...ts/#more-35637

I'm really looking forward to the improved combat and lack of unit-stacking, as that has probably been my biggest gripe with the Civ series in the past.

[al Roumi]

I want Alpha Centauri 2.

mir auch, but i'll take CIV 5 anyway...

I think there is some contractual issue with SMAC2, I don't think Firaxis own the rights or something like that.

[frogbeastegg]

I find myself long since resolved to wait for a demo for this one.

On the one hand I don't want a game that's too similar to Civ4; I've already got that, still play it, and see no reason to replace it with a hexier (har har) version. On the other hand some of the changes they've made don't immediately strike me as something I'd like. Army management in particular. Warfare has always been my least favourite civ aspect and now it sounds even less appealing; building stacks and relying on dice roll combat was bad enough without needing to shuffle around every single unit by hand sprawled out across a large area.

I'm also kind of concerned they will have continued to evolve in the direction of the Civ 4 expansions, namely the 'everything and the kitchen sink' school of design. All that stuff they added in the expansions detracts from the core gameplay and forces you to track/maintain/manage less interesting and useful aspects, thereby taking resources and time away from the really interesting stuff. My ideal version of Civ 4 would be the vanilla game with the expansion packs' civs and start up options added, nothing else.

[al Roumi]

I find myself long since resolved to wait for a demo for this one.

On the one hand I don't want a game that's too similar to Civ4; I've already got that, still play it, and see no reason to replace it with a hexier (har har) version. On the other hand some of the changes they've made don't immediately strike me as something I'd like. Army management in particular. Warfare has always been my least favourite civ aspect and now it sounds even less appealing; building stacks and relying on dice roll combat was bad enough without needing to shuffle around every single unit by hand sprawled out across a large area.

I'm also kind of concerned they will have continued to evolve in the direction of the Civ 4 expansions, namely the 'everything and the kitchen sink' school of design. All that stuff they added in the expansions detracts from the core gameplay and forces you to track/maintain/manage less interesting and useful aspects, thereby taking resources and time away from the really interesting stuff. My ideal version of Civ 4 would be the vanilla game with the expansion packs' civs and start up options added, nothing else.

Warfare in Civ has always been a bit micro management heavy, to say the least. If they can make it less so in Civ 5, and yet more tactical that should be interesting.

RPS' preview made the interesting point that civ5 is deliberatley not trying to re-do civ4 and going back to basics in some respects, and probably ending up on a different tangent. Civ4 + all the expansions is probably as deep and detailed as any Civ game, civ 5 sounds like it might be a bit more civ "light" -although that may mean civ with a more rounded experience. Let's just hope the city/building side is not civ "casual".

[frogbeastegg]

Warfare in Civ has always been a bit micro management heavy, to say the least. If they can make it less so in Civ 5, and yet more tactical that should be interesting.

I would really like it if they slowed down the army tech advancement by adding more techs to the tree between each upgrade trigger. Or speed up the construction of units. I often find that by the time I have built my set of unit X it's obsolete because my research unlocked unit Y, so the whole cycle begins again. Upgrading would be a simple one click solution and defuse much of the annoyance, however often it is too expensive to be practical.

If they did that, and made shuffling units around less tedious, and ditched the percentage chance “Ooops, you conveniently managed to lose 8 consecutive 99% win chances in a row and now your entire stack is dead, it’s not a fix honest!” combat in favour of something which feels like less of a lottery, warfare in civ might be tolerable.

In fact that's another thing I'd like them to do: focus less on the later ages and add more meat to the pre-industrial ages. The last third of the game (in terms of tech tree) is the least interesting because it's filled with micro and most of your real work is done, yet it tends to take up well over half of my total hours in any game I play. The earlier stages, where you have the most to do and where there's most variety, fly by.

Civ 4 allowed you to influence both of these things to a degree via settings which were introduced after the original launch. They never quite worked satisfactorily IMO as they were a quick bandage rather than a detailed solution.

The religions were fun, but extreemly bad when game mechanics are taking in concideration. Because the computer requires much less beakers to research a technology, it will always get the starting religions first, unless you are extreemly lucky (they do not pick a religion tech, highly unlikely) or you make npc opponents that does not start with mysticism.

If I wanted to play a game where religion was a core part of my strategy and didn't take a civ with mysticism, I often aimed for a later religion, or let the AI develop and spread an early one before conquering their religious centre and making myself head of it.

Or sometimes I'd join a strong religion and not attempt to become head of it, instead letting the AI civ gain the extra gold and becoming close friends with them. I'd then have a stooge to do most of my fighting for me if I played the diplomacy carefully. Ah, nothing like unleashing a gold-hyped Izzy or Monty on an unsuspecting third party that happened to frown at me ...

But I admit I never liked to play on the difficulties where the AI got large bonuses. Playing against a heavy cheater just makes me feel frustrated no matter what. If I win then it feels hollow because the opponent wasn't smarter; if I lose then it feels like it had little to do with my own playing and everything to do with the unfair bonuses.

Hmm, that would be another wish for civ 5: an AI that's better than Civ 4's already good AI, so cheating bonuses aren't as necessary.

[tibilicus]

I think I might wait a bit before buying Civ 5. I only ever really played it modded, in particular, the Rhyes and Fall of Civilizations mod and other historical mods. Also the excellent Fall From Heaven mod.

[frogbeastegg]

There's a really interesting new lecture about the AI in the civ series here. It's by Soren Johnson, the lead designer for civ 4. Definitely recommended if you like civ or have an interest in game AI in general.

[Boohugh]

If they did that, and made shuffling units around less tedious, and ditched the percentage chance “Ooops, you conveniently managed to lose 8 consecutive 99% win chances in a row and now your entire stack is dead, it’s not a fix honest!” combat in favour of something which feels like less of a lottery, warfare in civ might be tolerable.

From what I've read they seem to have slowed unit production down significantly (not sure what effect this will have on research and obsolete units though) with the idea being you have smaller armies that get used more tactically. I believe they have also changed the combat system so that you know who will win each attack beforehand (the old % system infuriated me too), again so that you learn to use your armies effectively rather than brute force through.

[frogbeastegg]

No one posted links to the pair of civ5 live gameplay videos? Gosh.

Part 1
Part 2

After watching them I think I might skip the demo and preorder for release. Lots of good stuff in there, though I'm still not convinced about the new warfare model. That needs to be experienced. The focus on fewer cities is a good move IMO; I liked civ4 when 5 cities was about right for most of the game span. In expansions it became easier and thus more important to have more and more cities.