Slashdot Mirror


An Early Look At Civilization V

c0mpliant writes "IGN and Gamespot have each released a preview of the recently announced and eagerly awaited Civilization V. Apart from the obvious new hexagon shape of tiles and improved graphics, the articles go on to outline some of the major changes in the game, such as updated AI, new 'flavors' to world leaders, and a potentially game-changing, one-unit-per-tile system. No more will the stack of doom come to your city's doorsteps. Some features which will not be returning are religion and espionage. The removal of these two have sparked a frenzy of discussion on fan-related forums."

15 of 286 comments (clear)

  1. Stack o' Doom by Psychotic_Wrath · · Score: 3, Insightful

    They thought they fixed this with the collateral damage caused by seige weapons. They talk about it on the civ forum. The airstrikes do a pretty good job of weakening the Stack O' Doom

    --

    Doctors do Massage in Longview WA now, who knew?
    1. Re:Stack o' Doom by Rockoon · · Score: 4, Insightful

      ..the only problem is, the civ4 stacks of doom arrive thousands of years before aircraft are invented.

      It isnt until airships that the stacks of doom start their decline in importance, because prior to that it only takes a few forward units to shield the stack.

      The hardest early counter mechanic to stacks of doom would be unit upkeep cost (stacks are expensive), but thanks to the specialist mechanics, early warmongers simply chop out libraries, temples, and markets and run a specialist economy for research and money. Money isnt a problem when you can set your research slider at 0% and still keep up on techs.

      --
      "His name was James Damore."
    2. Re:Stack o' Doom by Rockoon · · Score: 3, Insightful

      The flaw is that there are no tactical variations that work. The biggest stack wins.

      Defensive bonuses are a wash when its stack vs stack. All my attacking units have been given +20%, +45%, or +75% city raider promoted, a bonus meant to counter cultural defenses, walls, and fortification bonuses.

      If you sit there in the city waiting for that stack vs stack and your stack is mostly city garrison promoted, I can just wipe your civ clean of land improvements and come back in about 1000 years when you are hopelessly behind. The upshot here is that most of your units need to be tailored for attacking, not defending, so that you can force the confrontation if you have to.

      Its stack vs stack, and both civ3 and civ4 were designed to be multiplayer. Civ3 had the army units, and that proved worse than it is in Civ4. Civ5 is forcing the issue by not allowing stacks and I think thats a good thing. Tactics. Tactics. Tactics.

      --
      "His name was James Damore."
  2. Re:One unit per tile is dumb by Rockoon · · Score: 3, Insightful

    The pieces can represent anything (battalions or regiments, for instance), so it makes perfect sense.

    I think you have fallen into the "OMG IT DRAWS A SINGLE WARRIOR, IT MUST BE A SINGLE MAN!" trap.

    --
    "His name was James Damore."
  3. Re:I'm already excited by Shihar · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Eh, I think from that short little preview I am indifferent. I could see how it could be good, but frankly, nothing in that preview really hit on the 'heart' of Civilization.

    Who ever played civilization craving more tactical combat? Who cares if the diplomacy screen has the guys walking around instead of just portrait?

    The stuff that makes Civilization games either great or suck is in how it deals with culture, expansion, technology, city management, improvements, government types, etc. Frankly, I don't think Civ4 was much of a jump forwards in terms of Civ games. They added some neat futures, but they also managed to dumb down a lot of interesting things from earlier Civs. The civics from Civ4 were especially vapid and uninteresting.

    For my money, I personally think that the best "Civ" game ever made was, by leaps and bounds, Alpha Centauri. That game had interesting world events, awesome civics, and each nation had a real sense of personality. I personally hope that they go down that road for Civ5 and give the game more personality, rather than strip it down further like they did with Civ4. Granted, it is really still far too early to make any judgments on the game, I am just not terribly hopeful.

  4. Both Good and Bad by sonicmerlin · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I'm excited about the removal of "stacks of doom" for the increase in strategy with battles, but I'm rather disappointed in their PC move of removing religion. Religion has been a huge driving force, if not the greatest motivator, of the last several thousands of years. To remove it and just leave "culture" is a rather silly cop-out to the overly sensitive fools out there.

    1. Re:Both Good and Bad by thesandtiger · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I don't think it was a PC move - it just isn't that compelling a feature in the game and in the view of the designers removed more than it added. If they were remotely worried about being PC they wouldn't have had Stalin - a mass murderer surpassing even Adolph Hitler for body-count - as one of the leaders in the game since the first iteration, and certainly wouldn't have put religion into the game in the first place.

      --
      Since I can't tell them apart, I treat all ACs as the same person.
  5. Re:New AI by moonbender · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Are you joking? I you aren't, he's talking about AIs getting better gaming conditions (things are less expensive, etc) on the difficulty levels above Noble. The player gets similar bonuses on levels below Noble. Backstabbing in diplomacy is available at all difficulty levels.

    --
    Switch back to Slashdot's D1 system.
  6. Re:New AI by Ailure · · Score: 4, Insightful

    What I would like to see is probably the game being more clear with what each difficulty actually means. Probably would be over the head of most people, but at least marking how much advantage you get vs computer. Other than knowing that me and the AI is on equal footing at noble difficulty... it's not really as clear it could be in Civ IV. :)

  7. Wesnoth clone by fph+il+quozientatore · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Hexes, one unit per tile, ranged attacks, tactical combat, no need to garrison a city... Wow, civ5 will be an overpriced giant 3D Battle of Wesnoth clone.

    --
    My first program:

    Hell Segmentation fault

  8. Re:I'm already excited by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    religious people in the far flung future, seriously?

    Yeah, it's not like they ever put religion in sci-fi, young padawan.

    Don't tell me atheists are offended by the very idea that religion may not die out in the next few hundred years? If so, I'm glad sci-fi can still challenge you with unorthodox ideas :)

  9. Swell... by DoofusOfDeath · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Just yesterday my wife said to me, "I can't believe you're still not bored of Civ3 after all these years." She knew I was at risk of staying up until 2 a.m. again playing it.

    This will not be good for me.

  10. Re:Obligatory atheist flamebait by chronosan · · Score: 3, Insightful

    You can count me in that category too - as much as one might dislike religion, there's no denying the impact it has had on civilization.

  11. Re:Wesnoth -- Ranged attacks? by phiwum · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Wesnoth does not have ranged attacks in any reasonable sense of the term. Units must be adjacent to attack. Civ V adds the capability of ranged attacks between unengaged units.

    That's not to say they do it well. Since when do archers fire over ponds and farmers' fields in order to hit city units? How far can these archers shoot? Somehow, that image bothers me.

    In any case, I'm certainly not intending to disparage Wesnoth with my comments. Wesnoth is, as far as I've seen, the hands-down best totally original open-source strategy game out there. I'm also not trying to compliment Civ V, since I haven't played the commercial version of Civilization since Civ II.

    --
    Phiwum's law: anyone that names an obvious law after himself and then puts it in his own sig is just pathetic.
  12. Re:Atheists are just as bad as theists by ultranova · · Score: 3, Insightful

    I agree, there is some rabid, extremist atheists. Though their theist counterparts FAR out number them, and have far more influence on the world. I find the religious fundamentalists a far larger threat than any degree of atheist.

    I challenge your notion that "rabid atheists" are not religious fundamentalists. Fundamentalism is a state of being absolutely convinced that you're right, and everyone who doesn't agree is either evil or stupid. It doesn't have anything to do with what you're absolutely convinced about, just that you are. And the notion that "there is no god" is, of course, a notion about a religious matter.

    Atheists, for the most part, are immune to this tyrannical craziness. What are they going to do, stand on street corners screaming "THINK FOR YOURSELF!", or trying to force all children to learn science. The horror.

    No, they're going to demand that a religion/ideology "be destroyed". That, of course, demands torturing the adherents until they deconvert and killing those who refuse. Unless, of course, a reliable brainwashing technique to bring their beliefs closer to what you'll accept can be created.

    The correct way to treat such people is to give them freedom and demand they give it to you too. This (Finland, and presumably United States as well) is a free country, where everyone is free to worship whatever deity he wishes, or none at all. I'll defend to death your right to choose freely. I'll also defend my right to not choose whatever you want. I'll also defend the rights of people I despise, because to not do so would be to do unto others what I wouldn't want to be done to myself

    .

    For the record, I'm a christian.

    --

    Forget magic. Any technology distinguishable from divine power is insufficiently advanced.