PLEASE: No Steamworks discussion here. There's already a thread for that. Let's try to keep this thread to gameplay.
Gamespot has some E3 coverage on Civ V. Some of it is still pretty thin, but I like what I'm seeing so far. Particularly now that there's a more visual look at how the one unit per hex & ranged combat systems will work (along with zone of control!), it seems like defending a border will be a lot more practical now.
Also some neat thingsa bout how the AI can react to units massing on the border, how city-states impact gameplay (such as the ability to join alliances with them, or liberate ones others conquered), and the replacement of annoying modal dialogs with notifications.
Any other thoughts?
The best unit/combat design i ever saw was the one of Kohan. It was the best of all worlds and fun to tinker with different combinations of units in each stack.
hm.... *heads of to GOG, looking for Kohan*
Ah yes, I remember that game well! I do believe you're right. That was an awesome combat system.
I never got around to playing Kohan, could you explain the system briefly, or more importantly, what you liked about it?
The military model in Kohan is built on the concept of companies. You can raise a limited number of companies based on the number and size of the settlements under your control. The composition of each company can vary widely, and this is the basis for much of the strategy involved in combat. A company has one frontline unit type and up to two support unit types, as well as a captain.
Once in combat, a company functions as a unit, although the individual units in that company fight and sustain damage individually.
Kohan was pretty nice, but balance was horrible in multiplayer The Deer Rider Archers were tooooooo good. Same with some magic support
[quote who="celicakydd" reply="79" id="2656380"]The military model in Kohan is built on the concept of companies. You can raise a limited number of companies based on the number and size of the settlements under your control. The composition of each company can vary widely, and this is the basis for much of the strategy involved in combat. A company has one frontline unit type and up to two support unit types, as well as a captain.Once in combat, a company functions as a unit, although the individual units in that company fight and sustain damage individually.Reduced 74%Original 790 x 593[/quote]
Thank you for the information. That looks interesting. I can't remember why I, or we, passed on Kohan before, but I do remember peeking at it.
I don't think that fixes anything. Stacks of Doom exist in tactical combat games too, it just takes longer for combat to end.
It doesn't have to fix it for you. I just said it's what I personally would like to see. I realize it's not for everyone, but it's ok for us to like different things.
SODs are kinda contrived and unrealistic, but 1 unit per hex is also, especially given the scale of civ5's hexes (big enough to hold a city, but only a single type of unit -- infantry/armor/air/artillery/etc. -- will fit?). That's a design decision, not one based upon military considerations.
Civ5 is trying to have the best of all worlds here:
-map size is strategic but they're trying to give some tactical flavor to combat without going to a tactical map
-combat is hex-to-hex and only 1 unit per hex, but they want some combined arms flavor
Taken together, that's a tall order.
Given their basic design goals (battles remain on the strategic map; no SODs; fewer units altogether -- I base this on the change to resources only supporting a limited number of units; some combined arms flavor; etc.) their solution is interesting. It touches all the bases but only gently.
They're trying to add some grognard flavor while attracting casual players by being accessible -- grognard lite?
I've been wondering why 1 unit per hex, and best I can come up with is to ease combat resolution for their hex-to-hex combat (ie easier to resolve 1 swordsman vs 1 archery than 1 swords + 1 spear vs 1 archery + 1 cavalry) as the possible combination of units they'd have to consider is fairly large (tho isn't that why computers and games are such a good mix?).
A few more units per hex would have allowed more combined arms and Strategy&Tactics.
My friend Nick,
You so eloquently put into words exactly what I was trying to convey. That's my main problem with the combat system.
Yeah I am completely not looking forward to this game at all. They are dumbing it down, withholding vital information(which will make the already difficult diplomatic system even more difficult), disabling stacking and NOT adding tactical battles. This was the last chance I gave to civ and it was ruined before I even offered the chance. O well, we have elemental which is 1000x more of my kind of game. W00t go stardock for bringing strategy and complexity back into the gaming world!
The only information that is withholding is in the diplomacy system, and it is because the system is *improved*, not by less information, but by th efact that different AI can react differently to the same stimulus.
When you play an human player, do you get a number saying you how likely they are to declare war on you ?
[quote who="Jack Trowell" reply="87" id="2658800"]The only information that is withholding is in the diplomacy system, and it is because the system is *improved*, not by less information, but by th efact that different AI can react differently to the same stimulus.When you play an human player, do you get a number saying you how likely they are to declare war on you ?[/quote]
They said that with Civ IV, that diplomacy was improved but the same basic problem they always had with diplomacy remained. It doesn't matter if its Abe Lincoln, Genghis Kahn, or Ghandi, no matter what you do, you are going to wind up with war even with countries you spent over a thousand years at peace with. In comparison, Galc Civ II allows you to actually maintain peace if you work at it.
Actually in Civ4 it's easy to maintain a good level of peace between Civs. If you find you're always at war, then you're not doing it right.
If you're going to war, you're doing it right. Remember, there can be only one (winner), so make sure that's you.
War is only one path to victory. If you always pursue war, then you're only exploring one aspect of Civ. You're missing 80% of the game.
The reason games like Civ and UO have such a long life (for me anyhoo) is that they are many games in one. Tired of warmongering in Civ -- try culture or diplomatic. Tired of PvP in UO -- try crafting or exploring or building a guild or collecting rares.
No matter how good a facet of a game is, a player will eventually want a break, and offering multiple facets like Civ and UO does is why they're more than just good games, they're Tony the Tiger Great.
Hopefully Elemental will end up similarly.
That's not what i said. There really is no difference between Abe Lincoln and Genghis Kahn. I haven't been playing it wrong for a handful of years here. What makes Kahn go to war makes Ghandi go to war.
You do know what needs saying when Genghis Khan declares war on you, don't you?
"KHAAAAAAAAANNNN!!!"
i think they should have gone back to a more like Call to power 2 combat, but much better then that, tac battles would slove a lot of issue with Civs long standing issue but then you would have to wait till that battle was done.... another simple fix is to make it last over a few turns so it works for multiplayer.
if they wanted to fix diplomancy they would just scrape civ 4s dated system and started a clean shiny new system even ways to wipe you bad Rep with other nations.
not really seeing anything greatly changed from Civ 4 besides boxs traded for hexs and no stacks, So far i think Civ will fall to Creative Might of the People behind Elemental.
but if you look at total war thats had many big effecting changes from one to the next.
From My View Civ 5 will just not be something worth my time unless they changed it alot more.
You're kidding I hope!
Hexes, 1upt, ranged combat (not new, but changed from Civ4), 25 point AI personalities (as opposed to Civ4's 2 point personalities), major AND minor Civs (city states), puppet Govts, social policies, tactical combat mechanics, modding hub in game, no commerce sliders (gold, culture and science are now separated), new culture victory (Utopia project), etc etc etc.
Yes but they still use that mouse pointer thingy.
That is a astrange aspect of the game, but its always interesting seeing who gets the upper hand on maps and watching the Ai fight it out.
Only thing they need to do is fix the resources, nothing stay there forever once it get depleted. Not realistic at all, unless they mention it.
Would I like Civ V?
I've only ever played Civ II: The Test of Time for an hour or so with a friend that helped me. I remember it as boring.
Diplomacy I didn't understand. I gotted an alliance with one faction and they occasionally gave me techs. I didn't give them anything and gotted a message: "We're grewing bored of this alliance". A few turns later they broke the alliance....as far as I remember.
Never gotten any info on what I could do to keep the alliance. I guess I should have given them techs.
I like the following TBS games so as to give you an idea of what TBS games I used to like:
Age of Wonders I liked because of the "open gamesystem" which isn't locked like HoMM and Disciples are. You capture cities, loose resources, manashards and other things and can move every unit individually. Cities are very shallow unitproducing factories but the combats were good back in the day. The unlimited retaliation of every unit killed the TCs though....
AoW II: Shadow Magic introduced limited retaliation based on movementpoints which were easily the most welcome feature. A unit that hadn't moved could retaliate 3 times.
Battles could be too much though since you couldn't select multiple units simultaneously and queue up orders. It became a drag.
Heroes of Might & Magic V is nice for a while but the locked system of 1 superhero makes it boring pretty quickly. The campaigns and hero skillsystem are the saving grace.
These ones I've tried but didn't like:
Master of Magic was too outdated when I tried it a few months ago and had too slow pacing in the beginning.
Disciples II Gold is designflawed in that you build up one superstack and its combatsystem is too simple.
Warlords II is quite possibly the worst "good" game I've ever played. Don't see the fun AT ALL in that game.
Warlords IV had a broken combatsystem. No TC either
GalCiv II I regret buying as it is slow & boring. Doesn't got any TC either.
There are many great features available to you once you register, including:
Sign in or Create Account
