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?
Would you like civ5?
I have no idea, because mostly, no one knows exactly what civ5 will actually be like.
It's bizarre to me though that you like HoMM2 and 5, but not 3. Maybe you just never played it?
I also hated AoW, eventually, because it was just pointless after a bit, but I'm told people like it for MP, which I guess makes sense, I cannot fathom enjoying the SP after you learn the mechanics of the game because it becomes too tedious and simple.
GC2 is another of those which I enjoyed until I 'mastered' it, and then the AI shortcomings and lack of interesting victory conditions (because culture was so boring to just spam stations, and teching is just hitting 'done' over and over) eventually killed it for me.
Disciples isn't design flawed though, it's more of an RPG in essense than it is really a TBS. The beauty of it in many respects is the smiplified combat and 'puzzle' nature of the maps. But i also grew bored with it after a couple campaigns, because it does get rather repetative.
Shadowtounge,
I've played Heroes II, III, IV and V. Not the first one though but some day, maybe
I've played plenty of Heroes III. Defeated all the campaigns in the original and played a few scenarios.
The equalness of all the castles and overpowered expert lvl of enhancement magic made it boring though. Every castle got 7 lvls of creatures (though some are vastly different in power) and expert lvl in enhancement magic (Bless, Shield, Stoneskin etc.) made it too equal and bland.
It got some good things like wait and half damage for ranged weapons though but that's not enough for me.
Heroes II got this high fantasy charm and different powerlvls of the factions. Knight and Barbarian must expand quickly while Wizard and Warlocks can take it easier. Sorceress and Necromancer must also wait a bit before they strike out but they're stronger then the Knights and Barbarians but weaker then the Wizards and Warlocks.
Yeah I've read that Civ V will differ quite a bit from the previous ones so who knows. Got a feeling I won't though but I'll try the demo! (which is something I've never done for any Civ version.)
Well I agree that HoMM2 and 5 are good, but really, HoMM3 was a vast improvement over HoMM2 in many ways. Though I have a soft spot for HoMM2 because it was the first one I played. I guess your point about balance is taken, though I saw it the other way, that is outside of the campaigns.
I had some debates with myself (not talking, but thinking. Not sure how to word it in english) about if Heroes II or Heroes III were better.
I went back and forth but ultimately I decided on Heroes II. The soundtrack, different power of factions and above all, the spell system gave the victory to Heroes II.
Heroes III got much better graphics and a much better Knight faction lineup but other then that....I don't know what's better about it vs Heroes II.
I always come to think about the broken magic types when I think of Heroes III. Expert lvl enhancement magic was just too good. A nobrainer. In Heroes II, highlvl magic was much more valuable since you had to have Wisdom to learn lvl 3 and above spells which the Knight and Barbarian had a hard time to get. That gave the spellcasting classes a nice, unique advantage against the powered up creatures of the Knight and Barbarian. Also consider that in Heroes II, Attack and Defense gave 10% and 5% bonuses to the creatures which is a hell of a lot.
Mass Slow, Mass Haste, Mass Bless and Mass Curse were lvl 3 spells. Had to have Wisdom to cast those which gave the spellcasting classes a magic advantage just as it should be. Also costed a FORTUNE to upgrade the mageguild! Resources you didn't use on creature dwellings but instead invested in magic to MAYBE get some good spells.
Seems to be an unbreakable rule that threads always go offtopic
Hey I don't think it's a coincidence a number of Civ players played HOMM. I preferred 3 above all the rest. I just got hours and hours of multi-player enjoyment out of that game. I hated V with a passion, not just because it didn't work on release and the multi-player simul turns weren't as advertised, ghost mode was pretty bad too. I did play HOMM 1 2 3 and 5, passed on IV. Then again, 99% of my HOMM playing was multiplayer too. I just love multiplayer/co-op strategy games.
Apparently, you will be able to load Civ 4 maps in the Civ 5 map editor, and convert them to Civ 5. Looks like it's just maps, not mods or things like that. Still nice though!
I wonder if Civ V will allow for larger maps? I've always found them a little less epic than I've wanted.
Get the Rise of Mankind mod - they have map sizes that cause my 3.6 Ghz quad core processor with 8GB ram to stutter a bit. If you set it to like 7 continents and the slowest game speed you can spend weeks playing and just be in the late ancient era. Start the game with just 5 other civs or so and make sure the option to dynamically create civs is on. Barbarians will rise into new civs, and factions will break away in civil wars (so the British for example could spawn the Americans, and the Romans could spawn the British). It's not perfect, but it's really the only way to play civ4 once you've played a few games. That was the hardest thing about playing some of the better Civ4 mods--- The games were too quick even on the slowest speeds. When I play a game like this I want to really build an empire. And I want to build it MY way. This mod doesn't give you the ability to do quite that but it's the closest thing I've seen for Civ4. One of my hopes for the "Strawberry" version of [The Elemental Mod] E:EE (which we are talking about splitting into it's own mod) is that it will allow you to do that- play an epic game that takes months to play on the slowest settings, allows you huge customization options, massive size worlds (if your computer can handle them), with an ever expanding list of technologies, quests, and other challenges. Not quite sim-fantasy, but certainly taking many elements from the concept.
Anyway got off track there for a sec....
But yeah I'm really hoping Civ 5 has MUCH larger maps than civ4.
That sounds awesome. Thanks strager.
http://kotaku.com/5583378/civilization-v-develops-snazzy-100-edition
Retail collector's edition detailed. Was hoping for a nice collector's edition, but I'm not a fan of miniatures, so I'll probably just preorder online. The book is nice, but not $50 more nice.
If I wanted minatures, I would play Warhammer 40K on a table. GTFO collectors. Just gimmie dat game.
Yeah, this is too expensive for me too considering the soundtrack is in the deluxe Steam edition for dramatically less money. Artbooks and figurines arne't worth this premium.
That is beyond nice. That is awesome. That is so awesome my nipples are a little hard.
Some new details courtesy of CivFanatics.
Thing that I find most interesting is that building upgrades in cities have a maintenance cost now. I think I like that. It was often a no brainer in Civ 4 to build upgrades whenever you didn't need troops, because there's really no downside to it.
I don't think it does have more micro Storm. They added some things, but they also streamlined other areas so in terms of time spent on micro I don't think it's going up.
Kotaku has a great preview up now. I'm getting excited!
I never thought civ was that heavy in the micro department myself. Then again, I play a lot, a lot of strategy games, some of which are so heavy in micro management it's unreal (Guild 2 for example).
Storm
It can also be a good thing in that he brings new ideas to the table which Sid would perhaps never have accepted.
It can ofcourse backfire as well so I'm more skeptic then positive
I can't believe the system requirements/recommended hardware
http://www.shacknews.com/onearticle.x/65031
That's crazy high end.
its not rly high end
The recommended specs surprised me, those ARE pretty high with how PC games have been the last couple years.
The minimums are more reasonable, dual core has been pretty standard for years and those aren't high end video cards at all. Question will be how well does it run at minimum?
Those are NOT high, they are 2007 specs.
It's the quad core requirement (for rec not min) that makes it stand out a bit I think. The rest doesn't look too extraordinary to me except I still haven't seen to many require dual cores until just recently.
The min specs are meh, slightly higher than I might have expected from a TBS. Will still be able to run it on my laptop though. Surprised by the recs though, they are quite high, well beyond my system in almost every respect. Then again 'recommended' is very subjective anyway - some games I make the rec specs and it plays awful, other games barely min and it whizzes along fine.
Really? Vista/Win7, 4GB of RAM, Quad Core, and a video card that wasn't released until 2008 are "2007 specs"?
You really think the 'quad core' is significant? I think its just an easy way to show a more powreful CPU.
I mean a 3GHz Core 2 Duo will run anything from today right?
There are many great features available to you once you register, including:
Sign in or Create Account
