Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

An Early Look At Civilization V

Soulskill posted more than 4 years ago | from the new-and-shiny dept.

PC Games (Games) 286

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."

cancel ×

286 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Frosty the poophole (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31436084)

Frosty the poophole was a real asshole.

Re:Frosty the poophole (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31436092)

Here, here!

RE: the "who do your respect poll" (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31436102)

The fact that so many of you faggots voted for gayman Turing just shows how fucking homosexual Slashdot is.

The wicked shall burn in the flames of Hell.

Re: the "who do your respect poll" (2, Funny)

Inda (580031) | more than 4 years ago | (#31436184)

We'll save you a seat, don't worry. In fact, you can sit next to me, big boy.

Re: the "who do your respect poll" (0, Offtopic)

zach_the_lizard (1317619) | more than 4 years ago | (#31436340)

Baby, I'd love to test you for Turing-completeness, if you know what I mean.

Stack o' Doom (3, Insightful)

Psychotic_Wrath (693928) | more than 4 years ago | (#31436106)

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

Re:Stack o' Doom (4, Insightful)

Rockoon (1252108) | more than 4 years ago | (#31436254)

..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.

New AI (2, Interesting)

sopssa (1498795) | more than 4 years ago | (#31436116)

I love diplomacy but it sucks when you know the AI is going to cheat. I hope Civ V will finally have an AI that doesn't cheat.

Re:New AI (4, Funny)

hotdiggity (987032) | more than 4 years ago | (#31436194)

I love diplomacy but it sucks when you know the AI is going to cheat. I hope Civ V will finally have an AI that doesn't cheat.

You want nations that don't cheat on diplomacy?

If we're going to abandon reality, why don't we just add wizard units and inter-dimensional portals too?

Re:New AI (3, Insightful)

moonbender (547943) | more than 4 years ago | (#31436302)

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.

Re:New AI (4, Insightful)

Ailure (853833) | more than 4 years ago | (#31436384)

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. :)

Re:New AI (4, Informative)

Brownstar (139242) | more than 4 years ago | (#31436674)

You're right for most people, they probably don't care, which is why the Game presents it in basic terms.

But, if you're on of the ones that truly cares, all of that information is in plain text format (marked up in XML) in the /Assets/XML/GameInfo directory. (You can even change it if you want).

The file that addresses the changes in difficulty specifically is: CIV4HandicapInfo.xml

But also realize that some of these factors are also modified based on world size, and turn speed as well. (Possibly some other things that I've forgotten as well).

I know Civ3 and Alpha Centauri had similar files, and If I remember correctly, I beleive even Civ2 stored all of this information in text files that could be modified.

Which is one of the reasons that the various Civ's have always been so modable.

Re:New AI (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31436910)

Yay my morning isnt complete without a dumbshit sopssa comment.

Obligatory atheist flamebait (5, Funny)

aaron alderman (1136207) | more than 4 years ago | (#31436128)

I'm glad they got rid of religion. Hopefully we can get rid of it in this world too.

Re:Obligatory atheist flamebait (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31436366)

I'm glad they got rid of religion. Hopefully we can get rid of it in this world too.

My bet is the first mod adds it back in.

Re:Obligatory atheist flamebait (2, Insightful)

PopeRatzo (965947) | more than 4 years ago | (#31436436)

My bet is the first mod adds it back in.

Anybody who'd want religion would first have to hire a programmer to make the mod.

Re:Obligatory atheist flamebait (4, Interesting)

darkstar949 (697933) | more than 4 years ago | (#31436552)

Religion actually added a pretty interesting dynamic to the game play in Civilization IV, so I'm actually in the group of people that is disappointed to see it go. It gave another route to victory beyond the military or technological routes.

Re:Obligatory atheist flamebait (3, Insightful)

chronosan (1109639) | more than 4 years ago | (#31436902)

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.

Re:Obligatory atheist flamebait (3, Funny)

delinear (991444) | more than 4 years ago | (#31436562)

They prefer to think of it as intelligently designing the mod.

Re:Obligatory atheist flamebait (5, Funny)

sackvillian (1476885) | more than 4 years ago | (#31436478)

My bet is the first mod adds it back in.

Voltaire would think so; since God does not exist, it will be necessary to invent him

Re:Obligatory atheist flamebait (2, Interesting)

c0mpliant (1516433) | more than 4 years ago | (#31436564)

The rumor circulating is that it will be part of an expansion pack later on.

Certainly the element of religion is receiving a lot of attention on fan forums. A lot of threads with 70%+ in polls for it to be kept in the game. I also think that given how much community interaction is put into the game (i.e. mod support) that the developers wont simply ignore the outcry of the community

Re:Obligatory atheist flamebait (1)

ThomConspicuous (1004135) | more than 4 years ago | (#31436668)

FTA

although Civ IV's religion system (which was met with mixed reactions) won't be making a comeback, we're assured by Firaxis that the feature wasn't simply cut without any plans for other new features to replace it.

It's more likely the religion was just merged with culture, in some manner, and no mod will be required.

Re:Obligatory atheist flamebait (5, Funny)

pagaboy (1029878) | more than 4 years ago | (#31436462)

If you believe it enough, I'm sure it'll happen.

Re:Obligatory atheist flamebait (0, Offtopic)

RobotRunAmok (595286) | more than 4 years ago | (#31436592)

Dude, according to your blog [blogspot.com] , you belong to a convention-attending "society of atheists" which actively and proudly recruits people. Here's a tip: This is scarier than most religions.

One unit per tile is dumb (-1, Redundant)

OrwellianLurker (1739950) | more than 4 years ago | (#31436132)

It should be around three or something. One doesn't really make sense.

Re:One unit per tile is dumb (3, Insightful)

Rockoon (1252108) | more than 4 years ago | (#31436156)

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.

Hmmm... (4, Interesting)

denzacar (181829) | more than 4 years ago | (#31436214)

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

But then it would also make perfect sense to be able to combine two or more decimated companies into a battalion, while maintaining the experience and combat abilities.
Also... combine companies into a battalion, battalions into regiments, regiments into armies.
You know... as it is not a single tank (or a man) out there on that hex.

Also, turn your infantry or marines into air cavalry by combining them with helicopters. Make a decimated artillery unit into a "artillery support" bonus for your infantry or armor.
Balance it out with experience bonuses and additional turns necessary for combining (training turns).

Re:Hmmm... (3, Interesting)

Rockoon (1252108) | more than 4 years ago | (#31436298)

But then it would also make perfect sense to be able to combine two or more decimated companies into a battalion, while maintaining the experience and combat abilities. Also... combine companies into a battalion, battalions into regiments, regiments into armies.

This may very well be the case. I could see leaving the current healing mechanic behind, instead requiring units to recruit from cities (or combining existing units) in order to regain full effectiveness. City recruitment costs could be used as a balancing mechanic as well, by requiring production proportional to the "damage" being "healed." Currently we can have a hundred units all healing for free simultaneously, which is equivalent to an amount of production far greater than the entire civ commanding those units.

Re:Hmmm... (1)

TheRaven64 (641858) | more than 4 years ago | (#31436518)

I recall one game I played back when I had an 8086 with an EGA display (maybe called something like Realms?) that had this mechanic. It made it important to protect your veteran units, because when half of them died you either had a small elite unit or recruited some new soldiers and diluted the the average experience. I don't think there was a way of combining units, but I might have just forgotten it.

Re:Hmmm... (1)

Rockoon (1252108) | more than 4 years ago | (#31436586)

In Civ4 its important to protect your veteran units as well, especially because many of the unit promotions get progressively better. First City Raider promotion is +20% city attack, second promotion is an additional +25% city attack, and third is an additional +30% city attack. The same is true for the City Garrison line (+20%, +25%, and +30% City Defense = +75% City Defense)

Re:One unit per tile is dumb (1)

bazorg (911295) | more than 4 years ago | (#31436224)

I remember starving entire cities by surrounding them with Diplomats during peace times. It was the Bureaucracy Choke attack :p

Re:One unit per tile is dumb (1)

FlyingBishop (1293238) | more than 4 years ago | (#31436508)

For me it's the "why should I pay $60 when I could just play Westnoth for free with no DRM" trap.

Re:One unit per tile is dumb (2, Insightful)

TheCycoONE (913189) | more than 4 years ago | (#31436706)

Not saying you should; but Civ and BfW are completely different games. If anything BfW is a lot like Panzer General, mentioned in the article as inspiration for some of the unit changes in Civ V. BfW is very unit focused but has no city management, technology, culture etc.

You could have asked why you should pay for it when you could get FreeCiv for free; and the obvious answer to that is more polish - whether it's worth $60 is a subjective issue.

Re:One unit per tile is dumb (0)

OrwellianLurker (1739950) | more than 4 years ago | (#31436566)

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

No, I understand the concept of a unit. However, the fact that you can't have different types of units on the same tile is stupid.

Re:One unit per tile is dumb (2, Insightful)

Rockoon (1252108) | more than 4 years ago | (#31436708)

What makes you think that the stats the unit carries doesn't already reflect "different types of units?"

What you are asking for is attribute customization via an ill placed stacking mechanic. The very same mechanic which so totally dominates human vs human civ4 play today because there is no alternative other than stack of doom vs stack of doom.

Consider this mechanic:

You have Warriors, and you have Swords. You can combine them, to make Swordsmen.
You have Warriors, and you have Horses. You can combine them, to make Horsemen.
You have Swordsmen and Horsemen. You can transfer the Horses to the Swordsmen, making a Knights unit and a Warriors unit.

See how silly your objection is? Your desire to have "different types" can easily be accounted for in other ways. The Knights units attributes can full account for the fact that it consists of Men + Swords + Horses.

Re:One unit per tile is dumb (1)

Dun Malg (230075) | more than 4 years ago | (#31436750)

It's only stupid in the context of the assumed game mechanics in your head.It's entirely possible to build a game that works with a one unit per hex limit.

I'm already excited (1)

buruonbrails (1247370) | more than 4 years ago | (#31436142)

One unit per tile system will certainly add some realism, as you (and your enemies) can't achieve infinite troops concentration any more. Hope the new Civilization combat system will be well-thought, or it risk turning into micromanagement hell.

Re:I'm already excited (1)

Inda (580031) | more than 4 years ago | (#31436174)

I too am excited about wasting more of my life playing addictive games :-)

CIV4 only just plays on my laptop with most of the settings turned down. So how much money am I going to need to purchase a laptop capable of playing CIV5?

Re:I'm already excited (1)

millwall (622730) | more than 4 years ago | (#31436208)

If you can't get civ to play on your laptop, check out civ on the iphone, it is pretty good - and will leave you with even less spare time ;)

Re:I'm already excited (5, Insightful)

Shihar (153932) | more than 4 years ago | (#31436220)

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.

Re:I'm already excited (2, Interesting)

blahplusplus (757119) | more than 4 years ago | (#31436356)

"For my money, I personally think that the best "Civ" game ever made was, by leaps and bounds, Alpha Centauri."

It was also the weirdest, nerdiest and buggiest game in the series. Lots of the features were neat but the 'design your own unit' things were god awful looking, even though it was cool to do so. I'd love to see AC updated with modern graphics and real effort put into it, a lot of AC was so campy it was a bit disturbing - i.e. religious people in the far flung future, seriously?

Re:I'm already excited (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31436400)

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 :)

Re:I'm already excited (0, Flamebait)

mikael_j (106439) | more than 4 years ago | (#31436428)

I have no trouble imagining that religion will still be around hundreds of years from now but I am offended by your use of Star Wars as an example of sci-fi with religions in it, Star Wars is to sci-fi as watching a counter strike match is to professional sports.

Re:I'm already excited (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31436614)

Not to mention it doesn't really have much to do with religion. Sure, there are guys (and gals) with what look like mystical powers to the layman, and we interpret some of the overtones as religious because it's what we recognise from the real world, but it's not really religion, any more than it would be religion for one of us to travel back to the middle ages with a modern laptop - certainly inexplicable and mystical to the layman of the time but still with a purely scientific basis (thanks to god damn midiclorians).

Re:I'm already excited (1)

PopeRatzo (965947) | more than 4 years ago | (#31436456)

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

Well, if you're going to put princesses and swords, you might as well throw in religion.

In what universe is a meter long "light-sabre" preferable to a handheld particle weapon?

Civilization games are supposed to be somewhat realistic. The specific sci-fi you speak of is not.

Re:I'm already excited (1)

delinear (991444) | more than 4 years ago | (#31436642)

In what universe is a meter long "light-sabre" preferable to a handheld particle weapon?

One where light travels slowly enough that you can react to and deflect dozens of said particle beams with said lightsabre? Seriously, missile attacks seem so easily circumvented by anyone carrying a lightsabre, you have to wonder why the whole universe hasn't reverted to melee combat (although I guess guns are still good for mass, mobilised oppression).

Re:I'm already excited (1)

Dun Malg (230075) | more than 4 years ago | (#31436782)

The key point you seem to have missed is that lightsabers are largely ineffective in the hands of rubes. Some background training, force ability, etc. are the prerequisite.

Seriously, did you not get that from the movies?

Re:I'm already excited (1)

mister_playboy (1474163) | more than 4 years ago | (#31436442)

i.e. religious people in the far flung future, seriously?

Why not? The papers you sign for the Co$ say you will provide them with a billion years of service!

Re:I'm already excited (1)

Ailure (853833) | more than 4 years ago | (#31436494)

Before Alpha Centauri there wasn't any notable differences between the different civilizations. With Alpha centauri they wanted to have different factions with way different strategies and "beliefs". I thought this was intresting, especially seeing how people picked a diffrent faction depending on their playstyle.

The backstory of Alpha Centauri tries to explain why there's different factions. Perhaps Alpha Centauri is a little campy, but I always thought most of the technologies in the tech tree seemed rather realistic for me (although some of them are probably in a odd order).

Re:I'm already excited (2, Insightful)

Ailure (853833) | more than 4 years ago | (#31436460)

I personally find the best Civilization to be Civ IV. In hindsight, Civ III is probably the most "disapointing" version, but I still think it's better than the previous one. Nowadays if I feel like doing old-school civilization I just play FreeCiv with it's default ruleset. Similar enough to Civ 2, but way more balanced (especially for multiplayer),

I love Alpha Centauri too, but it suffers from a few gameplay problems. Such as that the game is usually decided relativly early on in the tech tree (compared to other Civ games), yet there is a long road to the end... which is annoying. Plus I got a strong feeling it was suffering from feature overload, which explains some of the balance problems.

The social engineering system was slightly more interesting than the Civics one in some aspects, but on the other hand the Civics system made more sense as a replacement for the old "goverment" system of Civ I-III. I found out that as I got better, the civics was more balanced than I first thought.

Re:I'm already excited (2, Interesting)

FatLittleMonkey (1341387) | more than 4 years ago | (#31436754)

I've often wondered if Civ would work if the subsequent branches of each option on the tech tree were semi-random. A different "universe" created for each game; you wouldn't know what lay ahead.

For example, is a universe technological or magical, with corresponding unit types. Do psychic powers exist in a particular universe, and how early are they discoverable. Genetic engineering, discovered early enough, affecting unit types. etc.

Every new game would be a "new game".

Re:I'm already excited (1)

bradley13 (1118935) | more than 4 years ago | (#31436860)

Absolutely: the animated leaders are just dumb. The clouds and water effects are cute the first time you see them, and afterwards irrelevant. Civ2 and Civ4 have the best gameplay of the bunch (Civ3 was just a waste). But the resources that CIV-4 eats while just sitting idle (even while minimized!) are just ridiculous.

Reading the description, they are making a lot of changes just for the sake of change, and spending way too much effort on irrelevant graphics. Civ5 promises to be another odd-numbered disappointment.

Re:I'm already excited (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31436316)

Another way the stack of doom problem can be solved is by applying "coordination" penalties on stacks with a large number of units, as in Hearts of Iron 3.

The danger with forcing only 1 unit per tile is that the battles will become too tactical, which is great for games like the old Panzer General where there are relatively few units, but may not work for grand strategy games like Civ. Endgame wars already take too long in Civ4 due to the sheer number of units to move, and making combat tactical means you also have to be concerned about the formation of your units as you move them through hostile territory (imagine the nightmare of manually coordinating 2 fronts with 100 units on each front). They'd need to have some pretty spiffy unit and unit-group automation to make sure this doesn't become too annoying to more casual (i.e. non-grognard) players.

Tech tree to return to Civ 1 state (2, Interesting)

nanoakron (234907) | more than 4 years ago | (#31436202)

My pet gripe with Civs 3 & 4 (never played 2 but LOVED 1) was the time-constrained tech tree.

I used to love dumping all my resources into tech just to get nukes by 1000AD and then quickly ruling the world. Why shouldn't I be allowed to do that in later Civs?

Why can I only get electricity within 100 years of when we discovered it in the real world? Or metallurgy? Or whatever I choose to dump my nation's resources into?

(Oh, and please do an updated version of Alpha Centauri as well...)

-Nano.

Re:Tech tree to return to Civ 1 state (2, Interesting)

sonicmerlin (1505111) | more than 4 years ago | (#31436236)

You can get your techs very early relative to the time period if you play the marathon or epic versions. I've always been more disappointed in the lack of future techs. I know a few mods tried to address that, but they simply weren't as well thought out or professional as Firaxis's work. I want techs extending into the science fiction future. That would just be so cool. It feels kind of silly that the greatest weapon on earth is... a 40 hit point armored tank.

Re:Tech tree to return to Civ 1 state (1)

mister_playboy (1474163) | more than 4 years ago | (#31436450)

I want techs extending into the science fiction future. That would just be so cool. It feels kind of silly that the greatest weapon on earth is... a 40 hit point armored tank.

That was the best aspect of Call to Power, IMO. The gameplay doesn't end until 3000CE.

Re:Tech tree to return to Civ 1 state (1)

wjousts (1529427) | more than 4 years ago | (#31436732)

I playing CtP 2 right now (got it from GOG.com). It lacks the personality of the Civ series, but it does have some good features that I'd like to see in Civ, like the removal of worker units. It always annoyed me towards the end of the game in Civ that you'd have dozens of worker units with nothing to do.

Re:Tech tree to return to Civ 1 state (2, Informative)

Ailure (853833) | more than 4 years ago | (#31436414)

There is no time-constraint to the tech tree in Civ IV. Civ IV simple made it harder to tech really quickly (especially since SmallPox/ICS was majorily nerfed). I play FreeCiv with friends at times, and it's almost ridiculous how fast you can go through the tech tree in a 1 vs 1 game.

Unfortunatly Firaxis have already stated there's licensing issues regarding Alpha Centauri due to the rights being owned by EA Games.

Re:Tech tree to return to Civ 1 state (2, Informative)

T Murphy (1054674) | more than 4 years ago | (#31436448)

I've only played Civs 3 and 4 (civ 4 is nice for a change, but 3 is better), but I know in Civ3 there is an accelerated production option which lets you finish the tech tree before 1300 AD on a large, full game. You can make a map and remove the 4-turn minimum, which would probably allow you to start nuking by 1000 AD if you lead in GNP.

Removal Of Religion? (2, Interesting)

FinchWorld (845331) | more than 4 years ago | (#31436218)

Religion, whilst not game changing as many other factors (Hello pratorians!), made an interesting difference to diplomacy and a slight boost to gold. It was also useful to spread to opponents cities to allow spying/gold generation, and was one of the few reasons to consider open borders. It'll be interesting to see how the civics will be altered to reflect the lack of religion. On a side note anyone know of a decent guide to get Civ 4 (or generic guide for games) running under Ubuntu 9.10 x64 with ATI propriety drivers (HD4600)? I've got it working on a different comp using a Geforce card but not the ATI.

Re:Removal Of Religion? (1)

moonbender (547943) | more than 4 years ago | (#31436326)

Wasn't open borders worth it for the income boost from trade connections alone? Can't help you with that ATI card, though I also got Civ4 working beautifully with an Nvidia card.

Both Good and Bad (4, Insightful)

sonicmerlin (1505111) | more than 4 years ago | (#31436222)

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.

they don't need religion in CIV5 (1)

Shivetya (243324) | more than 4 years ago | (#31436380)

CIV4 has environmentalism to the level it might as well be religion.

So making 3 gorges dam gives me negative points... guess dams were not on the developer approved list of clean resources.

Re:they don't need religion in CIV5 (1)

andycal (127447) | more than 4 years ago | (#31436498)

Right on the mark. They also made tactical nuclear war nearly impossible. (Global warming ) . It's supposed to be a game not a civics lesson.

Re:Both Good and Bad (1)

CODiNE (27417) | more than 4 years ago | (#31436480)

Maybe the next Civ will remove culture then we can all get along as one big happy family. Right?

Re:Both Good and Bad (1)

blind biker (1066130) | more than 4 years ago | (#31436638)

I'm excited about the removal of "stacks of doom" for the increase in strategy with battles,

I think you confuse strategy with tactics.

3D In Strategy Games (4, Interesting)

pandrijeczko (588093) | more than 4 years ago | (#31436238)

I don't think I've ever really understood what happened to strategy gaming on the PC around about the turn of the new Millennium.

I was (and still am) a huge fan and player of Heroes Of Might & Magic (I, II, and III), Master Of Orion (2), Total Annihilation and Civilization (I, II, Call To Power and Test Of Time) - likewise I've played and enjoyed PC FPS games from original Doom & Duke Nukem 3D through to STALKER, Half-Life 2 and Fallout 3 today.

Clearly, the FPS genre exists *BECAUSE* of good 3D graphics but who decided that they were needed for strategy games? Fortunately I totally avoided Master Of Orion III but at various points when they were cheap enough to justify rebuying some games I already had, I bought boxed compilations of all the HoMM and Civilization series, the C&C "10 Years" box set (that has everything up to C&C Generals) and Supreme Commander. In each and every case, the introduction of 3D in those games series has felt, to me, like a "dumbing down" of the games...

Firstly, let's look at HoMM and Civilization. These are both traditionally turn-based games where essentially you need to find and control resources at an "empire" level, as well as defeat enemy armies. They are not solely about combat, they are about using your armies to their best advantage - so what in hell does the game gain from a playability perspective by being able to zoom in to see each individual unit in the middle of a fight, i.e. Civilization III/IV and HoMM IV/V?

Secondly, Total Annihilation/Supreme Commander and C&C/Red Alert. There are RTS games but solely focused on small unit skirmishes and resource management, where development speed is core to winning each game... in which case, why in hell do I want (or even need) to mess around with zooming in and twiddling camera views? Just give me a single isometric view with sprite graphics...

These days, as half-Linux half-Windows user, I tend to play Freeciv [wikia.com] quite a lot and IMHO it feels more of a logical progression from the original Civ I/II games.

I just wish that if games companies have finished with sprite-based RTS games, then they'd hand out the source code of the games on the Internet to let some good programmers loose on them. The great thing about the pre-3D games is they've low resource requirements and power consumption so great for laptops, netbooks & long flights.

Incidentally, there are a couple of exceptions to the rule - Stardock's Galactic Civilizations II and Sins Of A Solar Empire are fantastic strategy games with built-in 3D but presumably were designed from the ground up with 3D in mind... ...but otherwise 3D graphics have killed any idea of buying any new strategy games.

Re:3D In Strategy Games (1)

awol (98751) | more than 4 years ago | (#31436282)

Try the "Total War" series. Turn based game where you can choose to play thebattles in a 3d world. Most excellent fun. It is something that a turn based game can get from a 3d zooming structure.

Re:3D In Strategy Games (1)

zach_the_lizard (1317619) | more than 4 years ago | (#31436502)

Except the campaign map AI is most retarded in the Total War series. You can be allies for centuries, fighting side by side in war after war, but as soon as you border one another, they will betray you for no reason, even if you are a globe spanning empire and they are but a single province nation that you helped keep alive. They also tend to build rather silly armies that make little sense when put together. The AI is even worse in the latest game, Empire; it's so bad that, until a patch, the AI could not invade over oceans, so you could never lose as Great Britain. Let's not even get to the fact that France is a two province nation that can be taken in just a few turns and totally destroyed, or the battle AI. If you want Total War games, go for Rome or Medieval II (or even before either of the two, if you like older games). Those also have excellent mods (which Empire does not; no one has even figured out how to add a province to the map yet).

Re:3D In Strategy Games (4, Interesting)

alen (225700) | more than 4 years ago | (#31436648)

welcome to the real world. go read a history book, this is exactly how things happened. Look at Britain and France. Mortal enemies for centuries, but as soon as Prussia/Germany rose to power they are now the best of friends. and Britain had a falling out with Prussia in the mid 1800's after centuries of being allies against France.

Same with Russia. Allies in the wars against Napoleon but come the mid 1800's Britain goes to war against Russia because they expand in the Crimea

Re:3D In Strategy Games (2, Interesting)

zach_the_lizard (1317619) | more than 4 years ago | (#31436874)

Unfortunately for your quick dismissal, there were reasons that they made the switch; they wanted to maintain a balance of power, they were threatened with a greater common enemy, etc. In game, none of this makes any sense whatsoever. If the game AI was running the world, there would be almost constant warfare in every last corner of the globe for the great offense of being neighbors. Estonia would be waging an aggressive war of conquest against Russia, and despite having no money, no army, and their last province under siege, they would refuse a white peace with the far more powerful Russians. In fact, the offer of peace would insult them, and they would be more determined to be conquered in a futile war.

That is how it works in the latest incarnation of the TW series. Worse, the factions have little in the way of differences in terms of units (save for the differences between the Western nations and the Marathas and Ottomans), and you only really get infantry that changes your tactics late in the game. The older games have more faction differences such that the battles don't get very old fast, and you mostly want to focus on battles anyways. I mean, you encounter chariots as the Romans for the first time, and you wonder what you have to do to win. You do the same when you fight the Greeks, the Easterners with the heavy cavalry, and so on. You then change factions and have to learn and grow again. In ETW, there's not much of that.

Re:3D In Strategy Games (1)

snillfisk (111062) | more than 4 years ago | (#31436328)

Then you should really take a look at the games being published by Paradox Interactive [paradoxplaza.com] . Classics such as the Europa Universalis-series and the Hearts of Iron-series are great strategy games. They're also publishing several other games in the same genre and I'd strongly suggest taking a closer look for games that play well and don't need a brand new gaming rig.

Re:3D In Strategy Games (2, Insightful)

moonbender (547943) | more than 4 years ago | (#31436378)

Ridiculous. Sure, Civ4 could work fine with a Civ1 style graphics scheme. Though why stop there, just do it in ASCII, nethack/dwarf fortress style! That said, it would be nice to be able to switch over to a simple graphics mode to run it on a netbook that lacks a decent GPU. Anyway, from a gameplay perspective the game benefits from 3D, if you really want to call it that -- Civ4 is pretty 2D about it's 3D overhead view. Being able to zoom in to an individual unit isn't particularly useful (so why would you do that?!), but smoothly zooming out to see your whole empire is great. It certainly doesn't take anything away from the game, and I don't see why the 3D view would be to blame for any dumbing down, either.

Similar things are true for SupCom, though I haven't played it anywhere near as much as Civ1/2/3/4; SupCom was widely acclaimed particularly because of the way it handles zooming in and out, which incidently is just about all you're going to do in terms of "twiddling" with the camera, it's not like you're going to pose units for pretty screenshots in the middle of a normal battle.

Re:3D In Strategy Games (2, Interesting)

FlyingBishop (1293238) | more than 4 years ago | (#31436500)

The interesting thing about dwarf fortress is that despite its primitive appearance, it's actually one of the most advanced games out there.

Aside from the fact that it's an alpha, it partially doesn't have graphics because most hardware can barely handle the game. The only thing that makes graphics feasible is the fact that the game engine is single-threaded.

Re:3D In Strategy Games (3, Interesting)

Ailure (853833) | more than 4 years ago | (#31436438)

Just wondering, did you at some point try Civ IV?

I play Civ IV and Freeciv and... I actually find both good to their own points. I find Freeciv Stronger than Civ I/II/II balance wise, but Civ IV have way different strategies which makes it interesting, especially with how you specialize cities. After getting used into thinking of terms of "cottage spam" and "specialist-based economy", I can't help but to find Freeciv rather basic. The irony is that while they removed a lot of old annoying micromanagement in Civ IV, they introduced new kinds of it. (I belive FreeCiv removed some micromanagment elements, such as making the game handle production/commerce "overflows" of various kinds).

Personally I don't find the 3D view a nuisance. I actually find it useful in RTS games, where you can pan the camera around buildings that blocks the camera. Isometric 2D games are annoying when it comes to handling buildings that is in the way. If it's a 2D RTS, I prefer a birds view style ala Dune 2/Tiberian Dawn/Red Alert.

Re:3D In Strategy Games (1)

pandrijeczko (588093) | more than 4 years ago | (#31436596)

I do own Civ IV as I bought it in the "Civilization Chronicles" box set, I installed it briefly but, perhaps unfairly, was put off by the 3D graphics before getting into it fully.

I'm not sure if I'm really a total Civ freak anyway because the version I play most is Test Of Time because I really like the Space Race ending... I remember at the time it got quite badly panned by reviewers who seemed to prefer Call To Power.

I will make a point of installing and trying Civ 4 again in the very near future...

Re:3D In Strategy Games (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31436514)

Secondly, Total Annihilation/Supreme Commander and C&C/Red Alert. There are RTS games but solely focused on small unit skirmishes and resource management, where development speed is core to winning each game... in which case, why in hell do I want (or even need) to mess around with zooming in and twiddling camera views?

TA and Supreme Commander are not about skirmishing, they are about massive battles on a huge scale. And the awesome zoom function of SC makes those battles manageable. I am unable to go back to any other RTS game (with the exception of the Total War series) - I always try desperately to zoom out further.
To me, the zoom function of TA is the single best feature of game GUI design in the last 15 years.

Re:3D In Strategy Games (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31436526)

You want strategy ?

just get europa universalis III or Hearts of Iron III from Paradox Entertainment they are awesome and the modding community is HUGE with many flavors of the game added every day by the users.

and chek out they forum. ITS ENORMOUS http://forum.paradoxplaza.com/forum/

Personally i just love the mod for Hearts of Iron II mod 34 some people from spain spend an insane amount of time adding events and techs to create a whole new game!

have fun!

- Namreg

Re:3D In Strategy Games (1)

Dun Malg (230075) | more than 4 years ago | (#31436846)

I don't think I've ever really understood what happened to strategy gaming on the PC around about the turn of the new Millennium.

Cheap computer and console gamers happened. The unlimited ammo, keep shooting till the millions of identical enemies are dead, learn to twitch faster than the boss on the screen to win the level, action action ACTION gaming idiot happened. Vast hordes of unsophisticated gamers created a big market that dwarfed the previous smaller market of more cerebral computer dorks. Companies started developing games for them, rather than us. That's why we have slightly updated EA sports games released every year.

Empire (1)

Shivetya (243324) | more than 4 years ago | (#31436858)

I would not mind a free version of this classic. You cannot get much simpler and still be involving.

Civ4 with mod FFH2 is plenty enough (4, Informative)

AceJohnny (253840) | more than 4 years ago | (#31436290)

I've recently discovered the Fall From Heaven 2 [civfanatics.net] mod for Civ4. It's the most sophisticated and complete mod for Civ4 out there. It's a fantasy mod set in a deep and well fleshed out universe [wikia.com]
It brings much more new concepts and content than both commercial extensions, Warlords and Beyond the Sword (although it requires these to work).

I expect it to keep me busy enough well past Civ V enters the discount bins. Having the mod ported to Civ V, however, will make me switch in an instant. Hint hint, Firaxis.

Re:Civ4 with mod FFH2 is plenty enough (1)

ironwill96 (736883) | more than 4 years ago | (#31436418)

You should play Fall Further, it adds even more unique civs and tweaks to Fall From Heaven 2 (it's a modmod). More Civ-Crack for your enjoyment :-)

Missing civ leaders... where is the great dictator (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31436304)

Through out the series they have been missing one great leader, they've had the likes of Stalin, Caesar and Napoleon, but why have the left out the great dictator? Adenoid Hynkel the dictator of Tomania.

More previews (2, Informative)

Eraesr (1629799) | more than 4 years ago | (#31436336)

They've got a preview up on Eurogamer [eurogamer.net] as well.

Wesnoth clone (4, Insightful)

fph il quozientatore (971015) | more than 4 years ago | (#31436392)

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.

Swell... (3, Insightful)

DoofusOfDeath (636671) | more than 4 years ago | (#31436430)

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.

the only question we should be asking (1)

C0vardeAn0nim0 (232451) | more than 4 years ago | (#31436530)

the only question we should be asking is: "where does the line start ???"

seriously, i'll cut my left ball out fi i don't get this game on day ONE!

But is it compatible (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31436538)

... with wine?

Re:But is it compatible (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31436836)

So long as you don't spill it on the keyboard in between turns, you should be fine.

*shrug* (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31436568)

Meh. I've been a Civ addict for years and this was the first time I heard about a new Civ game and couldn't give a toss.

I don't have time to master anything beyond Prince level any more, the AI's were always frustrating for various reasons and I do miss my old Civ 2 "sit on a pile of gold, take out the 3 biggest cities of my enemy and then buy up the rest of the empire" tactic using diplomats :) I do wish them well with the game, but I have moved away from PC gaming almost completely in the last 2 years so I won't be buying it. I really like that with a console, even though I don't have good TBS's, I don't have to worry about driver issues, RAM, processor speeds or any of the other 'joys' I spent 15 years having to do to get a game to work on the PC.

Civ, I do wish you well as a franchise, but sadly you are part of my past, a past before a wife that wants to spend time with me, consoles that 'just work' and eyes that could take 6 hours of gaming on a PC after 8 hours of being on a computer for work.

No city defection (2, Insightful)

blind biker (1066130) | more than 4 years ago | (#31436602)

I'm kinda bummed they got rid of city defection, because "my flavor" was that of cultural conquest.

No stack of doom: I am ambivalent on this one. Frankly, I never understood the huge uproar against the stack. If a player has the industrial muscle to build one, what whine is that of yours? Build your own stack of doom to counter it, or shut up and lose.

Hexes: I love that, and was eagerly awaiting for this feature to be implemented.

No religion: it's OK, I was never too fond of the way it was implemented, anyway. I understand why it was implemented the way it was, and why it was dropped - it's the good-ole political correctness at work. But, it's all fine, peace brother...

I just hope there still will be a "peaceful mode"-option to play the game, like there was for Civ IV.

don't it get boring? (1)

devent (1627873) | more than 4 years ago | (#31436618)

I mean, in 10 years do we still playing the same old Civ XII and Settlers VII? Do they expect to monetize the same concept at infinitum? Were are the new ideas, new concepts. I mean, even Civilization was a new concept back then and now it's a really great game, so where are the new concepts of today?

Re:don't it get boring? (1)

Rockoon (1252108) | more than 4 years ago | (#31436838)

CivI wasnt really a new concept. Its a 4X game and wasn't even close to the first.

It was based on the older Empire game, whos history is actually somewhat interesting. [wikipedia.org]

What Sid did was make it graphical, with an epic tech tree that mimics human history.

Re:don't it get boring? (1)

delinear (991444) | more than 4 years ago | (#31436880)

I know your point, but considering there are still plenty of people who enjoy playing Civ III, from almost ten years ago, let alone Civ IV from a mere 5 years ago, chances are there will be people in 10 years still playing Civ V, never mind Civ XII.

Re:don't it get boring? (1)

tangelogee (1486597) | more than 4 years ago | (#31436884)

you mean like Oregon Trail 1-5, plus phone/DS/Blender/Refrigerator versions?

Needs more Hitler (0, Flamebait)

Parlett316 (112473) | more than 4 years ago | (#31436672)

Seriously.

I was never good at Civ (2, Insightful)

Kokuyo (549451) | more than 4 years ago | (#31436682)

I always loved the game but I could never fully enjoy it either. I probably just suck at it, but war is no fun if one phalanx obliterates half a dozen tanks. What do I invest in science for when my future technology is trumped by this bronze age unit?

I usually win by being first to colonize another world or by building the UN. But to have a chance at that, I need to set hostilities to a minimum... it's only half as much fun to play a castrated version of the game.

I think next time I'll invest a few hours to read some guides and tactics.

Re:I was never good at Civ (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31436840)

I am pretty much in the same position. I love the Civ games and have done since I first played the original on the Amiga 500 - but I am quite hopeless at it and always have to play it on one of the lowest skill settings.

Once I get beyond about six cities I tend to lose track of what I was doing and I find building armies up waging war a bit boring.

Re:I was never good at Civ (1)

koreaman (835838) | more than 4 years ago | (#31436852)

Try Civ4. Modern units are much less likely to lose to spearmen than in previous games.

Workers? (2, Interesting)

wjousts (1529427) | more than 4 years ago | (#31436788)

How will the one unit per hex effect worker units? I could imagine it getting very frustrating when you can't move your armies out of your cities because of the gaggle of worker units building stuff around it. Personally, I'd like to see them do away with workers altogether. I've been playing CtP 2 recently (thanks GOG.com) and I'm really liking the lack of busy work moving workers around. I also like the fact that I can create trade routes without having to painstakingly move caravan units around.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?