Civilization V- Might actually be good now. Stay tuned.

[Malakili]

I know but Civ I came out 20 years ago.  So since it's not still relevant or funny (especially after the 3rd time its brought up) I can only presume people are serious.

Somehow I'm thinking you'll survive.  

They go back and forth.  They fixed it in 2, then flubbed it in 3 (The Random Number God is cold and callous), and flubbed it in a different direction in 4 (promotion and Cultural defense allows for some wonky things).  Mods fixed most of the problems, but combat has never really been the game's point so... eh.

Heh.  Oh I'll SURVIVE all right!  But seriously,  I've never played a game where someone was out teched that hard (bronze/modern).  I just don't get the complaint.  It's a game, if everytime someone got a new unit and it couldn't lose to a older unit the game would be broken.  There is a shitton of unrealistic things in Civ, it's not exactly a spot-on historical simulation.  But really, people should just sack up and stop playing on the easiest difficulty setting.  Because that's the only way to out tech someone that much.

Its not just about out teching, but also encouraging upgrading old units.  I mean, its still GOOD to upgrade, but you can get away with not doing it.  It isn't so much that you'll be sending bombers at someone when they are in the bronze age, but if someone forgets to put any new units in a city after an archer, you SHOULD be able to roll over it with no losses.

Still, doesn't mean I wouldn't play the game or something, I just have to admit it is something that feels odd when it happens.

[Nebu]

Its not just about out teching, but also encouraging upgrading old units.  I mean, its still GOOD to upgrade, but you can get away with not doing it.  It isn't so much that you'll be sending bombers at someone when they are in the bronze age, but if someone forgets to put any new units in a city after an archer, you SHOULD be able to roll over it with no losses.

Still, doesn't mean I wouldn't play the game or something, I just have to admit it is something that feels odd when it happens.

Thank you for this.  You summed up my feelings nicely. 

Some of the early issues with the game were jarring.  Many were addressed, but some lingered or came and went.  I still love the franchise, but it does/did have its issues. 

[dusematic]

Its not just about out teching, but also encouraging upgrading old units.  I mean, its still GOOD to upgrade, but you can get away with not doing it.  It isn't so much that you'll be sending bombers at someone when they are in the bronze age, but if someone forgets to put any new units in a city after an archer, you SHOULD be able to roll over it with no losses.

Still, doesn't mean I wouldn't play the game or something, I just have to admit it is something that feels odd when it happens.

Thank you for this.  You summed up my feelings nicely. 

Some of the early issues with the game were jarring.  Many were addressed, but some lingered or came and went.  I still love the franchise, but it does/did have its issues. 

Ok but then my next question is who you're playing against that is so bad that they leave archers defending their border cities in the modern era?  Because the AI doesn't do that past the newb setting.

[Nebu]

Ok but then my next question is who you're playing against that is so bad that they leave archers defending their border cities in the modern era?  Because the AI doesn't do that past the newb setting.

My original statement was an exaggeration intended to be a silly comment.  I never realized it would rock the foundations of gaming lore. 

[dusematic]

I suppose I just got exposed for being a Civ nerd.  You've flushed the rabbit from its den!  Onwards!

[AutomaticZen]

I suppose I just got exposed for being a Civ nerd.  You've flushed the rabbit from its den!  Onwards!

It's all good.  I'm quite the Civ nerd myself.  Like I said, Civ 3 and 4 had the problem in various degrees.  Civ 3 with the low unit hit points and RNG.  Civ 4 with various bonuses and such (promoted units are viciously strong if set up right)

I personally don't think it's that bad, but I still find it funny when it happens.  Gal Civ II (yes, not the same company) was in the same vein, with slightly more logical (logical for a game with aliens and spaceships) combat.

[Stormwaltz]

It's funny to me that this is the one thing people latch on to with Civ with there is so much more wrong with the game.  Namely, its botched patching process and its botched multiplayer.

People actually play Civ multiplayer? Not PBEM, but actual mutiplayer?

[Nebu]

Gal Civ II (yes, not the same company) was in the same vein, with slightly more logical (logical for a game with aliens and spaceships) combat.

I loved this game.  I think it was my fondness for it's origins (if anyone remembers Reach for the Stars).

I apologize if my comment slighted anyone.  I too am a huge Sid Meiers fan and have lost countless hours of my life to these games, particularly Railroad Tycoon.  

[ghost]

My original statement was an exaggeration intended to be a silly comment.  I never realized it would rock the foundations of gaming lore. 

You really should have known better.  This has turned awesome though.  Good job!

[Baldrake]

People actually play Civ multiplayer? Not PBEM, but actual mutiplayer?

I did once. My wife was out of town. My buddy's wife was out of town. We started right after supper. When we finished, I was astonished to see the sun was coming up. Amazingly fun, but my god, not something that can be done very often.

[dusematic]

People actually play Civ multiplayer? Not PBEM, but actual mutiplayer?

I did once. My wife was out of town. My buddy's wife was out of town. We started right after supper. When we finished, I was astonished to see the sun was coming up. Amazingly fun, but my god, not something that can be done very often.

Civ 4 has a system called "simultaneous turns."  Pretty self-explanatory.  You can also set maximum time limits for each turn which scale as the game progresses and your empires (presumably) grow.  It's pretty cool, except for the online servers being run by GameSpy.  Winners are usually decided in about an hour.

[ghost]

I would have to view multiplayer games of Civ as being similar to Monopoly-  something that is often started but rarely finished in its entirety.

[Mrbloodworth]

I hope they take some cues from revolution.

[dusematic]

I would have to view multiplayer games of Civ as being similar to Monopoly-  something that is often started but rarely finished in its entirety.

Civ 4 multiplayer is all about warfare.  Games are seldom "finished" because people quit or concede once it becomes obvious who the winner will be.  This usually takes about an hour.

[dusematic]

I hope they take some cues from revolution.

Civ Rev was dumbed down so much that it became uninteresting.

[Valmorian]

Civ Rev was dumbed down so much that it became uninteresting.

Interesting, I always preferred Civ Rev because I felt it boiled Civ down to the essentials and could actually be played in a reasonable amount of time..

[Njal]

About the Tanks vs Archers. I rationalize that those archers actually have assault rifles it's just that they are a bunch of illiterate goons with no organization who can barely reload the things, sort of like most third world armies right now.

I wish that Firaxis had some way to make this visual as it would defuse a lot of the so called controversy.

[ghost]

I would have to view multiplayer games of Civ as being similar to Monopoly-  something that is often started but rarely finished in its entirety.

Civ 4 multiplayer is all about warfare.  Games are seldom "finished" because people quit or concede once it becomes obvious who the winner will be.  This usually takes about an hour.

My point.

[Sky]

About the Tanks vs Archers. I rationalize that those archers actually have assault rifles it's just that they are a bunch of illiterate goons with no organization who can barely reload the things, sort of like most third world armies right now.

I wish that Firaxis had some way to make this visual as it would defuse a lot of the so called controversy.

[Mrbloodworth]

Civ Rev was dumbed down so much that it became uninteresting.

Interesting, I always preferred Civ Rev because I felt it boiled Civ down to the essentials and could actually be played in a reasonable amount of time..

Same. It was a great stream line, I really don't need a slider for wiping each citizens butt. However one of my first games as Civ one, so..

[Lantyssa]

Why is the arrowhead at a 30° angle to the shaft?

[rattran]

So he can shoot around corners.

[Merusk]

Hexes? In my Civs!?  I'm torn on this.  If they do nothing with them re:facings then, why? 

Still, new civs.  I'll buy it day 0. Gimmeh!

[GenVec]

No elevation! Again! It's like someone went back in time and prevented SMAC from ever being created. Will they ever surpass a game they released 12 years ago?

That said, I do like this talk of limiting the number of units in a tile space. That's going to change things tremendously.

[Xuri]

What's this? Limit the number of units in a tile space? But I LIKE stacking 25 Numidian cavalry in the same tile and then roll over other civilizations! :(

[dusematic]

it would be nice to not have to fuck around with 500 units at a time.

[GenVec]

I don't think there's many occasions where you would have more than 50-100 unfortified units at the same time, and many of them would be on multi-turn move orders. Assuming that you limited it to 3 units per square, it's manageable.

And if it eliminates the dreaded Stack 'o Death and makes terrain more important during war, I'm all for it.

[Stormwaltz]

What's this? Limit the number of units in a tile space? But I LIKE stacking 25 Numidian cavalry in the same tile and then roll over other civilizations! :(

I hope it has something like Combined Arms Stack Attack in Dale's Combat Mod.

[Velorath]

IGN has a new preview up.  I'm still a bit torn on the one unit per tile thing.

[Sky]

Yeah, I can see maybe restricting stacks to a smaller size...but one? That's not even Civ anymore imo. I mean...your own units will block movement for each other?

I'll hold off judgement until I play but I still hope to hell that Kael makes FFH3. While I still like the franchise, it's been moving in odd directions since Civ2. I had actually stopped playing Civ4 until I discovered FFH2. There a whole lot of "hmm...I hope that works out" in that article.

Iron mines only supporting 5 units, borders expanding toward food instead of production, no culture-flipping, no religion or espionage...time will tell.

[WayAbvPar]

Unit/tile restrictions will almost have to make warfare less kludgy, yes? If so, that is a huge step in the right direction for me.

[Mrbloodworth]

I'm still a bit torn on the one unit per tile thing.

Its been a long time, but isn't that how the original played out?

[Bunk]

If it leads to the computer using a strategy other than just producing axemen in every city for a hundred years and then sending them at me in one giant stack - I'll be happy.

[Malakili]

Unit/tile restrictions will almost have to make warfare less kludgy, yes? If so, that is a huge step in the right direction for me.

Agreed.  While I don't want to see non-combat stuff get taken out/reduced, I think having a more interesting combat/warfare system would be quite interesting.

[Njal]

I'm still a bit torn on the one unit per tile thing.

Its been a long time, but isn't that how the original played out?

IIRC you could stack in the original but the entire stack died if you lost on defence.