Civ V game discussion

I am curious as to the balance of gameplay between empire-management and warfare.

[One of our] major goals with Civ V is that the game be accessible to more people than the previous Civ games. The best way to address that is by improving the interface and providing players with new tools for learning the game.

I really hope they just mean the interface and advisors, but the "accessible" bit scares me.

No longer are diplomatic modifiers shown since this used to give away pretty much everything your computer-controlled rival nations were thinking.

So they can be min-maxed only by people willing to dig into the code, find out the diplo modifiers, and "count the cards" of the AI player's diplo standing? I see what they're going for, but people will figure out how it works.

Other than those, it looks quite enticing. And the screenshots are so beautiful. *Sigh* Too bad I won't be buying the game.

The masking of information is a bit of a red flag, IMO. The idea of a strategy game is to give players a system they can interact with, information about the system, and ask them to make interesting decisions. Masking information from the player, which they can acquire simply through careful note-taking, doesn't serve that purpose.

I'm note sure how I feel about the non stacking units. I was kind of hoping for a tactical battle system "like MoM", but then again we do have elemental

I don't think Civ will ever have that kind of system, but since ranged units can shoot multiple hexes and artillery can bombard units before they reach the infantry wall, the overland combat is a lot more interesting then the old stack of death style.

Quoting Tridus,

reply 5

I don't think Civ will ever have that kind of system, but since ranged units can shoot multiple hexes and artillery can bombard units before they reach the infantry wall, the overland combat is a lot more interesting then the old stack of death style.

I'm glad you like it. I really just don't think it's a style of combat that interests me.

Honestly I haven't like much of anything I've seen about Civ 5 and this enforces that.

[One of our] major goals with Civ V is that the game be accessible to more people than the previous Civ games. The best way to address that is by improving the interface and providing players with new tools for learning the game.

To me this means they are

1) Dumbing down the game to the least common demonator

2) Developing the game for consoles first which not only dumbs the game down but usually creates a crappy UI.

Quoting Bill_Door,

reply 2

[One of our] major goals with Civ V is that the game be accessible to more people than the previous Civ games. The best way to address that is by improving the interface and providing players with new tools for learning the game.

I really hope they just mean the interface and advisors, but the "accessible" bit scares me.

I think you have cause for concern. To me that paragraph is PR-speak and 'accessible' means multi-platform, and 'improving the interface' means dumbing it down to the lowest common denominator.

They're maximize sales while minimizing expenses by not making different versions (or minimizing differences) for different systems.

edited: lol Bonscott posted essentially the same thing using the same terms while I was posting this.

Quoting bonscott,

reply 7

To me this means they are

1) Dumbing down the game to the least common demonator

2) Developing the game for consoles first which not only dumbs the game down but usually creates a crappy UI.

I hope you're wrong, but my gut tells my you're spot on.

Well, some of that is fixing UI problems in Civ 4. Notifications are way better then a barrage of modal dialog boxes every turn, but are also "simpler".

Advisors existed in the previous Civ games and were removed, so bringing those back can't really be an attempt to dumb it down for consoles either.

Quoting Bill_Door,

reply 9

Quoting bonscott,
reply 7
To me this means they are

1) Dumbing down the game to the least common demonator

2) Developing the game for consoles first which not only dumbs the game down but usually creates a crappy UI.

I hope you're wrong, but my gut tells my you're spot on.

I don't get that vibe at all - quite the opposite, since they even stated in the next sentence that you can enable a more advanced UI if you want more information at your finger tips. They already stated Civ Rev was designed to get new players involved into the more advanced strategy of the flagship game (Civ V proper). I think it sounds freaking amazing from that video and the interview. Man, what a great year to be a strategy gamer!

Quoting VeryAngryDwarf,

reply 11

I don't get that vibe at all - quite the opposite, since they even stated in the next sentence that you can enable a more advanced UI if you want more information at your finger tips. They already stated Civ Rev was designed to get new players involved into the more advanced strategy of the flagship game (Civ V proper). I think it sounds freaking amazing from that video and the interview. Man, what a great year to be a strategy gamer!

It wouldn't be the first time fans were told not to worry while the next game in the series is trying to pull in new blood, and that worry turns out to be warranted.

Oh if we can't complain about steam than I'm leaving....

Ok seriously.....

I hope they allow you to create combination units - part cavalry part archer for example- otherwise, with only a single unit in a stack your going to be stuck using one type of unit or another for combat and it's a game of rock-scissors-paper as to what type of unit you get matched up against - if you have cavalry your going to go against other cavalry (at which point unit strength and/or blind luck determine the outcome) or against infantry (where you have a clear advantage) or pikemen (where you have a clear disadvantage). Archers/other shooting units are kind of a third wheel and don't make enough tactical difference to matter in this discussion. In Civ 4 you could make a stack and have a few archers, a few infantry, some pikemen, and have cavalry nearby to swipe in and make your stack bigger when needed. This would cover your bases and make battles really more of a difference of strength and unit type- something I fear may be less impactful in Civ5.

Quoting Nesrie,

reply 12

Quoting VeryAngryDwarf,
reply 11

I don't get that vibe at all - quite the opposite, since they even stated in the next sentence that you can enable a more advanced UI if you want more information at your finger tips. They already stated Civ Rev was designed to get new players involved into the more advanced strategy of the flagship game (Civ V proper). I think it sounds freaking amazing from that video and the interview. Man, what a great year to be a strategy gamer!

It wouldn't be the first time fans were told not to worry while the next game in the series is trying to pull in new blood, and that worry turns out to be warranted.

I assume you are referring to a non-Civ game because I can't imagine what Civ game you felt was "dumbed down"? Civ 4? Civ 3? Civ 2? I guess by comparrison the original was pretty simple?

(edit - I'm referring to the Civ games themselves, not the off shoot CivRev wich WAS intentionally dumbed down, of course)

Advisors existed in the previous Civ games and were removed, so bringing those back can't really be an attempt to dumb it down for consoles either.

Is this slated to come out on consoles? That's the first I've heard of that. Usually that is bad news but occasionally it works out. We'll see.

Quoting edpfister,

reply 16

Advisors existed in the previous Civ games and were removed, so bringing those back can't really be an attempt to dumb it down for consoles either.
Is this slated to come out on consoles? That's the first I've heard of that. Usually that is bad news but occasionally it works out. We'll see.

It's not. I was replying to some earlier posts about it being dumbed down and simplified to be multi-platform.

Quoting VeryAngryDwarf,

reply 15

I assume you are referring to a non-Civ game because I can't imagine what Civ game you felt was "dumbed down"? Civ 4? Civ 3? Civ 2? I guess by comparrison the original was pretty simple?

(edit - I'm referring to the Civ games themselves, not the off shoot CivRev wich WAS intentionally dumbed down, of course)

Indeed, Civ games haven't been dumbed down...yet. But it seems to be a trend these days, to take good, well-established titles and dumb them down, "to improve accessability." *Cough*SupCom2*Cough*.

I like the fact that some of the devs are big fans of panzer general.

Quoting Bill_Door,

reply 18

Quoting VeryAngryDwarf,
reply 15
I assume you are referring to a non-Civ game because I can't imagine what Civ game you felt was "dumbed down"? Civ 4? Civ 3? Civ 2? I guess by comparrison the original was pretty simple?

(edit - I'm referring to the Civ games themselves, not the off shoot CivRev wich WAS intentionally dumbed down, of course)

Indeed, Civ games haven't been dumbed down...yet. But it seems to be a trend these days, to take good, well-established titles and dumb them down, "to improve accessability." *Cough*SupCom2*Cough*.

Yep, I couldn't agree more - it's aggrivating as heck. However, I don't get that sense at all from the gameplay video or the interview. Streamlined, maybe (but let's face it - Civ 4 could definately be streamlined). Dumbed down? I don't believe that's happening here. It helps it's PC only, too. Something to bear in mind, maybe?

Not that I'd disagree with your pecismism - it's hard one with games like Fallout 3 (which is a big offender of "Consolidos" if ever there was one) running around, but again, I don't get that sense from the Civ 5 stuff released so far.

Quoting VeryAngryDwarf,

reply 20

Yep, I couldn't agree more - it's aggrivating as heck. However, I don't get that sense at all from the gameplay video or the interview. Streamlined, maybe (but let's face it - Civ 4 could definately be streamlined). Dumbed down? I don't believe that's happening here. It helps it's PC only, too. Something to bear in mind, maybe?

Not that I'd disagree with your pecismism - it's hard one with games like Fallout 3 (which is a big offender of "Consolidos" if ever there was one) running around, but again, I don't get that sense from the Civ 5 stuff released so far.

Well, I could be overreacting, but the "accessable" part scared me. I guess we'll just have to wait for more info or release to know for sure.

I don't know why I even care tough, since I'm not going to buy the game.

I don't care if a game is "accessable", I'd honestly prefer a inaccessable game because if the average gamer can play it, I'm not that interested.

Long live one of the most inaccessable games of all time: Dwarf Fortress!

Quoting Bill_Door,

reply 21

Quoting VeryAngryDwarf,
reply 20
Yep, I couldn't agree more - it's aggrivating as heck. However, I don't get that sense at all from the gameplay video or the interview. Streamlined, maybe (but let's face it - Civ 4 could definately be streamlined). Dumbed down? I don't believe that's happening here. It helps it's PC only, too. Something to bear in mind, maybe?

Not that I'd disagree with your pecismism - it's hard one with games like Fallout 3 (which is a big offender of "Consolidos" if ever there was one) running around, but again, I don't get that sense from the Civ 5 stuff released so far.

Well, I could be overreacting, but the "accessable" part scared me. I guess we'll just have to wait for more info or release to know for sure.

I don't know why I even care tough, since I'm not going to buy the game.

I don't care if a game is "accessable", I'd honestly prefer a inaccessable game because if the average gamer can play it, I'm not that interested.

Long live one of the most inaccessable games of all time: Dwarf Fortress!

LOL - fair enough! I think as I get older and dumber though, I like the idea of a little hand holding.

In an early preview I read that the developers were using the console based Civilization: Revolutions as their inspiration for the latest numbered instalment. While the art style was much more defined on the console version, it was an extremely lacking version of the game - the DS version being the closest to matching the PC in terms of gameplay. If they're starting with Civilisation IV and adding Civilization: Revolutions to the mix to produce Civilization V, I weep for the series.

Quoting ZehDon,

reply 23

In an early preview I read that the developers were using the console based Civilization: Revolutions as their inspiration for the latest numbered instalment. While the art style was much more defined on the console version, it was an extremely lacking version of the game - the DS version being the closest to matching the PC in terms of gameplay. If they're starting with Civilisation IV and adding Civilization: Revolutions to the mix to produce Civilization V, I weep for the series.

They aren't doing that - you're jumping to conclusions without watching the linked footage or reading any of the recent interviews, it would seem.

Found an article on IGN too, reading it now.

Edit: Some new stuff (I think, I didn't read the gamespot one that closely), but some of the same answers.

The Forums Are Now Closed!

The content will remain as a historical reference, thank you.