| Mail |
You might also like: WoW.com, Massively, and more

Reader Comments (50)

Posted: Mar 10th 2010 3:38AM MrAlex said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
Really, one unit per space?

the hexagonal grid is cool but these are some odd changes overall.
Reply

Posted: Mar 10th 2010 8:36AM Xoonaka said

  • 2.5 hearts
  • Report
I'm more wondering how this "range" thing is going to work out.... the entire concept is mind boggling!

Oh, and the City States thing sounds pretty cool too, especially freshly coming off Assassin's Creed 2. I'll negotiate peace with the Medicini!
Reply

Posted: Mar 10th 2010 9:04AM calgaryaltahotmailcom said

  • 2.5 hearts
  • Report
@ Xoonaka

Exactly, if archers can shoot further than one hex than wouldn't that be the equivalent of shooting an arrow tens of miles?
Reply

Posted: Mar 10th 2010 9:22AM Ghen said

  • 3 hearts
  • Report
I wonder if they'll bring back the army general who can combine units into essentially 1 unit to get around that restriction.
Reply

Posted: Mar 10th 2010 11:11AM Berzerk said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
One unit per hex and ranged combat on hexs sounds like they're decreased in size from the first game. The question is whether buildings and cities will be multi-hex or not.
Reply

Posted: Mar 10th 2010 2:20PM Korova Pamplona said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
CIV, YOU'VE CHANGED! You are not the same game I fell in love with, married and had little civs with. Ahhh - hoo -hooo -hoo!

Seriously, though, it will make battles a lot more complicated that the stack of death tactic that defines war in Civ. A lot more care will be required.

Battles will probably be a lot more interesting. But moving a lot of units across the map will be like managing a locust invasion.

The City-State is basically an upgraded Barbarian city. Cool!

I just want a simultaneous Mac port, demit! Can Macs do DX11?
Reply

Posted: Mar 10th 2010 3:46PM Xiegfried said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
I've never played Civilization before, but this reminds me a lot of Heroscape. It's a hex-based war game. If this works anything like it, I might give it a shot.
Reply

Posted: Mar 10th 2010 3:41AM Cypher FDP said

  • 1 heart
  • Report
2 more places to move already made this an INSTANT purchase.

I kid of course. I actually need to see gameplay footage first.
Reply

Posted: Mar 10th 2010 4:19AM (Unverified) said

  • 3 hearts
  • Report
You could always move in 8 directions though. You could move in the squares diagonal to the squares you were on. I wonder why they decided to make hexes, it actually reduces the directions of movement.
Reply

Posted: Mar 10th 2010 8:49AM ybfelix said

  • 3 hearts
  • Report
Though hex surely makes more pleasant looking terrains. Square based continent always looked awkward.
Reply

Posted: Mar 10th 2010 3:57AM (Unverified) said

  • Half a heart
  • Report
....wow my optimism for this game just disappeared. Taking away armies is damaging but only one unit per space?????? no thanks
Reply

Posted: Mar 10th 2010 5:18AM LaughingTarget said

  • 3 hearts
  • Report
Makes sense to me. Is it reasonable to be able to take an entire army between two enemy armies that close to one another? This creates a different dimension in strategy and realism the series strives for.
Reply

Posted: Mar 10th 2010 8:29AM Xoonaka said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
Whether it creates more "realism" or not, it is taking away one of the core strategies of the game. Throwing weak offensive but good defensive units in to protect your weak defensive but high offensive units while you're laying siege...

I'm gonna have to go with Provost on this one... like the loss in 2 directions of movement, this too feels like another step backwards.
Reply

Posted: Mar 10th 2010 9:07AM calgaryaltahotmailcom said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
Agreed, the should have just limited armies to 2 or 3 units or something small like that.
Reply

Posted: Mar 11th 2010 5:13AM (Unverified) said

  • 2.5 hearts
  • Report
Actually, with the addition of ranged units, this brings up different strategies. Strategies like setting up a line of high defense and low offense units to protect high offense and low defense ranged units.

This is the way that serious strategy games have been run for a long time, and for good reason. The combat should have more depth now than just "everyone in this stack attacks everyone in that stack".
Reply

Posted: Mar 10th 2010 3:57AM Erron Kelly said

  • 3 hearts
  • Report
Civ 5 was a guaranteed purchase the moment I bought Civ 4. Regardless of the changes the previous title earned these guys insta-buy cred.
Reply

Posted: Mar 10th 2010 8:36AM Xoonaka said

  • 3 hearts
  • Report
To be fair, they earned it with Civ 1. Nothing they've made since that jewel has been bad. Sometimes disappointing, slightly, but never bad.
Reply

Posted: Mar 10th 2010 9:09AM calgaryaltahotmailcom said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
Agreed, instant buy for me, my first experience with the series was on Playstation 1.
Reply

Posted: Mar 10th 2010 10:43AM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
yeah i got the version on the ps1, liked it but dear lord the loading times were terrible and made the game unplayable.

but yeah easily my favourite pc franchise and doesnt matter to me what changes they make as the games always turn out great
Reply

Posted: Mar 10th 2010 4:09AM mikec89 said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
Man that Pure Pwnage ad is pissing me off...
Reply

Posted: Mar 10th 2010 6:30AM Morisato13 said

  • 3 hearts
  • Report
Well, your face pisses me off... Blue Steel sucks. it's all about Ferrari.
Reply

Posted: Mar 10th 2010 9:25AM Ghen said

  • 3 hearts
  • Report
Are you kidding me? That's obviously La Tigra.
Reply

Posted: Mar 10th 2010 4:11AM ajprice said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
Put some playing cards in the game and call it Catan 2 :p .
Reply

Posted: Mar 10th 2010 7:31AM nighttime said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
I wish!
i'd love a HD version of catan.
Reply

Posted: Mar 10th 2010 4:45AM Veko said

  • 3 hearts
  • Report
Remember back when you played Civ 3 in the evening and was surprised to find moments (actually many hours) later that the sun is rising outside and work is in 2 hours?

Yeah, I have a feeling that's going to happen to me again. I welcome the changes that are happening. If you don't like them, why play Civ 5? Why not just load up Civ 4 or 3?
Reply

Posted: Mar 10th 2010 10:43AM Xoonaka said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
I'm going to at least buy it. Ole Sid deserves my money.

Whether I play it endlessly, or just feeling nostalgic and switching back to a pre-Revolutions edition is yet to be seen.

Did they mention if they had advisors in this one? Or if people speak regularly, no Civ-lish with subtitles?
Reply

Posted: Mar 10th 2010 4:47AM Hazdaz said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
Honestly, does it matter what changes they did?

Unless they royally screwed it up (which I highly doubt), this is still going to be hella addictive, just like every other Civ game.

I personally am disappointed that there is not going to be a console version - I just can't stand sitting in front of a computer for long and much prefer the lounge atmosphere that only a console can give you.
Reply

Posted: Mar 10th 2010 8:06AM Credge said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
Yeah, that might have been true 15 years ago but...
Reply

Posted: Mar 10th 2010 8:09AM LaughingTarget said

  • 2.5 hearts
  • Report
You'd be hard pressed to find a PC that can't hook up to your television and wireless
mice and keyboards are cheap. Further, the 360 pad is available for the PC.

The only think keeping me from doing that is the 1080p set is too low resolution and the PC chair is just too comfortable.
Reply

Posted: Mar 10th 2010 2:31PM Korova Pamplona said

  • 2.5 hearts
  • Report
I dont know, I am a little worried. They are messing the core strategic mechanic here. As someone said, this is like merging Civ with Panzer General. I love both games, but the merger may not work out well.

Its gonna be a very different game -it will either be even more epic or a Coke II moment. Big changes, big gamble.

*bites nails
Reply

Posted: Mar 10th 2010 7:21AM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
Awesome. I loved panzer general. This game seems to be just like it.
Reply

Posted: Mar 10th 2010 8:51AM ybfelix said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
Yah, even no-stack rule is same
Reply

Posted: Mar 10th 2010 9:13AM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
Since you can move in eight directions in Civ IV, they're actually taking two away not giving you two more. [/pedant]

Also, do want!
Reply

Posted: Mar 10th 2010 10:44AM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
Oh snap, I completely forgot about diagonal moves.
Reply

Posted: Mar 10th 2010 9:18AM (Unverified) said

  • 3 hearts
  • Report
A hexagonal grid allows much more consistent movement in all directions. Anyone who plays a varied amount of board games should know that. As for the no-stacking, that is also a major improvement. Having massive amounts of units crammed onto one tiny space never felt epic. Plus, it killed any sense of realistic strategy. How do you set up defensive perimeters? Guard an entire border? Plus, seeing half your continent overrun with troops will add far more visceral feel than seeing one tiny stack.

If ranged units can fire many squares away, then it looks like newer strategies will involve rows of melee hexagons guarding a second row of ranged. Again, far more obvious, enjoyable strategy. Plus, this allows mounted units to effectively crash through a line, allowing successive attacks by mounted units to punch through to the weaker ranged before the opponent has time to move and close the gap.

Overall, these changes are making me smile. Hope that doesn't become a frown when the game actually launches.
Reply

Posted: Mar 10th 2010 9:50AM Xoonaka said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
I've played a varied amount of board games, and I disagree with the Hex statement.

But I do agree with your assessment on the stacking. It just doesn't feel Civ to me. Civ was never really about true military strategy, it was more big picture strategy.

It's like if the next C&C game were being made to play more like MAG. Sure, it's more realistic since soldiers would never just stand there and fire, they'd move around, take cover, etc.... but you know, it's kind of not the point.

But I do think it'll play well. I have confidence in that.
Reply

Posted: Mar 10th 2010 11:39AM (Unverified) said

  • 2.5 hearts
  • Report
Take a measuring tape and pull up any board game with a grid. Now measure the distance a unit moves if it goes over 10 tiles north-south or east-west. Now measure 10 tiles in diagonals. The diagonal distance is quite longer (roughly 1.5x of the top of my head). Some games add rules that every other diagonal counts as two movements and such (dnd 3.5 comes to mind), other forgo that (dnd 4 or all civs games are exemples) and yet others don't allow you to move diagonal at all so moving to a diagonal square is always two movement so they have the opposite problem, diagonals movement get much shorter than straight north/south/east/west (Poxnora is the only example I know of)
With hexes, no mater which direction you move in, you're always moving the same distance. This is ideal and simple. It boggles my mind American games haven't adopted hexes earlier as the norm. I'm glad it's becoming more popular, as seen in Civ 5 and even some modern board games (Runewars for example came out this year and features hexes while past games from the same company used tiles). It seems such an obvious solution, it's kinda mind boggling it hadn't been like that all along.
And as far as being able to stack an infinite amount of units on a single area, the Risk days are over in my opinion. The norm for war games is also changing to having a limit of some sort on the number of units you can have on a single area. Some games, like let's say Runewars, A game of thrones and others, have some mechanics that lets you increase your supplies/logistic so you can group up more units in the same area. It just makes sense and it add a lot more strategy to a game.
Reply

Posted: Mar 10th 2010 1:26PM BigD145 said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
What should have been done is make it so having many units in one space actually made some sort of difference in a fight. Instead of throwing a mixed army together in one fight, they went with the "micromanage army movement all over the board." It's a step back, not a step forward. The hex usage is merely a step sideways.
Reply

Posted: Mar 10th 2010 6:09PM calgaryaltahotmailcom said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
hmmm good points David.
Reply

Posted: Mar 10th 2010 9:26AM Zurrafax said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
Although some of the changes may seem drastic, I'm sure they're for the better. I'm looking forward to this game so hopefully we'll learn more soon.
Reply

Posted: Mar 10th 2010 9:44AM Crimsic said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
I'm always late to the Civ Party because I never keep up with having a nice PC, (Yes, I realize Civ games usually arent' that hard to run), but ever since Civ III, I have been a huge fan of the series. And I was only 7 when the game came out, and have loved it ever since...even if I was told I was too young to rule an empire...
Reply

Posted: Mar 10th 2010 9:53AM Hazdaz said

  • Half a heart
  • Report
I don't give a crap about hooking my PC to my TV - it has nothing to do with hardware limitations, and everything to do with the fact that I don't care for gaming on a PC. That's why I have my XBox360. I thought they did a pretty decent conversion with Civ Revolution for the XB360, so it would be nice if they tried to do the same with Civ5 (or a version of it).
Reply

Posted: Mar 10th 2010 10:36AM RKN said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
I'm sure there will be a version for consoles, I'd be surprised if there wasn't. Now if only the PC could get some console games. ; )
Reply

Posted: Mar 10th 2010 12:48PM LaughingTarget said

  • 3 hearts
  • Report
A console is a PC with a brand name slapped on the front and functionality removed. I have a LAN PC that's smaller than the 260 and PS3 that's designed to work on televisions. This isn't different than the PS3 except I can run word processors and have a decent web
browser.

If you think a PC is a huge tower that sits next to a desk, you haven't been on the PC scene for a decade. It's like whining about Vista bugs from 2007, makes you look ignorant.
Reply

Posted: Mar 10th 2010 3:07PM Hazdaz said

  • Half a heart
  • Report
Look everybody, we have the utmost expert on computer, gaming and consoles right here on this blog site.... LaughingTarget!

:rolleyes:




Reply

Posted: Mar 10th 2010 7:43PM xxxsam said

  • 2.5 hearts
  • Report
@Laughing: I think one reason many people prefer to play games on consoles these days is the fact that on a console, when you want to play a game, you buy it and put the disc in and it works. On a PC, you buy it- no, wait, can't buy it yet, better check the minimum specs. Shit! My graphics card is 3 years old, it scrapes the minimum. Is it going to play? Maybe if I reduce resolution and tweak the graphics settings. OK, I'll buy it. Now I put the disc in, inst- shit, I'm out of HD space, better delete something. OK, done, install. Start the game. Tweak graphic settings. It didn't crash! Result. Game works. (Although the graphics looks crap compared to what I saw in the shop!) Ten minutes later, wi-fi connection goes down, no problem this is a single-play- wait wtf it died? DRM? wtf? Internet comes back, search torrent sites, download crack. Play game again, it works, enjoy.

and repeat for every single game you ever play.

sure, this is exaggerated (and at least nobody needs to edit config.sys files any more, remember that?) - and if you buy a fast PC and keep it up to date and don't buy Ubisoft games, you might have no problem playing games on PC. but with consoles every game works exactly the same on every system and you never have to configure anything. (And you can keep a slow old PC that doesn't need upgrading for all your business software, web browsing etc.) Huge win.

there are obviously benefits to playing games on PC as well but for people who want a 'just works' experience, consoles are where it's at.
Reply

Posted: Mar 10th 2010 8:17PM Hazdaz said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
@Sam

:golf clap:

That was a nice write - you actually get the problem with PC gaming. Hell this game isn't even near being released yet and these previews are already talking about needing some fairly beefy CPU and GPU power to run it. Why deal with that crap - as well as BS like DRM - if you can pop in a disc into a console? It just isn't worth the hassle.

It comes down to people either get the problem, or want to hide their heads in the sand and pretend it doesn't exist. The sales of console games versus PC games have made it rather clear what most people feel about this issue.
Reply

Posted: Mar 10th 2010 10:35AM (Unverified) said

  • 3 hearts
  • Report
Enough Civ games! Make Alpha Centauri 2 already!
Reply

Posted: Mar 10th 2010 10:48AM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
The Alpha Centauri rights situation makes me, and probably all other AC fans, very unhappy. I'm sure Sid Meier would love to be able to make AC2.
Reply

Posted: Mar 10th 2010 10:57AM Mr Itcher said

  • 3 hearts
  • Report
Between this and starcraft 2 I have a reason to upgrade my PC for the first time in roughly 5 years!
Reply
Sorry, you must be logged in to leave a comment.

Featured Stories

Engadget

WoW

Massively

Big Download

Autoblog

Urlesque

Games.com Blog

UGO.com