Civilization 5 Announced

[Krill]

http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread...t&t=373878

[ThERat]

Hi guys...haven't been here for a long long time.

Now that there is a little more information out about game mechanics and some videos, what is your feeling towards Civ 5. I am still not too sure whether the game caters for the casual gamer. I sure hope not.

But the latest Giant Death Robot is truly silly and stupid. 2k is really getting on my nerves.

[VoiceOfUnreason]

Now that there is a little more information out about game mechanics and some videos, what is your feeling towards Civ 5. I am still not too sure whether the game caters for the casual gamer.

I just flipped through the transcript of the engine podcast, and find that I'm not reassured.

Current state of mind: I think we're going to miss Soren's influence.

But the latest Giant Death Robot is truly silly and stupid.

"One more turn - you have 30 seconds to comply."

[Sullla]

On the whole, I haven't been particularly impressed with what I've heard. Strangely enough, Civ5 is starting to sound more and more like Civ3 (ranged bombardment units king, buildings cost maintenance, religion axed completely, etc.) although obviously with many differences as well. I don't worry at all that the game has been "dumbed down", but I do think Civ5 is falling back into some of the bad habits from previous Civ games which were corrected in Civ4. And introducing new bad habits.

Of course it's all speculation at this point, so who knows how the actual game will turn out.

[v8mark]

On the whole, I haven't been particularly impressed with what I've heard. Strangely enough, Civ5 is starting to sound more and more like Civ3 (ranged bombardment units king, buildings cost maintenance, religion axed completely, etc.) although obviously with many differences as well. I don't worry at all that the game has been "dumbed down", but I do think Civ5 is falling back into some of the bad habits from previous Civ games which were corrected in Civ4. And introducing new bad habits.

I agree - I thought Civ3 was a terrible game, and it almost looks like they've taken every introduction that I really liked from Civ4 and gotten rid of it.

I mean, building maintenance costs?! In what way is that anything other than a step backwards, when Civ4 has a system that works *SO* much better?

[Cyneheard]

I think they're trying to use the civ-wide happiness mechanic to keep empire size in check, not gold. I hope they're not trying to go the route of the "stability" feature of Rhye's: happiness needs to be a transparent system. That's one thing I've liked about Civ IV: its mechanics are well-documented, transparent, and for the most part accessible. In general, I'm concerned that they're letting "realism" trump "good gameplay".

Now, buildings will be built only if their maintenance is worth paying for: that can make the science/gold producing buildings work very interestingly...

[Dr. Nomadic]

I think the "problem" is that Civ1 and Civ2 are usually recognized as being the best games in the series, and a lot of people who like both games a lot thought that Civ4 went too casual.

[seifer_md]

Looks like they've recently put up the system requirements:

http://www.civilization5.com/#/community...quirements

[sooooo]

I'll probably get it. The interface looks quite spanky. Firaxis probably deserve a bit of trust, having made Civ 4. I'm still playing Civ4 multiple times a week 5 years since its release - There aren't many other games that I can say that about. Maybe tetris on the gameboy, but that's about it. So I'm going to buy it when it comes out.

[thyrwyn]

I think they're trying to use the civ-wide happiness mechanic to keep empire size in check, not gold. I hope they're not trying to go the route of the "stability" feature of Rhye's: happiness needs to be a transparent system. That's one thing I've liked about Civ IV: its mechanics are well-documented, transparent, and for the most part accessible. In general, I'm concerned that they're letting "realism" trump "good gameplay".

Now, buildings will be built only if their maintenance is worth paying for: that can make the science/gold producing buildings work very interestingly...

My impression has been that the new systems will be extremely transparent (and I have spent far too much time reading up on Civ V). Happiness is a prime example. There is now only 1 happiness number for your entire empire. Unhappiness is based on number of cities and total population. Luxury resources each add 5 happiness. Certain Social Policies and buildings can affect happiness as well.

Positive happiness each turn adds to a counter which can lead to a Golden Age; negative unhappiness causes a 75% penalty to population growth; extreme unhappiness halts population growth, makes settlers unable to be built, and reduces the combat strength of your military units.

They have removed systems that were often opaque or unwieldy in favor of more concise formulas and systems: building maintenance effectively replaces city maintenance/corruption from Civ IV; the new trade route mechanics are supposedly clearer as well.

Another example of this is the elimination of commerce and the complete separation of gold and beakers: the slider mechanics in Civ IV obscured the true worth of gold & beaker affecting buildings like Libraries and Marketplaces. By separating the two systems, it is more readily apparent what the expected return on these types of buildings will be. The choices are still there; decisions about which improvements to make, which buildings to add to your city, and which specialists to run are all still there - but the mechanics that should inform those decisions are clearer. This makes the game more transparent and accessible without sacrificing depth and complexity.