Print

[whitedevilbrewing]

My worry with 1 unit/hex is how annoying it will be logistically.  Moving an army of god knows how many units across my mighty empire, if done one by one, from and to unique spaces, with current civ mechanics would be really annoying.


ETA preview sounds good tho

[wastrel]

secession?

Quiet you (yes)

My worry with 1 unit/hex is how annoying it will be logistically.  Moving an army of god knows how many units across my mighty empire, if done one by one, from and to unique spaces, with current civ mechanics would be really annoying.

I think it will make army sizes more realistic in that way.  Bringing a huge land army through a mountain pass will be the cumbersome burden it would be IRL.  And the strategies you will need to employ sound compelling.

From the preview:

Because you're limited to just one unit per hex, battles have the potential to be much more tactical, both with regard to the placement of your units and geographical obstacles. We saw a few battles that highlighted the significance of the new system. In one, two groups of units were facing off against each other around a one-hex lake. An archer unit was able to fire at enemy units on the far side of the lake and stay protected from melee attack by two allied units on either side. In another battle, a small group of powerful units were able to hold off a much larger attacking army in a narrow mountain pass. Because the attacker could only bring one unit into the fight at a time, the defender was able to eliminate the numerical disadvantage.

To me, that sounds AWESOME!

Plus, you can actually strategize with army lines:

iv fans are already very familiar with the terrain-based combat modifiers (crossing rivers, holding hills, etc.) and appropriate unit match ups. Adding in the additional burden of managing an army spread out over a large area just means doing it all on a different scale and making sure that your ranged units stay clear of melee. Fortunately, the game will allow adjacent allied units to swap positions, so you can keep fresh troops engaged with the enemy and rescue your ranged units from contact with melee fighters.

Also, the AI sounds like it will be a joy to play against.

I'm already salivating.

[ricree]

Cool, I always wondered when they were going to come out with Civ V. I have played all the Civ games. They are fun and I love the whole vertical integration of the game. I do find that it is too hard to keep track of what each city does and keeping some cities just for production and some cities for military. I just ended up letting all the cities do the same thing. The city siege aspect of it was good for certain eras but when you get into the more advanced eras it was kinda not realistic. Also when the military tries to pacifies a city I wonder if they are going to make that more realistic. Like what the US has run into with Baghdad and the like. I never like the way the game sometimes leaps two years for a turn. It is not realistic in that it would take you two or more years to move from one area to another. I am looking forward to this release. I won't buy it until I can get a deal on it because I think it is going to be pricey.

I've also always wanted to see insurgencies and the like.

Another thing that might be interesting is cessation of cities into new Civs (not just defecting to a neighboring Civ) a la US Civil War style.  Doubt that is Incorporated though.

Some of the civ games will have guerrilla units pop up around the city after being conquered, though in the case of Civ 4 I think they only showed up when you razed a city. 

And in civ 4, cities would go through several turns of unrest before they could actually be used for anything.

Beyond that, I'm not certain how you'd model insurgencies within the typical civ framework.


I agree with you on the civil war business.  Historically, large empires often found civil war to be at least as great a threat as external empires.  It would be interesting to see that sort of dynamic take place.  Especially when you factored in the notion that external empires would quite likely start meddling in such things, and then you could turn around and start taking sides in the civil wars of your neighbors.

I'd also like to see more peacetime conflict options.  A lot of times, empires would have all sorts of semi-autonomous proxy nations around their borders, and proxy wars would spark from time to time without leading to an actual full on war between great powers.  Of course, sometimes these things would escalate, but at least there'd be some middle ground between peace and full on war.

The cold war of the 20th century is one obvious model, but the skirmishes between Rome and the Parthians over various client kingdoms also comes to mind.

The civ games tend to play out as though no one existed but the great powers, which loses a lot of interesting subtleties from history.   

[Ah.hell]

If you played the "terra" scenario, the uncivilized continent would develope on its own before being discovered.  The barbarian tribes would seem to act as a kinda of semi-unified nation.  It would be interesting if the created an espionage or diplomatic route to conquer independent cities or groups of cities rather.

[wastrel]

This should make a pretty huge difference methinks:

Strategic resources are handled differently. There the quantity is very important. One iron deposit, for instance, will only grant you the right to build and maintain, say, five iron-based units. You can't build any more than that until one of those units dies (or is disbanded) or you get access to more iron. You will be allowed to keep those units in the field if your resource is pillaged, but there's an additional maintenance burden and you won't be able to replace them if they're lost.

I guess the one unit per hex isn't as tough to manage if you can only support a limited number of troops based on resources.  I actually like the idea of keeping armies scaled back this way.  Makes resource management and access all the more important, and if you can gain a monopoly on a certain resource you can prevent other Civs from having access to certain units. 

And it would also make diplomatic ties more important, because you can better leverage your allies to cut off other resources to your enemies.

I really like

[ricree]

That one sounds like a good change.  I never really liked the binary way that previous civs treated resources. 

[Hanes]

That one sounds like a good change.  I never really liked the binary way that previous civs treated resources.

Ditto.  It was always, "well, I don't have any oil in my territories, I guess I'm going to get crushed by tanks now."  I would imagine that they'll have more of these weaker nodes, so the chances of not getting any will be much less.

[xenu]

I hope they keep the espionage aspect of the game. It is really useful to keep a civ from get access of a resource.

[Green Ideas]

secession?

Secession was a possibility in the first Civ at least. I remember that, when faced with a vast but technologically inferior empire, I usually tried to go straight for their capital, and that often had as a consequence secession.

For instance, I'm up against the Russians, thay have several cities, I leave those alone and take Moscow. Then their southern cities would sometimes secede and become Greek (if the Greeks were not already in play).

(I posted a similar comment in another thread, too lazy to search.)

[wastrel]

secession?

Secession was a possibility in the first Civ at least. I remember that, when faced with a vast but technologically inferior empire, I usually tried to go straight for their capital, and that often had as a consequence secession.

For instance, I'm up against the Russians, thay have several cities, I leave those alone and take Moscow. Then their southern cities would sometimes secede and become Greek (if the Greeks were not already in play).

(I posted a similar comment in another thread, too lazy to search.)

I kind of remember that, but it has been a LONG time since I've played Civ 1.

That would be great to bring back, but I think it could be expanded on so much more, so that other factors like cultural, happiness, trade, physical seperation from a capitol (a la the American colonies) could influance a region to rebel.

[jaypee]

Couldn't you bribe cities to join your civilization in Civ I or II..I seem to remember something like that, although its been more than a decade since I last played Civ in any form.

[Thespis]

I hope they keep the espionage aspect of the game. It is really useful to keep a civ from get access of a resource.

The espionage and religion systems have been cut.

[xenu]

I hope they keep the espionage aspect of the game. It is really useful to keep a civ from get access of a resource.

The espionage and religion systems have been cut.

I can hope can I 

[whitedevilbrewing]

There has to be some sort of way to gather intelligence.  How could there not? 

[Ah.hell]

There has to be some sort of way to gather intelligence.  How could there not?

Save and play a few turns and see what happens.  The load the earlier save?