Civ 5, My impressions Options Track this topic Email this topic Print this topic Download this topic Subscribe to this forum Display Modes Outline Switch to: Standard Switch to: Linear+

[Backgammon]

So, I'v had a few hours to play Civ 5. Wow, very different from Civ 4 and previous. Very.

You have waaaay less units now. This makes sense since multiple units can't be on the same tile. A handful of units is all you need. But you have to use them wisely. Now that long range units really are long range, shotting a few tiles away, warefare becomes much more tactical. Positioning your units and ensuring they support each other is crucial. Positioning is everything. This makes combat feel more involved than building up many units and crushing your enemy with superior firepower. It's a good change. Oh, you also now have far fewer units. Like, your swordsmen are good for a looong time. So you're really not cranking them out constantly, a few here and there is sufficient. Which is good, because compre to Civ 4, cities build buildings and units at a snail's pace.

Next up, gone is the blanketing of the entire map with cities and cultural borders. The map is a hodge-podge of cities here and there. Small empires of a few cities are somewhat viable, due to mechanisms that exponentially punish large empires. I say punish, but not really. Everything slows down the more cities you have, but then you have more cities that produce stuff, so in a way it balances out. Big is still better in the end, of course, but when you'Re small, all is not lost.

City-states (AI controlled strong 1-city empires) are interesting. If you get in nice with them, they give you resources as well as bonuses. So for example, I have one providing me with extra culture and more importantly the Iron I need to fuel my wars. It's a pain in the ass to have to maintain the relationship, but it's an interesting strategic element. I *could* conquer them, but then I'd lose the cultural bonus they give me, though I'd have control of the Iron.

And resources... well, you need 1 Iron per unit (swordsman, cavalry, etc) you want to build. So it's a huge, huge strategic element to get your hands on as much as you can while depriving the enemy. It's cool.

Overall, shockingly different, but I have to say I like it. Cause honestly, if they had made Civ 4.5, there'd be no point, right? A new game is a good thing.

(edited the "can't" - thanks Yerameyahu)

[nezumi]

Civ III was the most frustrating civ game because of how territory worked. Civ IV fixed that with cultural borders (and I really enjoyed that aspect). Civ II fixed it with just letting you spam cities like crazy. I'd play Civ I over Civ III.

While I can understand Kage's feelings, keep in mind you can remove those false forms of victories. I think those were just put in because Civ is trying to appeal to a wider demographic (one might say 'feminine', but the female gamers I know are more likely to go for 'crushing defeat of your enemies' than many of the males). The science ending is nice in that it's a lot more convenient way to show off your technological and industrial superiority than tracking down every last city on the map.