Sid Meier's Civilization Series (Main Titles)

Don't forget Mori Ranmaru.

^well, I guess he shares such preferences with the likes of Alexander the Great, Abraham Lincoln, and the Norse God of Thunder Thor.

Great Info Summary

OMG

The inability to stack armies strikes me as a tad unrealistic.

The inability to stack armies strikes me as a tad unrealistic.

Oh hell no. Not here. I've had enough of this BAAAAW REALISM bullshit on Civfanatics.

What, a man can't want to reenact history?

How is making Stacks of Doom and whacking them against eachother "historical reenactment"?

Anyways, Civ isn't about reenacting history - it's about making history anew.

Because, on the scale of which Civ's battles take place, there's plenty of room for combining at least a few.

And if the game can't bring out what did happen, its creations aren't going to be that plausible

I don't see a problem with saying you can't stack multiple battalions in the same acre. That seems perfectly realistic. It's not like a single "unit" in Civ represents a single warrior anyway.

Just how big is a hex anyway?

Anyways, Zyxzy, I hardly think that a game where civilizations have the same leader for eternity and never break apart unless you make a colony on another continent is really striving for "realism".

"Just how big is a hex anyway?"

Somewhere between a stone age settlement and a modern bustling metropolis?

edited 30th Mar '10 9:45:08 PM by jaimeastorga2000

The inability to stack armies strikes me as a tad unrealistic.

Simply not true. Before the Industrial Revolution brought on Railroads, most armies had to live off of the land, or have supplies brought in by ship. Let's assume that the Roman Legion unit represents, well, a Roman Legion. On average a legion comprised roughly five thousand men. If you are an aggressive player in Civ and playing on a decently large map, you can sometimes see stacks of doom approaching twenty Roman Legions, which would represent 1,000,000 men, in other words, about ten percent(I think, could be wrong here and I'm too lazy to look it up right now) of the world population back in Rome's heyday. Even assuming that that grassland tile you are camping your army on is the best grassland ever, there's just no way that army wouldn't starve to death in a few weeks.

But, unless they change the battle mechanics from "win-or-die"...I have a feeling that it's going to get annoying very quickly...

Actually, they're throwing in ranged attacks, right? So, hold that thought...

edited 30th Mar '10 11:48:52 PM by catch_the_sun

It's not win or die. A unit will survive a battle at full strength, taking more damage if it loses than if it wins. A weakened unit will probably die.

edited 31st Mar '10 12:05:12 AM by Matrix

That's not how it worked in 4 (or any of the previous Civ's) but anyway...Although, 4 did introduce withdrawal...

EDIT: Hold on. The one unit per tile rules even applies to cities...Whoa...

edited 31st Mar '10 12:12:15 AM by catch_the_sun

CTS, a lot of the stuff that will be in 5 is not how it worked in previous games.

Yeah, I really should have read that before I commented....My bad.

The combat system changes made me think of Advance Wars. It seems as though there will be a bit more emphasis on strategic maneuvering of units in this game, as opposed to just mashing DOOMSTACKS into one another until someone loses.

Bio: Yes, but what about WWI? With infantry and machine guns as separate units, there was no way to replicate it without stacking.

You could solve that any number of ways (note that I haven't seen how Civ V solves it). Giving units ranges would go a long way towards this goal; you could then have a "fire support" capability where a unit's strength stacks with the strength of nearby units; allowing certain unit types counterattacks against others within their range, etc.

What's always bothered me about artillery-style units (catapults, cannons, machine guns, etc.) is that they do not (and never did) exist as independent, discrete entities in warfare. You don't attack a city with artillery; you bombard from a distance while your infantry takes over. If the artillery is getting attacked directly, it's either a case of counterbattery or the battle went really badly wrong. This is a major gripe I have with Civ IV's system — for an artillery unit to inflict direct damage, it has to "attack", with the utterly ridiculous implication that a cannon is engaging in melee combat with a pikeman.

Keep in mind, it's all representation. When you bombard in Civ IV, imagine the unseen support troops working in concert.

But now... I think artillery will no longer be able to capture a city.

Part of the problem is that the Civ games keep waffling between a presentation of artillery units as standard units with slightly different capabilities or as supporting units with entirely unique mechanics.

But now... I think artillery will no longer be able to capture a city.

They weren't able to do that in Beyond the Sword, since they couldn't even kill units off in it.

edited 31st Mar '10 11:12:22 AM by Kerrah

civ and total war shoulld combine to make the greatest gaem evar