Wait no this is a terrible thing. How many man hours are going to be lost to this? Modern society could collapse! We could all have lost our jobs to robots by the time we escape!
Jesus stfu about hex vs squares already. Civ5 will have hexes, don't like it, don't buy the fucking game. You all are seriously dragging this thread from otherwise happiness about a new game into the realm of the unbelievably fucking retarded.
Here's a hint - why don't you just skip the posts you don't like, silly goose? Is someone holding a gun to your head and forcing you to read them? No? Then ignore them.
Earlier, someone mentioned the hexes doing a better job of handling the polar regions compared to the old Civ square tiles. Any elaboration on why that is?
"It takes me either one or two people to block a 1hex-wide corridor running N-S depending on where in the corridor I'm standing."
... shall we call this done?
I feel like this point still falls under the "everything must be defined under the N-S-E-W orientation system" argument. Why must the corridor be going N-S?
Well, it could just as easily be going E-W. The point is that, most of the time, people make buildings which are rectangular and which have hallways that meet at right angles, which a square grid will handle well. A hex grid will handle it less well, because in one direction you'll have hexes lining up more-or-less perfectly with the walls (albeit with small pieces of hexes intruding between the "main" hexes), but in the other you'll go back and forth between a full hex and two separate half-hexes.
I a 2-unit-wide corridor, you always need 2 tokens to block the whole thing for the square-based grid. In the hex-based one, you'll need 2 sometimes, and either 1 or 3 at others (depending on the ruleset in question).
Squares:
Hexes:
Remember, though, that "N-S-E-W" are relative to the grid - or the table, or the map. They aren't necessarily absolute directions (though they certainly can be). That's why you can make a decision between squares and hexes and then build your ruleset around that. (E.g., I can layout a useable square grid on a colonial-style house, even though, technically, the front of the house is facing 37*, which would make the "grid north" not match to magnetic north at all.)
Note that, although I'm using corridors here as an example, the issue can be abstracted out to anything which provides a barrier - mountain passes, fencing, etc. In such systems, you'll probably end up with rulesets doing things like making the corridors snake along the boundaries, rather than showing up as straight lines (c.f. Battlecry's fenceline / earthworks markers). This makes it work a bit better for things like terrain (where, as in the OP's screenshots, the rivers flow along hex boundaries), but less well for things like architecture.
Yes, this is all well and good but again you have to stipulate a N-S corridor (or E-W).
Corridors at certain angles will cause the same 1 or 2 man barricade problem within the context of a square grid format.
At any rate, Civ does not take place in a building and there are few if any natural boundaries that form right angles.
"It takes me either one or two people to block a 1hex-wide corridor running N-S depending on where in the corridor I'm standing."
... shall we call this done?
I feel like this point still falls under the "everything must be defined under the N-S-E-W orientation system" argument. Why must the corridor be going N-S?
Well, it could just as easily be going E-W. The point is that, most of the time, people make buildings which are rectangular and which have hallways that meet at right angles, which a square grid will handle well. A hex grid will handle it less well, because in one direction you'll have hexes lining up more-or-less perfectly with the walls (albeit with small pieces of hexes intruding between the "main" hexes), but in the other you'll go back and forth between a full hex and two separate half-hexes.
I a 2-unit-wide corridor, you always need 2 tokens to block the whole thing for the square-based grid. In the hex-based one, you'll need 2 sometimes, and either 1 or 3 at others (depending on the ruleset in question).
Squares:
Hexes:
Remember, though, that "N-S-E-W" are relative to the grid - or the table, or the map. They aren't necessarily absolute directions (though they certainly can be). That's why you can make a decision between squares and hexes and then build your ruleset around that. (E.g., I can layout a useable square grid on a colonial-style house, even though, technically, the front of the house is facing 37*, which would make the "grid north" not match to magnetic north at all.)
Note that, although I'm using corridors here as an example, the issue can be abstracted out to anything which provides a barrier - mountain passes, fencing, etc. In such systems, you'll probably end up with rulesets doing things like making the corridors snake along the boundaries, rather than showing up as straight lines (c.f. Battlecry's fenceline / earthworks markers). This makes it work a bit better for things like terrain (where, as in the OP's screenshots, the rivers flow along hex boundaries), but less well for things like architecture.
Yes, this is all well and good but again you have to stipulate a N-S corridor (or E-W).
Corridors at certain angles will cause the same 1 or 2 man barricade problem within the context of a square grid format.
At any rate, Civ does not take place in a building and there are few if any natural boundaries that form right angles.
Nor do they form in nature. Right angles are pretty rare. The hex allows a flowing, uneven terrain. I think the concept of N-S or E-W corridors is simply flawed. It rarely happens. Mountain passes meander in all direction in real life and will in Civ 5. The drawing did a fantastic job of indication how land will flow. Finally, Panama on an Earth map will be a narrow strip of land (hexes) rather than an isthmus where the canal never needs to be built since the land is linked at a corner.
Jesus stfu about hex vs squares already. Civ5 will have hexes, don't like it, don't buy the fucking game. You all are seriously dragging this thread from otherwise happiness about a new game into the realm of the unbelievably fucking retarded.
Here's a hint - why don't you just skip the posts you don't like, silly goose? Is someone holding a gun to your head and forcing you to read them? No? Then ignore them.
Earlier, someone mentioned the hexes doing a better job of handling the polar regions compared to the old Civ square tiles. Any elaboration on why that is?
"It takes me either one or two people to block a 1hex-wide corridor running N-S depending on where in the corridor I'm standing."
... shall we call this done?
I feel like this point still falls under the "everything must be defined under the N-S-E-W orientation system" argument. Why must the corridor be going N-S?
Well, it could just as easily be going E-W. The point is that, most of the time, people make buildings which are rectangular and which have hallways that meet at right angles, which a square grid will handle well. A hex grid will handle it less well, because in one direction you'll have hexes lining up more-or-less perfectly with the walls (albeit with small pieces of hexes intruding between the "main" hexes), but in the other you'll go back and forth between a full hex and two separate half-hexes.
I a 2-unit-wide corridor, you always need 2 tokens to block the whole thing for the square-based grid. In the hex-based one, you'll need 2 sometimes, and either 1 or 3 at others (depending on the ruleset in question).
Squares:
Hexes:
Remember, though, that "N-S-E-W" are relative to the grid - or the table, or the map. They aren't necessarily absolute directions (though they certainly can be). That's why you can make a decision between squares and hexes and then build your ruleset around that. (E.g., I can layout a useable square grid on a colonial-style house, even though, technically, the front of the house is facing 37*, which would make the "grid north" not match to magnetic north at all.)
Note that, although I'm using corridors here as an example, the issue can be abstracted out to anything which provides a barrier - mountain passes, fencing, etc. In such systems, you'll probably end up with rulesets doing things like making the corridors snake along the boundaries, rather than showing up as straight lines (c.f. Battlecry's fenceline / earthworks markers). This makes it work a bit better for things like terrain (where, as in the OP's screenshots, the rivers flow along hex boundaries), but less well for things like architecture.
Yes, this is all well and good but again you have to stipulate a N-S corridor (or E-W).
Corridors at certain angles will cause the same 1 or 2 man barricade problem within the context of a square grid format.
At any rate, Civ does not take place in a building and there are few if any natural boundaries that form right angles.
Nor do they form in nature.
Table salt says "Hi."
Right angles are pretty rare. The hex allows a flowing, uneven terrain. I think the concept of N-S or E-W corridors is simply flawed. It rarely happens. Mountain passes meander in all direction in real life and will in Civ 5. The drawing did a fantastic job of indication how land will flow. Finally, Panama on an Earth map will be a narrow strip of land (hexes) rather than an isthmus where the canal never needs to be built since the land is linked at a corner.
Certainly, you should pick the grid system which matches the ruleset and aesthetics you want to employ.
Personally, I've got absolutely no problem with the change to hexes in Civ V (at least, as much as we know about them). I do have a problem with silly geese that are too busy masturbating with their hex mats to admit that hexes aren't perfect, rather just one of multiple movement and distance abstracting devices that can be employed. I'm sure Civ will work absolutely fine with them, just as it's worked absolutely fine with squares for years.
The lack of religion is going to make me wait this one out a little longer than normal.
That was my thought as well. Plus I'm not sure about the one unit per hex thing either - won't that mean that we're swapping the logistically bonkers Stack O'Doom for the kind of continent spanning linear wars that only really made an appearance in the C20th?
But then I see that the projected launch date is the week before my birthday and I start to weaken...
I pretty much consider Civ V to be the pinnacle of the series. It was streamlined in a lot of ways from the mess that was Civ III but took great ideas away from it. It's kinda weak to be losing some of the best new things from Civ IV that actually added a new dimension to gameplay. Civ V, in this aspect seems like a regressive game.
The biggest change sounds like the combat though. The changes to hexes, stacking, and archers/bombard sound pretty sweeping, and like people mentioned, can really shorten the board. Should make forts more useful though, place a couple outside your cities, and catapults/archers can attack, instead of just being a square your enemies ignore. Or do they still have forts? I may be mixing up versions.
No stacking is a huge change. If you can stack in cities but not on the surrounding hexes then sieges are going to be even more grueling then they are now.
What I'd LIKE to see is multi-hex cities.
GothicLargo on
0
Options
mrt144King of the NumbernamesRegistered Userregular
The biggest change sounds like the combat though. The changes to hexes, stacking, and archers/bombard sound pretty sweeping, and like people mentioned, can really shorten the board. Should make forts more useful though, place a couple outside your cities, and catapults/archers can attack, instead of just being a square your enemies ignore. Or do they still have forts? I may be mixing up versions.
No stacking is a huge change. If you can stack in cities but not on the surrounding hexes then sieges are going to be even more grueling then they are now.
What I'd LIKE to see is multi-hex cities.
With the change in scale indicated by 1-unit-per-hex, you'd think we'd almost have to see multi-hex cities. Of course, that leads to strange things like, ferinstance, holding half of Paris for 100 years when it takes you a couple turns in the early game to take out your rival.
Wait no this is a terrible thing. How many man hours are going to be lost to this? Modern society could collapse! We could all have lost our jobs to robots by the time we escape!
So a weapon of mass destruction in Civ 5 is ...
Civ 5?
I like that one of the random events in Civ IV is the invention of Civilization the game. Which I think boosts research, which seems completely unrealistic.
chrono_traveller on
The trouble with having an open mind, of course, is that people will insist on coming along and trying to put things in it. ~ Terry Pratchett
0
Options
mrt144King of the NumbernamesRegistered Userregular
The biggest change sounds like the combat though. The changes to hexes, stacking, and archers/bombard sound pretty sweeping, and like people mentioned, can really shorten the board. Should make forts more useful though, place a couple outside your cities, and catapults/archers can attack, instead of just being a square your enemies ignore. Or do they still have forts? I may be mixing up versions.
No stacking is a huge change. If you can stack in cities but not on the surrounding hexes then sieges are going to be even more grueling then they are now.
What I'd LIKE to see is multi-hex cities.
That'll probably happen, but im concerned that because civ is on a worldwide scale things are going to get tedious, even early on. Sieges wont take as long because arches and siege engines can bombard though.
mrt144 on
0
Options
mrt144King of the NumbernamesRegistered Userregular
The question needs to be asked though.... when are we going to get alpha centauri 2?
Probably never. EA owns it and Firaxis is tied with 2K Games, a competitor.
I wonder how much they're willing to sell the license for.
I'm guessing 2K asked and EA was like "$Texas". Firaxis knows people want AC2 and I think they want to make it, but they can't get the license.
a5ehren on
0
Options
KalTorakOne way or another, they all end up inthe Undercity.Registered Userregular
edited February 2010
I like the idea of resources being limited. Before, IIRC, resources were binary - you either had them or you didn't. If you had one square of horse, you could create a giant army of horsemen just as fast as someone who had 5 squares of horse (not taking into account the production bonuses for being within the city radius). The new way seems to not only make more sense, but give more incentive to get resources even if you already have access to them.
I like the idea of resources being limited. Before, IIRC, resources were binary - you either had them or you didn't. If you had one square of horse, you could create a giant army of horsemen just as fast as someone who had 5 squares of horse (not taking into account the production bonuses for being within the city radius). The new way seems to not only make more sense, but give more incentive to get resources even if you already have access to them.
It makes sense for certain things and not others. Like, and Iron mine can only support one unit? WTF?
The biggest change sounds like the combat though. The changes to hexes, stacking, and archers/bombard sound pretty sweeping, and like people mentioned, can really shorten the board. Should make forts more useful though, place a couple outside your cities, and catapults/archers can attack, instead of just being a square your enemies ignore. Or do they still have forts? I may be mixing up versions.
No stacking is a huge change. If you can stack in cities but not on the surrounding hexes then sieges are going to be even more grueling then they are now.
What I'd LIKE to see is multi-hex cities.
With the change in scale indicated by 1-unit-per-hex, you'd think we'd almost have to see multi-hex cities. Of course, that leads to strange things like, ferinstance, holding half of Paris for 100 years when it takes you a couple turns in the early game to take out your rival.
This sounds accurate to me: East/West Germany springs to mind immediately.
I've always thought limits on the number of units per resource made sense. Hopefully that's where they're going. Maybe the mineable resources get accumulated over time, and that would be fine as long as it doesn't clutter the interface.
enlightenedbum on
Self-righteousness is incompatible with coalition building.
The biggest change sounds like the combat though. The changes to hexes, stacking, and archers/bombard sound pretty sweeping, and like people mentioned, can really shorten the board. Should make forts more useful though, place a couple outside your cities, and catapults/archers can attack, instead of just being a square your enemies ignore. Or do they still have forts? I may be mixing up versions.
No stacking is a huge change. If you can stack in cities but not on the surrounding hexes then sieges are going to be even more grueling then they are now.
What I'd LIKE to see is multi-hex cities.
With the change in scale indicated by 1-unit-per-hex, you'd think we'd almost have to see multi-hex cities. Of course, that leads to strange things like, ferinstance, holding half of Paris for 100 years when it takes you a couple turns in the early game to take out your rival.
This sounds accurate to me: East/West Germany springs to mind immediately.
I don't think that's a particularly good example at all. East / West Germany was not divided as a result of an on-going war; Berlin was divided as part of the pecae treaty, not because the US and Britain hadn't managed to defeat the remants of the Soviets yet.
Of course, this is treading into areas wherein, for the entirety of Civ history, we've just thrown up our hands and said, "It's a game! Whatever!" so ...
I've always thought limits on the number of units per resource made sense. Hopefully that's where they're going. Maybe the mineable resources get accumulated over time, and that would be fine as long as it doesn't clutter the interface.
My guess is that there would probably be a cap on defensive units that can fit in a fort/city. This might be good in that it would encourage meeting invaders in the field as well as holing up. It also means you could worry less about spamming archers and what not (since you would meet your defensive cap at some point).
So if each city could only hold 3 or 4 units (probably modified by their new version of civics), sieges wouldn't be much worse than they are now. However, players would have more incentive to have roaming defenders hit your siege engines which you could no longer hide in a stack of 20 knights.
Tag on
Overwatch: TomFoolery#1388 Black Desert: Family Name: Foolery. Characters: Tome & Beerserk.
(Retired) GW2 Characters (Fort Aspenwood): Roy Gee Biv
(Retired) Let's Play: Lone Wolf
I've always thought limits on the number of units per resource made sense. Hopefully that's where they're going. Maybe the mineable resources get accumulated over time, and that would be fine as long as it doesn't clutter the interface.
But is it fun?
That depends what you think of RTS games, no?
enlightenedbum on
Self-righteousness is incompatible with coalition building.
0
Options
mrt144King of the NumbernamesRegistered Userregular
I've always thought limits on the number of units per resource made sense. Hopefully that's where they're going. Maybe the mineable resources get accumulated over time, and that would be fine as long as it doesn't clutter the interface.
But is it fun?
That depends what you think of RTS games, no?
Perhaps, but I'm just worried that they are taking a good idea and making it extra grognard now.
I think the loss of religion is they were never able to really differentiate them for obvious reasons and that just kind of left them there as a side game within the game. After the initial interest, I never thought they added much.
enlightenedbum on
Self-righteousness is incompatible with coalition building.
0
Options
mrt144King of the NumbernamesRegistered Userregular
I think the loss of religion is they were never able to really differentiate them for obvious reasons and that just kind of left them there as a side game within the game. After the initial interest, I never thought they added much.
I'm thinking they wont have non violent or space related victories anymore cause religion was huge in that regard.
I think the loss of religion is they were never able to really differentiate them for obvious reasons and that just kind of left them there as a side game within the game. After the initial interest, I never thought they added much.
I'm thinking they wont have non violent or space related victories anymore cause religion was huge in that regard.
They'll have space. Space victories were around well before religion. In fact the two have nothing to do with eachother. Space is basically a tech and production victory.
Space will stay.
In fact, I think Sid once said it was his favorite victory condition.
I think the loss of religion is they were never able to really differentiate them for obvious reasons and that just kind of left them there as a side game within the game. After the initial interest, I never thought they added much.
I'm thinking they wont have non violent or space related victories anymore cause religion was huge in that regard.
They'll have space. Space victories were around well before religion. In fact the two have nothing to do with eachother. Space is basically a tech and production victory.
Space will stay.
In fact, I think Sid once said it was his favorite victory condition.
Whoops, I used the wrong conjunction there. I think they won't have non violent except for...
They'll still have a diplomatic victory, but diplomacy won't be reliant on religion anymore. Hopefully with a much better diplomatic AI.
One that doesn't keep calling you would be a nice start. That's one of the worst things about Civ IVs AI; the demands and the diplo penalities for not heeding them either. OH, but god forbid you make a ridiculous and unreasonable demand. Also, the fact that some of them never fade away either is terrible.
They'll still have a diplomatic victory, but diplomacy won't be reliant on religion anymore. Hopefully with a much better diplomatic AI.
One that doesn't keep calling you would be a nice start. That's one of the worst things about Civ IVs AI; the demands and the diplo penalities for not heeding them either. OH, but god forbid you make a ridiculous and unreasonable demand. Also, the fact that some of them never fade away either is terrible.
It is so annoying to have the diplomacy window pop up every turn with the most bullshit offers from them.
"No asshole, I'm not going to trade my extra uranium for your fucking marble, so leave me alone damnit!"
They'll still have a diplomatic victory, but diplomacy won't be reliant on religion anymore. Hopefully with a much better diplomatic AI.
One that doesn't keep calling you would be a nice start. That's one of the worst things about Civ IVs AI; the demands and the diplo penalities for not heeding them either. OH, but god forbid you make a ridiculous and unreasonable demand. Also, the fact that some of them never fade away either is terrible.
Right, so very obnoxious. Especially when they're making demands when you're far larger/more powerful than they are.
For example, in the LP, our power is 1.7-2.0 times that of Louis, but he keeps demanding we switch to Hereditary Rule. Stop that!
enlightenedbum on
Self-righteousness is incompatible with coalition building.
Posts
So a weapon of mass destruction in Civ 5 is ...
Civ 5?
Because it's easier to project a sphere without as much stretching with hexagons than with squares.
Corridors at certain angles will cause the same 1 or 2 man barricade problem within the context of a square grid format.
At any rate, Civ does not take place in a building and there are few if any natural boundaries that form right angles.
That's what I said! What did you fix exactly :P
Ah - I can see that. Thanks. Although, it appears that it also results in some oddness at the equator due to how the stretching happens.
Steam: Elvenshae // PSN: Elvenshae // WotC: Elvenshae
Wilds of Aladrion: [https://forums.penny-arcade.com/discussion/comment/43159014/#Comment_43159014]Ellandryn[/url]
Table salt says "Hi."
Certainly, you should pick the grid system which matches the ruleset and aesthetics you want to employ.
Personally, I've got absolutely no problem with the change to hexes in Civ V (at least, as much as we know about them). I do have a problem with silly geese that are too busy masturbating with their hex mats to admit that hexes aren't perfect, rather just one of multiple movement and distance abstracting devices that can be employed. I'm sure Civ will work absolutely fine with them, just as it's worked absolutely fine with squares for years.
And, yeah, the screenshots are beautiful.
Steam: Elvenshae // PSN: Elvenshae // WotC: Elvenshae
Wilds of Aladrion: [https://forums.penny-arcade.com/discussion/comment/43159014/#Comment_43159014]Ellandryn[/url]
I pretty much consider Civ V to be the pinnacle of the series. It was streamlined in a lot of ways from the mess that was Civ III but took great ideas away from it. It's kinda weak to be losing some of the best new things from Civ IV that actually added a new dimension to gameplay. Civ V, in this aspect seems like a regressive game.
Probably never. EA owns it and Firaxis is tied with 2K Games, a competitor.
No stacking is a huge change. If you can stack in cities but not on the surrounding hexes then sieges are going to be even more grueling then they are now.
What I'd LIKE to see is multi-hex cities.
I wonder how much they're willing to sell the license for.
Thinking of buying it?
With the change in scale indicated by 1-unit-per-hex, you'd think we'd almost have to see multi-hex cities. Of course, that leads to strange things like, ferinstance, holding half of Paris for 100 years when it takes you a couple turns in the early game to take out your rival.
Steam: Elvenshae // PSN: Elvenshae // WotC: Elvenshae
Wilds of Aladrion: [https://forums.penny-arcade.com/discussion/comment/43159014/#Comment_43159014]Ellandryn[/url]
I like that one of the random events in Civ IV is the invention of Civilization the game.
That'll probably happen, but im concerned that because civ is on a worldwide scale things are going to get tedious, even early on. Sieges wont take as long because arches and siege engines can bombard though.
I'd like to form an IP holder co-op for gaming.
I'm guessing 2K asked and EA was like "$Texas". Firaxis knows people want AC2 and I think they want to make it, but they can't get the license.
They should go the "spiritual successor" route instead. Beta Meleniumauri.
It makes sense for certain things and not others. Like, and Iron mine can only support one unit? WTF?
This sounds accurate to me: East/West Germany springs to mind immediately.
I don't think that's a particularly good example at all. East / West Germany was not divided as a result of an on-going war; Berlin was divided as part of the pecae treaty, not because the US and Britain hadn't managed to defeat the remants of the Soviets yet.
Of course, this is treading into areas wherein, for the entirety of Civ history, we've just thrown up our hands and said, "It's a game! Whatever!" so ...
Steam: Elvenshae // PSN: Elvenshae // WotC: Elvenshae
Wilds of Aladrion: [https://forums.penny-arcade.com/discussion/comment/43159014/#Comment_43159014]Ellandryn[/url]
But is it fun?
So if each city could only hold 3 or 4 units (probably modified by their new version of civics), sieges wouldn't be much worse than they are now. However, players would have more incentive to have roaming defenders hit your siege engines which you could no longer hide in a stack of 20 knights.
Black Desert: Family Name: Foolery. Characters: Tome & Beerserk.
(Retired) GW2 Characters (Fort Aspenwood): Roy Gee Biv
(Retired) Let's Play: Lone Wolf
That depends what you think of RTS games, no?
Perhaps, but I'm just worried that they are taking a good idea and making it extra grognard now.
I'm thinking they wont have non violent or space related victories anymore cause religion was huge in that regard.
They'll have space. Space victories were around well before religion. In fact the two have nothing to do with eachother. Space is basically a tech and production victory.
Space will stay.
In fact, I think Sid once said it was his favorite victory condition.
You're really going to argue that, as a whole, Civ 4 was not simplified from Civ 3?
Maybe you should go back and play 3 some.
Whoops, I used the wrong conjunction there. I think they won't have non violent except for...
It was simplified in a lot of ways but expanded in a ton of others. Corruption was biggest one for sure.
One that doesn't keep calling you would be a nice start. That's one of the worst things about Civ IVs AI; the demands and the diplo penalities for not heeding them either. OH, but god forbid you make a ridiculous and unreasonable demand. Also, the fact that some of them never fade away either is terrible.
It is so annoying to have the diplomacy window pop up every turn with the most bullshit offers from them.
"No asshole, I'm not going to trade my extra uranium for your fucking marble, so leave me alone damnit!"
Right, so very obnoxious. Especially when they're making demands when you're far larger/more powerful than they are.
For example, in the LP, our power is 1.7-2.0 times that of Louis, but he keeps demanding we switch to Hereditary Rule. Stop that!