As someone who dreamed of new PC so he could play Civilization I at home, and not just once a week after class, which was the highlight of the week for me...
I like all the new features announced so far. I will finally be able to enjoy the military part
Hexagons, _finally_. I don't understand why they kept on using squares so long, for no reason. They cause some inconvenience and have no practical advantages I can think of.
I like the changes to the military game. Individual units will matter more and using terrain to your advantage will matter more.
-the fact that each instance of a resource will allow you to keep in your army only one unit of the type that requires it is _good_.
-units will be much more resilient, and a complete loss of a unit will be much rarer.
-archers shooting over a hex and modern battleships being able to bombard at a distance of five hexes seem pretty radical but make sense in the new paradigm.
-land units being able to transform into transport ships -- interesting idea, and I it can be implemented in a good way. I think this will improve naval combat and again make it more enjoyable for people like me who until now had as their biggest hangup about the series the tedium of the military game and the unit spamming.
Overall, I _like_ playing the military game, but the older games broke the interesting aspects of it to a larger or smaller degree.
No technology trading seemed radical and surprising, but having thought about it, I approve of it. But it seems part of the reason for its removal may be that units might start being upgraded automatically, rather than for a cost. We'll have to see more details on the unit/military/tech system to know it that's a bad or a good simplification. Pooling research with allies for a bonus will not require that you research the same tech at the same time.
Having social policies as a "social tree" similar to the tech tree, rather than the SMAC model -- I don't know about that one, we'll see if it's better or not. I have some reservations about this one, but it's complicated. But it could also be very good. Depends on the details a lot. But considering almost all other changes seem obviously good, I'm hopeful. If done well, it should be better than the SMAC model. EDIT: I read a bit more about it today, and it seems it will not be a tree as much as three separate paths on which you can advance separately, which makes me a bit worried. Still, let's see the details first.
In the end, this seems to be the game that will address my biggest problems with all prior Civ games. Can't wait.
* What I'm a bit worried is that they'll have high hardware requirements. That has always annoyed me a _lot_. I do. not. care. at. all. about graphics. I want to be able to play it on my laptop, please. They seem to be aiming at a minimum of a 256MB GPU. But I assume that's nvidia or ATI, not an integrated Intel. I simply won't buy it if it doesn't run well on my current laptop until I buy a new one, which could be quite some time. I don't have a problem with waiting longer for the AI to play a turn, but that's CPU/RAM dependent. The GUI should run fine on (at least) a three year old PC, and not jump around and be generally impossible. Or block for a minute when opening a stupid diplomacy screen. I don't want stupid gimicky animations, "native language" or "body language", I want the AI to be sensible with its diplomatic behavior. I think even dialog options are a bit gimmicky and overkill. I want a simple interface. Include those if you want but make it easy to get it out of my way and let me actually play.
Last edited by zombie_monkey
on Wed May 05, 2010 5:07 pm UTC, edited 3 times in total.