Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[forsaken1111]

Maybe he wants to have a game on the computers in his home without having to purchase additional copies?

Unless something has changed, you can install the game from Steam on any computer you own. Hell I only bought one copy of Recettear but I installed it on my girlfriend's laptop and then switched steam to offline mode. She can play it fine. I assume Civ 5 will work with offline mode for single player, unless something has come out to say it won't?

[Ivefan]

He was talking about multiplayer, And so was I.

[forsaken1111]

Ah, well yes you need to buy multiple copies to play multiplayer online. Why wouldn't you?

[Sowelu]

forsaken is either being intentionally dense, or he was born less than twenty years ago, missing the era when it was normal to play one copy of a game on a LAN just as easily as you would play split-screen on a console.

[forsaken1111]

forsaken is either being intentionally dense, or he was born less than twenty years ago, missing the era when it was normal to play one copy of a game on a LAN just as easily as you would play split-screen on a console.

No, I remember that era. I also know that era is more or less dead. You know the game will be using steamworks, so obviously it will check your CD keys when you hit their matchmaking server. I'm sure someone will eventually come out with a crack for it either way.

[Sowelu]

At least a lot of games still have hotseat, right?

...Wait, no.  Simultaneous turns in Civ5 huh.  Dammit.  Well, that should still work as long as it's "everyone gives orders then they all happen at once".

[Thexor]

Ah, well yes you need to buy multiple copies to play multiplayer online. Why wouldn't you?

Just to clarify, I personally could care less. But there's a lot of people (including on this forum) who are heavy supporters of LAN play, and requiring multiple copies is a big change from the games of the past.

forsaken is either being intentionally dense, or he was born less than twenty years ago, missing the era when it was normal to play one copy of a game on a LAN just as easily as you would play split-screen on a console.

No, I remember that era. I also know that era is more or less dead. You know the game will be using steamworks, so obviously it will check your CD keys when you hit their matchmaking server. I'm sure someone will eventually come out with a crack for it either way.

The whole point of LAN play is that you connect, ya know, over a LAN. 
It's not "playing multiplayer with multiple people in a house" - that's easy, just switch Steam's ports and you're good. A proper LAN game never goes past your router, and theoretically (say, if Steam is 'offline') can be played even if you don't have a pipe to the outside world at all. And, since you aren't bouncing commands off a remote server, LAN play is practically lag-free - the signal delay between rooms is negligible, especially in comparison with the pings to, say, the other side of an ocean.

And, while it's certainly less popular these days, LAN gaming isn't entirely "on the way out". Many developers are shying away from it, true, much like how many FPS developers are shying away from dedicated servers - and the response has been pretty similar, if on slightly different magnitudes.


EDIT:

At least a lot of games still have hotseat, right?

...Wait, no.  Simultaneous turns in Civ5 huh.  Dammit.  Well, that should still work as long as it's "everyone gives orders then they all happen at once".

Eh... not from what I've read. The whole point is to avoid you having to sit around and wait for stuff. 

[forsaken1111]

I know what LAN play is, and what it is about. If Civ 5 supports it, that will be great. I don't know if it will.

I actually use LAN play quite a bit over apps like Hamachi these days.

[Ivefan]

I wrote something that is now redundant to previous posters.

Now back on Topic.
I haven't really bothered finding out exactly what the differences between 5 and the previous titles, but i know they changed to hexagons and that it seemed to be some other changes. So would anyone following this game care to enlighten me on the new changes/features?

[forsaken1111]

One of the biggest changes is that units no longer stack in tiles. Only one unit may occupy a tile.

Another change is that cities will resist hostile invasion even if undefended.

[andrea]

increased focus on tactical warfare then. I think civ 5 will be quite interesting.
Those 2 changes alone should be worth buying it. Also, I heard archers now can actually use ranged attacks

[dogstile]

I'm stoked about city's resisting without a defending force. Should stop me using the tactic of flying stupidly fast units into the back citys without meeting any resistance.

[forsaken1111]

Another major addition is City States.

City states are single-city civs which have no ambition and no desire to 'win' the game. They are neutral entities you can befriend through diplomacy or conquer through military force. They will not ever agress you unless you declare war on them first, in which case that can and will attempt to take your cities if you are attacking them. Having a city state as an ally and trading partner will give you access to luxury resources, income, or other bonuses like free units.

[Ivefan]

So it's better to ally them than to assimilate them? And speaking of diplomacy, has there been any changes to the diplomacy system?

[forsaken1111]

So it's better to ally them than to assimilate them? And speaking of diplomacy, has there been any changes to the diplomacy system?

I don't have any hard facts, but from the gameplay videos I have seen...

Allying a city-state will net you a luxury resource and some bonuses, and means you don't have to spend military effort on them. Conquering a city-state means you gain the benefits of having another city.* City states can and will fight back, and are not push overs... so says the video anyway.

* Note: In Civ 5, upon conquering a city, you have the option of: 1. Burning the city to the ground. 2. Installing a puppet government. 3. Taking the city over entirely.

1. I believe razing the city nets you loot/pillage golds and that's it.
2. Installing a puppet government means you gain the income/research etc from the city but you have NO CONTROL over what it builds, the puppet governor controls that. On the upside, you suffer much much less unhappiness by choosing this option.
3. Taking the city over gives you full control and benefits, but your empire** suffers much more unhappiness until things calm down.

**Why should you care about the unhappiness of a new city? Because happiness is no longer tracked per-city. Happiness is now a global civilization modifier, and you must keep your citizens' happiness balanced with your expansion and military actions else you will face large-scale revolt. Unhappy cities are a large drag on your empire, and this gives you much more incentive to resolve the unhappiness where in Civ 4 if a city was unhappy you could (mostly) safely ignore it until it fixed itself.