Civilization V Catch-All

clever id wrote:
Gunner wrote:

No tech trading is an interesting change.

I don't mind seeing it go... I think that the "joint research project" is a nice update from straight tech trading.

As long as I don't have to worry about the AI demanding I give it new technology and then getting mad because I don't, I'm happy.

Wembley wrote:
clever id wrote:
Gunner wrote:

No tech trading is an interesting change.

I don't mind seeing it go... I think that the "joint research project" is a nice update from straight tech trading.

As long as I don't have to worry about the AI demanding I give it new technology and then getting mad because I don't, I'm happy.

Exactly... Now you'll have to worry about the AI demanding joint research...

clever id wrote:
Wembley wrote:
clever id wrote:
Gunner wrote:

No tech trading is an interesting change.

I don't mind seeing it go... I think that the "joint research project" is a nice update from straight tech trading.

As long as I don't have to worry about the AI demanding I give it new technology and then getting mad because I don't, I'm happy.

Exactly... Now you'll have to worry about the AI demanding joint research... ;)

At least the AI is contributing somewhat in that instance.

Wembley wrote:
clever id wrote:
Gunner wrote:

No tech trading is an interesting change.

I don't mind seeing it go... I think that the "joint research project" is a nice update from straight tech trading.

As long as I don't have to worry about the AI demanding I give it new technology and then getting mad because I don't, I'm happy.

He'll still demand:
* money
* territory
* strategic resources
* puppies

Quintin_Stone wrote:
Wembley wrote:
clever id wrote:
Gunner wrote:

No tech trading is an interesting change.

I don't mind seeing it go... I think that the "joint research project" is a nice update from straight tech trading.

As long as I don't have to worry about the AI demanding I give it new technology and then getting mad because I don't, I'm happy.

He'll still demand:
* money
* territory
* strategic resources
* puppies

My puppies? They go too far. This means war!

Quintin_Stone wrote:

He'll still demand:
* money
* territory
* strategic resources
* puppies

And of course the "Stop trading with this person I don't like or else!"

Gunner wrote:

Moving away from the 'war as a sequence of city sieges' that has so characterized all of the previous Civs has me especially excited. While it may not, as Bruce Geryk would say, "be historically accurate" to have only one unit per tile, I think the overall character of combat should be more plausible and fun because of it.

I doubt that.
I think you're more likely to start seeing "The Great Wall of Archer" - just giant seas of troops, preventing an enemy from even remotely being able to attack your cities at all.

New best reason to go to war: no more room in your nation to fit new units.

duckilama wrote:
Gunner wrote:

Moving away from the 'war as a sequence of city sieges' that has so characterized all of the previous Civs has me especially excited. While it may not, as Bruce Geryk would say, "be historically accurate" to have only one unit per tile, I think the overall character of combat should be more plausible and fun because of it.

I doubt that.
I think you're more likely to start seeing "The Great Wall of Archer" - just giant seas of troops, preventing an enemy from even remotely being able to attack your cities at all.

Hopefully that's controlled by upkeep costs... unless I'm the one doing the preventing, then it's ok.

clever id wrote:
duckilama wrote:
Gunner wrote:

Moving away from the 'war as a sequence of city sieges' that has so characterized all of the previous Civs has me especially excited. While it may not, as Bruce Geryk would say, "be historically accurate" to have only one unit per tile, I think the overall character of combat should be more plausible and fun because of it.

I doubt that.
I think you're more likely to start seeing "The Great Wall of Archer" - just giant seas of troops, preventing an enemy from even remotely being able to attack your cities at all.

Hopefully that's controlled by upkeep costs... unless I'm the one doing the preventing, then it's ok.

Keep in mind that military resources are going to be limited as well. Each iron deposit will only be good for 5 iron units and whatnot.

Yonder wrote:

Keep in mind that military resources are going to be limited as well. Each iron deposit will only be good for 5 iron units and whatnot.

And if you can't find iron, you'll be wielding sticks and throwing rocks?

Yonder wrote:

Keep in mind that military resources are going to be limited as well. Each iron deposit will only be good for 5 iron units and whatnot.

Weeeeeeelllllll, wouldn't that itself enough to keep away the Giant Stacks of Death?

Quintin_Stone wrote:
Yonder wrote:

Keep in mind that military resources are going to be limited as well. Each iron deposit will only be good for 5 iron units and whatnot.

Weeeeeeelllllll, wouldn't that itself enough to keep away the Giant Stacks of Death?

Yeah, probably.

Quintin_Stone wrote:
Yonder wrote:

Keep in mind that military resources are going to be limited as well. Each iron deposit will only be good for 5 iron units and whatnot.

Weeeeeeelllllll, wouldn't that itself enough to keep away the Giant Stacks of Death?

It depends. Consider that in Civ IV, the following military units need no special resources to produce: (as of BtS, not counting unique units)

  • Airship
  • Anti-Tank
  • Archer
  • Artillery
  • Caravel
  • Catapult
  • Galleon
  • Galley
  • Grenadier
  • Guided Missile
  • Infantry
  • Longbowman
  • Machine Gun
  • Marine
  • Mechanized Infantry
  • Musketman
  • Paratrooper
  • Privateer
  • Rifleman
  • SAM Infantry
  • Trebuchet
  • Trireme
  • Warrior

Unless they took the step of making all units require some kind of resource to make, you are likely to be able to do an awful lot with the "basics".

I think we're going to have to see it in action, but my suspicion is that the new "no stacking" regime will be a good one, when combined with the overall higher resolution landscapes—every unit will be able to move slightly faster, act slightly at a distance, city radius is slightly larger.

A different way to think of it is "every previous 'square' contains up to 3 military units, but where you position them in the square determines whether they can support the fight or not". Having the ability to support with ranged units behind the "line", or attack with two melee units next to each other means you're still going to be bringing more than one guy to the fight—but there's a limit.

Increasing the range of units, adding the ability of units to support nearby units, increasing the resolution of the map... this is all good in support of keeping things simple while still putting constraints on. Instead of saying "you can have up to one each of infantry, artillery, cavalry, and air units on each space", or "up to four military units, but only two of a given type can act together" you say "only one military unit per space" and increase the range at which units may act.

Hypatian wrote:

It depends. Consider that in Civ IV, the following military units need no special resources to produce: (as of BtS, not counting unique units)

Civ4 was a tad schizophrenic when it came to what required iron/aluminum and what didn't.

True—but the overall thing in Civ IV is that there are always more-or-less "basic" units that don't require the special resources of the day to produce. Without that, a strange starting area might leave you more than a little screwed, so it's a good thing.

Was thinking earlier that it would be interesting if the "resource" for basic units was... population. Like, if you dedicate one pop of your city to "military work", that's five units you can support (assuming the one-resource:five-units thing holds). That could be a different and interesting form of military upkeep—it's not just about paying a tax that's meant to keep you from getting too big, it's about what you're giving up to have that military presence.

Hypatian wrote:

It depends. Consider that in Civ IV, the following military units need no special resources to produce: (as of BtS, not counting unique units)
...

Unless they took the step of making all units require some kind of resource to make, you are likely to be able to do an awful lot with the "Zerg".

Fixed.

Hypatian wrote:

Was thinking earlier that it would be interesting if the "resource" for basic units was... population. Like, if you dedicate one pop of your city to "military work", that's five units you can support (assuming the one-resource:five-units thing holds). That could be a different and interesting form of military upkeep—it's not just about paying a tax that's meant to keep you from getting too big, it's about what you're giving up to have that military presence.

Shorten "population" to "POP" and congratulations, you've got Paradox's Victoria!

More seriously, thats not too bad of an idea. Thing is though that that kind of long term assignment of citizens is pretty much against the way Civ works. Civ2's requiring a shield of upkeep per active unit and charging population points when a guy is built have been tried before with varying success and seem to be more in keeping with what a system in Civ usually looks like.

I'm hoping/guessing that razing a surrounding city square might have more influence, so that a invasion force that wipes out some improved tiles will really do some economic/social damage. It seems like that in the past civ games (in later eras) you would just send a worker brigade behind a invasion force who razed your tiles and be up and running in no time. The one exception that I distinctly remember was razing a special resource tile and crippling special unit production.

From the sounds of it unless resources are more prevalent than they were in Civ4 I don't see nearly as many units being made in the game as before. It sounds like from one of those previews one of the main concepts is to reduce the size of armies anyway regardless of if they need a resource or not.

I'm hoping that the new Civ 5 system of limited units-per-resource will be less "crippling" for players without them. Then again, I expect that armies will be much smaller, so those 5-10 units could provide a pretty big advantage.

My first love was the original civ. This'll be like sleeping with her beautiful great-great granddaughter, and personally I can't wait!

I can't wait for Facebookisation...No news on that front I guess?

clever id wrote:

I'm hoping/guessing that razing a surrounding city square might have more influence, so that a invasion force that wipes out some improved tiles will really do some economic/social damage. It seems like that in the past civ games (in later eras) you would just send a worker brigade behind a invasion force who razed your tiles and be up and running in no time. The one exception that I distinctly remember was razing a special resource tile and crippling special unit production.

In C4, razing a mature cottage was a big deal. Razing several of them could really kill an AI's economy. Sure, you can rebuild the cottage, but you can just snap your fingers and have it be matured to Town any faster than it took originally.

duckilama wrote:

In C4, razing a mature cottage was a big deal. Razing several of them could really kill an AI's economy. Sure, you can rebuild the cottage, but you can just snap your fingers and have it be matured to Town any faster than it took originally.

True... I only was thinking of it from the resource point of view and not of the income.

Itsatrap wrote:

I'm hoping that the new Civ 5 system of limited units-per-resource will be less "crippling" for players without them. Then again, I expect that armies will be much smaller, so those 5-10 units could provide a pretty big advantage.

While I completely agree that it was/is crippling, I really enjoyed the resource hunting and knowing I was going to have to declare war over a resource. Having the game force me into a war over oil or iron or (insert resource) was/is IMO a great game mechanic. I think marginalizing a "resource advantage" would take a lot away from the game.

clever id wrote:

The one exception that I distinctly remember was razing a special resource tile and crippling special unit production.

If it was their only one. It sounds like it'll be a bigger deal when each resource only gives a limited number of units.

Quintin_Stone wrote:
clever id wrote:

The one exception that I distinctly remember was razing a special resource tile and crippling special unit production.

If it was their only one. It sounds like it'll be a bigger deal when each resource only gives a limited number of units.

There's a lot to be said for this, right here. It used to not matter if you razed one of your enemy's iron mines if he had another one hiding somewhere in his empire, but now each and every one is going to be important.

I suspect this is going to heavily impact special resource trading. I used to not mind trading something fairly benign, like Copper, to one of my allies or someone else nearby, as long as I had more than one of them. But if that's going to limit the number of units I can produce myself, that's an entirely different story.

Keldar wrote:
Quintin_Stone wrote:
clever id wrote:

The one exception that I distinctly remember was razing a special resource tile and crippling special unit production.

If it was their only one. It sounds like it'll be a bigger deal when each resource only gives a limited number of units.

There's a lot to be said for this, right here. It used to not matter if you razed one of your enemy's iron mines if he had another one hiding somewhere in his empire, but now each and every one is going to be important.

I suspect this is going to heavily impact special resource trading. I used to not mind trading something fairly benign, like Copper, to one of my allies or someone else nearby, as long as I had more than one of them. But if that's going to limit the number of units I can produce myself, that's an entirely different story.

Which, interestingly, more closely mirrors how militarily significant resources actually are traded between nations.

mcdonis wrote:

I hold out some hope this one will be better than 4, that last one was a real dog. (yeah I know I am probably the only person in the world who thinks that)

I will probably pick it up but to me the way they do CIV games now just dont feel like CIV games.

I totally agree. Civ Rev had a couple of nice elements but I think having to play it with a controller instead of a mouse an keyboard annoyed me. Civ IV had me feeling like I was doing a lot of stuff but I never got a big empire or got a big war going.

I keep going back to Civ III and wishing I could play that at a decent screen resolution.

Keldar wrote:

I suspect this is going to heavily impact special resource trading. I used to not mind trading something fairly benign, like Copper, to one of my allies or someone else nearby, as long as I had more than one of them. But if that's going to limit the number of units I can produce myself, that's an entirely different story.

The infinite*1 aspect of resources was always amusing. Each one is infinite, but indivisible. So you can give an infinite amount to another civ, but only if you have infinite*2.