i am really looking forward to this expansion

shaglio said:

On a quick tangent, I was always under the impression that "Strategy" was your overall plan and "Tactics" were how you carry out that plan. Am I even remotely close in this assumption, or am I way off the mark (or oversimplifying it)?

Click to expand...

More or less true, yes.

The best explanation I've heard is strategy is always present or true where as tactics is time-sensitive and dependent on the situation. For example, flanking your enemy and opening a second front is strategy. Standing at the edge of battle and noticing an enemy's weak side and ordering your cavalry to take advantage of it is a tactical move. Hence the two terms are not mutually exclusive and 1UPT adds both.

Controlling the center of the board in chess is good strategy; forking an enemy piece in the middle forcing him to move out and give you control is a tactical move.

Buying low and selling high is strategy. Seeing signs of a price point about to swing the other way and quickly buying/selling to take advantage of it is a tactical move.

Can't wait for BNW, I've been banging the 'Trade' drum for years..

If they make a good job of it as Religion, then its going to be brill

Also, I reckon there is plenty of features for a third XP.

We're still missing Health (lots of oppurtunities there) and having second leaders with differing Uniques could be fun. Also you could add in Vassals, Civil Wars, Rebellions...

PhilBowles said:

For example, at the scale of an individual battle, your strategy would be your overall plan of attack, for which you would consider such things as where to deploy your army in the landscape and the general approach (such as flanking or encircling) that your forces as a whole will employ. The tactics would be the actual use of individual units, where they move, which units they support, when they engage etc.

Click to expand...

Your 'plan of attack' in a single battle is still tactics. There is simply no two ways about it.

If I'm explaining the three levels of war to a group of undergraduates I usually do it like this:

Strategy wins wars
Tactics win battles
Operations exist somewhere in between (I would define it as the stringing together of tactical victories to meet a strategic objective).

"Operations" is an interesting concept which is really only born out of the First World War. The French and Russians were pioneers in its development, but it was the Soviets who carried the idea on and really refined it. Western armies (the US and UK) didn't officially acknowledge the existence of a third level of war until the 1980s. Current UK doctrine describes it thusly:

"The level at which campaigns and major operations are planned, conducted and sustained, within theaters or areas of operations, to achieve a strategic objective."

To summarize with reference to WWII (a common reference point):

"Europe first" was American strategy

The invasion of Normany (and the combat that followed until war's end in Europe) was an operation (really several operations, one for each area, Northern France, Southern France, Italy, Eastern Front)

"Operation Cobra" saw the tactic of employing heavy bombers in the infantry support role.


I hope that clears things up.

Yeah, I find I check this site constantly for news, I'm just super excited. I love summer and all, but it would be really nice to get to July sooner than later...

I am too (looking forward to this) even though I think G&K (and Civ5) is an awesome game and despite have to filter out those posters that keep wanting to bring back crappy elements from previous versions or demanding a new kind of game.

This is somewhat related to the OP: http://www.shacknews.com/article/78473/civilization-5-devs-on-forging-a-brave-new-world

Birch was asked if Civilization 5 would now be done with Brave New World and Birch apparently suggested they were not.

Gucumatz said:

This is somewhat related to the OP: http://www.shacknews.com/article/78473/civilization-5-devs-on-forging-a-brave-new-world

Birch was asked if Civilization 5 would now be done with Brave New World and Birch apparently suggested they were not.

Click to expand...

I'd be happy with that. G&K restored my faith in the civ series, though I still feel Civ4 BtS is a little better than Civ5 G&K (though Civ5's religion system is light years ahead); BNW looks like it'd make Civ5 as good as Civ4 BtS, if not better (having cool civ choices helps), and I hope they'll continue to expand on Civ 5 so that by the time Civ6 starts the whole cycle can start again with fans complaining about things getting "dumbed down" and all that. Though frankly I don't think it Civ 5 was dumbed down to begin with, it just didn't have a lot of the elements that made Civ 4 fun for me - but G&K and BNW is not only re-introducing some of the elements that made Civ 4 great, they're expanding on it, adding new twists, and introducing many more interesting elements. While having two expansions is the current tradition, hopefully Civ 5 will break that tradition.

cybrxkhan said:

I'd be happy with that. G&K restored my faith in the civ series, though I still feel Civ4 BtS is a little better than Civ5 G&K (though Civ5's religion system is light years ahead); BNW looks like it'd make Civ5 as good as Civ4 BtS, if not better (having cool civ choices helps), and I hope they'll continue to expand on Civ 5 so that by the time Civ6 starts the whole cycle can start again with fans complaining about things getting "dumbed down" and all that. Though frankly I don't think it Civ 5 was dumbed down to begin with, it just didn't have a lot of the elements that made Civ 4 fun for me - but G&K and BNW is not only re-introducing some of the elements that made Civ 4 great, they're expanding on it, adding new twists, and introducing many more interesting elements. While having two expansions is the current tradition, hopefully Civ 5 will break that tradition.

Click to expand...

That sounds promising to me as well. I think there's a set of material not so far in the game that could lend itself well to a themed 'warfare and politics' expansion:

- Civil war
- Revolutions and changes in government type
- Public order and rebellions
- Military agreements: vassalage, late-game military pacts (such as Warsaw Pact, NATO) etc.

Is it July yet?

It's hard to play Gods & Kings when all I can think about are how all of the new features are going to put it to shame. This always happens to me when a new civ release is right around the corner...

More diplomacy would be nice of course. But since firaxis have ignored the topic for two years now i dont think they will give us much of that, if any.
Why listen to the community right?

Maybe they could fix MP while doing an expansion...? Maybe we finally can play the maps we can make in MP with our friends?
Haha, yea right.
Will never happen.

We will get new Disney civs though. Probably completely politically correctly overpowered compared to European civs, as usual.

But hey, i will buy the expansion. So will my wife. Love the game. Just wish Firaxis could listen to the community for once. So many missed opportunities and annoying things to fix...

"New Disney Civs"? Which Disney "Civs" do we exactly have Securion? Are you going to be "that guy" rather than to have actual guts to say what you mean?

Gucumatz said:

"New Disney Civs"? Which Disney "Civs" do we exactly have Securion? Are you going to be "that guy" rather than to have actual guts to say what you mean?

Click to expand...

Welcome to the forum. Since you obviously are new, i will be glad to answer that question of yours.
The civs we are talking about as "Disney civs" are right now Polynesia and Iroquois.

Just wish Firaxis could listen to the community for once.

Click to expand...

Yeah, if they just listened to the community maybe they'd add religion. Espionage. Add more positive modifiers to diplomacy. Change the diplomatic victory condition so everyone can vote. Change culture victory. Add more techs and units. Add more resources, including copper and stone. Improve the combat AI. Add international trade routes. Add a version of the UN that can pass resolutions such as banning nukes. Add civs people want to see like the Maya, Netherlands, Poland or Brazil. Remove the reportedly overpowered gold bonus for rivers so there's more decision-making involved in city placement.

Shame they haven't done any of that.

PhilBowles said:

Yeah, if they just listened to the community maybe they'd add religion. Espionage. Add more positive modifiers to diplomacy. Change the diplomatic victory condition so everyone can vote. Change culture victory. Add more techs and units. Add more resources, including copper and stone. Improve the combat AI. Add international trade routes. Add a version of the UN that can pass resolutions such as banning nukes. Add civs people want to see like the Maya, Netherlands, Poland or Brazil. Remove the reportedly overpowered gold bonus for rivers so there's more decision-making involved in city placement.

Shame they haven't done any of that.

Click to expand...

Your right of course, but I wasnt really talking about anything but not being able to play maps we can make in MP.

So you think either of their abilities are OP atm? Fascinating...

And how exactly are either "Disney" civilizations if I may ask the all knowing Securion? The Iroquois are made up of some very interesting groups [The Tuscarora IE, if you are familiar with history tried to create a Native American state and tried to recruit former slaves in North Carolina promising them freedom if they killed the settlers. The Tuscarora wars ultimately led to their exile and their incorporation into the Iroquois.] The Iroquois certainly played a huge role in the trading wars between the colonizing Europeans - Besides not sure how they can be called a Disney civilization, its not like they have been particularly portrayed in that light by Americans, considering we have records of George Washington wanting to wipe them out entirely, murdering Iroquois children in their orchards, etc. The Iroquois were officially patrons of a lot of the Northeastern tribes.

I see nothing wrong with including them as they did add a certain unrepresented area of both place and history.

Securion said:

We will get new Disney civs though. Probably completely politically correctly overpowered compared to European civs, as usual.

Click to expand...

You can not say things like this without actually providing an example.

Defining what a "Disney civ" means would help, though.

Gucumatz said:

So you think either of their abilities are OP atm? Fascinating...

And how exactly are either "Disney" civilizations if I may ask the all knowing Securion? The Iroquois are made up of some very interesting groups [The Tuscarora IE, if you are familiar with history tried to create a Native American state and tried to recruit former slaves in North Carolina promising them freedom if they killed the settlers. The Tuscarora wars ultimately led to their exile and their incorporation into the Iroquois.] The Iroquois certainly played a huge role in the trading wars between the colonizing Europeans - Besides not sure how they can be called a Disney civilization, its not like they have been particularly portrayed in that light by Americans, considering we have records of George Washington wanting to wipe them out entirely, murdering Iroquois children in their orchards, etc. The Iroquois were officially patrons of a lot of the Northeastern tribes.

I see nothing wrong with including them as they did add a certain unrepresented area of both place and history.

Click to expand...

I dont know how watered down the word "Civilization" is these days, but calling any of the two for a Civilization is not really fitting. If you insist on doing so, then any tribe of people on the earth must have the same privilege, right? We would all of a sudden have tens of thousands of former "Civilizations" to choose from.

But im alright with stretching the "rules" for adding civs to the game. Its only a game after all, and it gives some variety. Dont take me wrong.
But i reserve the right to call them "Disney civs".

Fake Edit; 5 bucks we will see pocahontas in the expansion.

So how exactly are the Iroquois watered down? Is Poland watered down as well? Is Israel watered down as well? And you were commenting in the speculating of native American civs with similar comments as well... how exactly are the Pueblo watered down too then?

Sonereal said:

You can not say things like this without actually providing an example.

Click to expand...

Two quick ones;

Germany; Known for being one of the biggest engineering and technology powerhouses of the world gets a "please go chase barbarians" bonus.
England; Known throughout the world for being the largest trade empire on earth. No economic bonus what so ever in the game though.

Who gets science and economy bonuses? Middle eastern civs. In fact, all of them. Its kinds weird.