aziantuntija
Prince
Yeah I know I said that I wont post anymore about this thing, but since it seems like that you have now understood what I tried to say before, I will answer to your critics.
”Military UA” (with regular UA + UU’s of course) would help the AI because then you could code the AI to use that particular civs ability right from the start of the game. This is much more easier to code the AI to than just the UU system where the UU appears in different time with different civs and that some civs get to carry the benefits and others don’t. Just like the regular UA, the “military UA” would also give all civs more characteristic and in overall make the game more interesting. Example: England is basicly already having a “military UA” with their +2 extra ship movement, just add a regular UA to its arsenal and BAM, theres one civ with UA, UU’s and the new “military UA”.
And please everyone, think outside the box when thinking about this “military UA” –thing. Im not saying they should change the system in the upcoming G&K or any other possible future expansion for the civ5 for that matter. Why? Because the civ5’s AI would not propably benefit anything from it, obviously because it is not build for it. So if you are waiting me to rework all the civs in civ5 and present them to you in this conversation, then sorry to disappoint you but its not going to happen. England was just an example how the “military UA” could work in practice, im sure you all got the picture.
It took me about 5 posts to actually get my point across for you guys (because my bad english skills). So you can be sure that I am not going to start a thread about this thing, im NOT going to start this all over again
. But thanks for the tip anyway.
Yeah I see what you are aiming with that, how can I possibly understand the system if I just discovered it, right? Well this is not rocket science, actually it’s a loophole that you just happen to call “gameplay aspect”. AI wise im normally not too fond of adding new gameplay systems to a game (for obvious reasons), but this case is fundamentally different. Because If not all the civs has that what you call “gameplay aspect” available and the AI does not even understand to use it –at all-, then I would not call it a “gameplay aspect”, it’s a loophole for the human player. And as I have already told that I know that there are many systems in the game that us humans can use more better than the AI can, (I mean that’s why the AI gets so many bonuses, right?) but combat is a bit different. The AI aids are far more limited in combat, sure you can give the AI more units but that’s about it. So therefore giving this kind of loophole for the human players in combat, is actually a huge mistake. So yeah, I actually do understand whats going on with this “feature”, even tough I just discovered it. Also FYI, the reason why I haven’t really discovered this before is the fact that almost all my games have been with civs that do not have this loophole in their UU’s, like England and Rome. So please don’t think im stupid just because I (because of a personal preference) haven’t got the same change to actually discover it as the others who have discovered it propably has got.
”Military UA” (with regular UA + UU’s of course) would help the AI because then you could code the AI to use that particular civs ability right from the start of the game. This is much more easier to code the AI to than just the UU system where the UU appears in different time with different civs and that some civs get to carry the benefits and others don’t. Just like the regular UA, the “military UA” would also give all civs more characteristic and in overall make the game more interesting. Example: England is basicly already having a “military UA” with their +2 extra ship movement, just add a regular UA to its arsenal and BAM, theres one civ with UA, UU’s and the new “military UA”.
And please everyone, think outside the box when thinking about this “military UA” –thing. Im not saying they should change the system in the upcoming G&K or any other possible future expansion for the civ5 for that matter. Why? Because the civ5’s AI would not propably benefit anything from it, obviously because it is not build for it. So if you are waiting me to rework all the civs in civ5 and present them to you in this conversation, then sorry to disappoint you but its not going to happen. England was just an example how the “military UA” could work in practice, im sure you all got the picture.
It took me about 5 posts to actually get my point across for you guys (because my bad english skills). So you can be sure that I am not going to start a thread about this thing, im NOT going to start this all over again
. But thanks for the tip anyway.Yeah I see what you are aiming with that, how can I possibly understand the system if I just discovered it, right? Well this is not rocket science, actually it’s a loophole that you just happen to call “gameplay aspect”. AI wise im normally not too fond of adding new gameplay systems to a game (for obvious reasons), but this case is fundamentally different. Because If not all the civs has that what you call “gameplay aspect” available and the AI does not even understand to use it –at all-, then I would not call it a “gameplay aspect”, it’s a loophole for the human player. And as I have already told that I know that there are many systems in the game that us humans can use more better than the AI can, (I mean that’s why the AI gets so many bonuses, right?) but combat is a bit different. The AI aids are far more limited in combat, sure you can give the AI more units but that’s about it. So therefore giving this kind of loophole for the human players in combat, is actually a huge mistake. So yeah, I actually do understand whats going on with this “feature”, even tough I just discovered it. Also FYI, the reason why I haven’t really discovered this before is the fact that almost all my games have been with civs that do not have this loophole in their UU’s, like England and Rome. So please don’t think im stupid just because I (because of a personal preference) haven’t got the same change to actually discover it as the others who have discovered it propably has got.
