Civ5 PAX East Preview (GameShark, 01.04)
- Thread starter NeverMind
- Start date
Nice to hear it's Augustus Caesar. 
cf_nz
Prince
I thought this was interesting.
"Transoceanic invasions will involve less micromanagement (any unit can become its own transport – and a stackable civilian unit when it does so) but more naval warfare preparation (since these transports have no defensive power whatsoever)."
"Transoceanic invasions will involve less micromanagement (any unit can become its own transport – and a stackable civilian unit when it does so) but more naval warfare preparation (since these transports have no defensive power whatsoever)."
Ahriman
Tyrant
Awesome. That is a great sign to me that they're catering to serious history fans rather than just the average 12 year old.
Ahriman
Tyrant
True! I missed that flicking through.
Good, this sounds like the appropriate way to include a flank bonus (if its in), just a passive bonus for having surrounded a unit. It does pose some exploit problems with multi-move units though; you can surround one unit with cavalry, attack it with a couple of units to kill it, then move the cavalry so they surround another unit, then attack that unit, and repeat.
I'm not sure sure that's a problem. But if it is judged to be, "flanking" might only be activated if the surrounding units attack the surrounded unit.
Ahriman
Tyrant
I don't really see how that would work well. You shouldn't have invisible combat bonuses that depend only on actions taken previously; you shouldn't have to "remember" anything in order to understand the current state of the game ("was this unit previously attacked this turn by another unit, giving me a flanking bonus, or not?"
The simple way is just to get the bonus if the unit is surrounded.
The religion issue had already been announced.
My guess is that they're eliminating "specific" religions (christianity vs islam vs hindusim) and instead will have various religious civic type things in their social policies (evangelism, tolerance, state church, free religion, theocracy, holy war, secularism, and so forth).
Ahriman
Tyrant
No.
Right.
Why?
The whole point is to get away from the idea of having stack guards. If you have multiple vulnerable units, you need multiple units to protect them - either by sitting on top of them or by killing off any attackers.
Chalks
The blue pieces
- Joined
- Feb 21, 2010
- Messages
- 1,097
Really? Does this mean that civilian units can be stacked but military ones cannot:
No, the whole point was to get away from the idea of having stacked armies in combat. Having multiple vulnerable units able to stack is entirely irrelevant. If you don't want to stack them, you don't have to, but making the mechanism actively prevent them from stacking even if you want them to has nothing to do with the combat system changes.
The phrasing of that article really does heavily indicate that civilian units can stack but military ones cannot. I mean, that's literally exactly what it says word for word.
cf_nz
Prince
No. You can stack one military unit and one civilian unit but not more than one of either. The wording in the article is perhaps ambiguous, I take it to mean that you could stack a naval vessel and a 'self-transporting' military unit but not multiple 'self-transporting' military units. It will aid protecting these defenceless units with they are at sea.
eireksten
Protective/Organized
How can you be so sure about that? Source?
It does sound to me that civilian units are perhaps infinitely stackable, so I have to agree with Chalky on this one. I don't see a problem with it either...
If it's a good idea to just bring along one unit protecting them is another issue. You could easily lose the whole stack (Civ1, anyone?). And they would of course not be able to land the same tile (on the same turn), when they're turning back.
cf_nz
Prince
I'm not sure of anything, that's just an interpretation.
Initially I read it to mean that 'self-transporting' units could be stacked indefinitely, though I thought it had already mentioned in another preview that civilian couldn't be stacked. To be honest I really can't remember, there's been too many previews that are largely identical, I've lost track.
Initially I read it to mean that 'self-transporting' units could be stacked indefinitely, though I thought it had already mentioned in another preview that civilian couldn't be stacked. To be honest I really can't remember, there's been too many previews that are largely identical, I've lost track.
Chalks
The blue pieces
- Joined
- Feb 21, 2010
- Messages
- 1,097
I've read no source that explicitly says civilian units cannot be stacked and since this article clearly seems to indicate otherwise, I think it may well be an assumption of the community.
It's certainly an assumption I shared until reading the article.
Anyone got any sources to support the theory of no civilian unit stacking?
Dbob
Merchant Prince
I always figured that if a "flanking bonus" was ever included in the game it would work that if you had two units on directly opposing sides of an enemy and one of them attacked. This way it could seem that you were attacking the rear of the enemy formation.
cf_nz
Prince
Thank you for re-phrasing your post Chalks.
See the Eurogamer interview with Jon Shafer and Dennis Shirk (about halfway down).
"You can have a worker unit and a warrior unit on the same tile, but not two of either."
See the Eurogamer interview with Jon Shafer and Dennis Shirk (about halfway down).
"You can have a worker unit and a warrior unit on the same tile, but not two of either."
Ahriman
Tyrant
Precisely. I trust direct quotes from game devs much more than a vaguely worded comment from a reviewer.
There are few enough things we know unambiguously; I think we can safely say this is one of them.
The list of confirmed features says:
Not sure where that came from, but this matches the kind of thing that's been described.
If you could stack infinite temporarily civilian "transports" under a single military ship, that doesn't really meet their stated goal of spreading battle out over the map
