Second Guessing Japan

[Schuesseled]

Then, what was the purpose of your "memo on shipbuilding" you adressed me?

To inform you that ships are built on land, (sense)

not to talk about how many X miles a terrain represent and therefore it couldn't possibly moved that inch, which represents 250 miles inland, or all the other rubbish you were spouting. (arguments of realism, in games which i do not care to partake in, mostly because there pointless)

 

[King Jason]

Talking about realism? Your army is 500 miles away from homeland. Where's the next drydock? Bad luck, there is none - we'll have to build one. Do we have someone who knows how to build ships? Fortunately, yes. He usually builds ships with the help of dozens of qualified workers, requiring special wood from large trees, taking 2 years to build, costing more than a small palace. The commander says: do it with the help of some militia peasants, a few fir trees, in 2 weeks and at no cost!

Turns span several years in length, and units cost support. Solves both of your problems. The support cost for units should cover everything from food, pay, and miscellaneous and/or emergency expenses during the course of duty.

But seriously, debating realism is silly. However, it's pretty easy to extrapolate particular scenarios if you actually want to try and do so. Though, it's even easier to look at something and simply say "well that doesn't make sense" too.

 

[SeismoGraf]

To inform you that ships are built on land, (sense)

not to talk about how many X miles a terrain represent and therefore it couldn't possibly moved that inch, which represents 250 miles inland, or all the other rubbish you were spouting. (arguments of realism, in games which i do not care to partake in, mostly because there pointless)

• You insist that ships are built on land. Fine. Later you call certain arguments of realism pointless. Specifically arguments you do not care to partake in.
• Pretend I was talking "about how many X miles a terrain represent", which I was not.
• Although you affirmed to have stopped reading my post, just call it rubbish.

That you didn't like my first sarcastic comment, I can understand. What makes me wonder, is being confronted with so much aggressiveness without objective basis.

 

[Modiga-Disabled]

I was under the impression taht you can get the embarkation promotion by getting unit xp, and that optics gives it to all units.

That's what I've heard.

 

[Schuesseled]

I did briefly skim it, but seeing as how your arguments sprouted from my wish to talk about realism i decided that they didn't apply to me, because i don't want to talk about realism. And realism, is the effect that a game reflects real life, and invovles a lot pointless quantifying of scale, that never adds up. Thats why i do not want to talk about wether or not civ 5 is realistic, the argument is pointless.

However all ships in civ are built on land (usually inside costal cities) and now in civ 5 on the coast as your units embark, this is all I was saying.

But if you really want to talk about how realistic unit embarkation is, fine, in the many years a single turn of civ represents (realism alert) its entirely possible to buil d enough ships on the coast to embark your army ready for sea travel. (of course as is the problems with realism arguments, the fact that a turn represents many years, then begs the question how come you can only build one wall of a granary in those many years inside tokyo?, and how come you can't travel more than one hex which clearly represents 250 miles?, a unit moving a 5 mph, could clearly cover more territory in that span of time.) (i hope you see my problem with an argument on realism now.)

When i was talking about shipbuilding on land i was simply referring to that ships can't be built on water, the parts float away and sink, this isn't an argument of how realisitc the game is, but how shipbuilding works. So having ships plow a few fields as you say, seems totally acceptable to me, i would naturally prefer to see some workers build a ship and then roll it down some logs into the water, but thats an amazing complicated and time consuming animation.

 

[SeismoGraf]

I did briefly skim it, but seeing as how your arguments sprouted from my wish to talk about realism i decided that they didn't apply to me, because i don't want to talk about realism. And realism, is the effect that a game reflects real life, and invovles a lot pointless quantifying of scale, that never adds up. Thats why i do not want to talk about wether or not civ 5 is realistic, the argument is pointless.

However all ships in civ are built on land (usually inside costal cities) and now in civ 5 on the coast as your units embark, this is all I was saying.

But if you really want to talk about how realistic unit embarkation is, fine, in the many years a single turn of civ represents (realism alert) its entirely possible to buil d enough ships on the coast to embark your army ready for sea travel. (of course as is the problems with realism arguments, the fact that a turn represents many years, then begs the question how come you can only build one wall of a granary in those many years inside tokyo?, and how come you can't travel more than one hex which clearly represents 250 miles?, a unit moving a 5 mph, could clearly cover more territory in that span of time.) (i hope you see my problem with an argument on realism now.)

When i was talking about shipbuilding on land i was simply referring to that ships can't be built on water, the parts float away and sink, this isn't an argument of how realisitc the game is, but how shipbuilding works. So having ships plow a few fields as you say, seems totally acceptable to me, i would naturally prefer to see some workers build a ship and then roll it down some logs into the water, but thats an amazing complicated and time consuming animation.

Well, I try to explain. The first comment was about the animation feeling "unnatural" to me. Like if the ships would help the local peasants to plow their grainflieds, plow like in:

​

Having the ships come from the Red Sea, then showing the units as they embark would seem more natural, at least on first sight. Maybe it is artistically more difficult to make such an animation look good; in both cases the (pixel) size of the embarking unit is much larger, than that of the tiny ships. Maybe it just takes the brain some time to get used to and later overlook such impossibilities.

When talking about realism in a game, use only real-world logic to argue. It makes little sense to explain the realism of a gameplay abstraction with the presence of another gameplay abstration. The combination of two unrealistic things is no argument for a third one to be realistic.

Just because an army of say 5000 men is ordered to remain somewhere in the world for several years, does not mean they would start building ships, even if they had the capability to do so. Rather send a messenger home and wait for ships to come. Also consider, that an army in a desert or tundra region would not have enough trees to build ships.

Where the ships for the embarkment came from has no relevance for gameplay. Whether the ships were constructed on-place, came from the homeland, were constructed on the moon then delivered via drop pod or warped-in via a nearby pylon - all are equivalent in terms of gameplay. In such situations the game designers can decide based on realism, historic accuracy, player immersion or completely different things.

 

[Nicolas10]

To get back on the thread topic (Re: Improving Greg's gameplay):

He clearly didn't have enough ranged and mounted units to go along with his samurai. He had no strategic goal, so he kept pumping out (building and buying an upgrade) Samurai with his available Iron. They gave as good as they got, but he couldn't capitalize.

His awesome trebuchet was good, but he needed to cross another two trebs and put them on the desert hills facing the french. Then he could have had two samurai there to mop up on damaged units coming into range.

Also, fighting Nap is one thing... yielding such a scientific advantage is another. If you can't overwhelm an enemy, then the attrional warfare idea isn't very good. I know he commented that he couldn't get peace, but he needed to set up a great defense and focuse more on his economy. And I have a feeling before we enter play (i.e. at his save) that he'd been neglecting his science for awhile. He has a lot of cities (stifling social policy accumulation) but not a lot of science.

That's a recipe for disaster.

 

[Schuesseled]

To make it clear i would not be opposed to having ships magically appear and have your unit embark on them as an animation, but either that or my ship building suggestion just does not seem feasible, it would be incredibly complicatd too get right. Having some ships help that farmer you pictured is basically what i expected of civ's usual style, and its what we got.

--

He should have defiently brought some more trebs or archers in to that battle.