10 cool things in civ5 article - 17th Sept.
- Thread starter V. Soma
- Start date
It has been said that you can not rush courthouses. That would make warmongering really painful... For the losing opponent.
I'd forgotten that -it's an important point here, and removes my concern almost entirely.
Meneer Popken
Chieftain
- Joined
- Oct 31, 2001
- Messages
- 80
What happens to resources if the enemy has parked a unit on a resource you're harvesting/mining/whatever? Is it unavailable to you making your units fight at half strength?
This should add to the "battleship vs carrier" debate. Barring facing the English (or certain social policies and wonders), a carrier should be able to stay just outside the ranged attack and movement of a battleship and continue to pound them (as long as their fighters/bombers survive...). And even if the carrier is defenseless, they've STILL got a 1-tile movement advantage.
(Granted, add in escorts and it muddles the debate again...)
Source Please.
Ahriman
Tyrant
A battleship has a range of 3 and at least 4 movement, and a carrier has 5 movement. I think its going to be tough to stay completely out of range.
This has been reported numerous times in developer interviews.
I don't have a source but it was mentioned many times in many places that you cannot rush a courthouse.
King Jason
Fleece-bearer
- Joined
- Oct 21, 2005
- Messages
- 2,053
I'm curious how the game handles which units get weaker at a resource deficit. If I have 5 iron units, and lose one source, so now I have 5/4 units to iron... which one get's weaker?
If it's the order in which they were built... time to keep track of those potentials.
If it's the order in which they were built... time to keep track of those potentials.
Ahriman
Tyrant
It sounds like: all of them.
Which is simple, but seems like too much of a punishment; 20 iron and 21 swordsmen, and they *all* fall apart?
It makes me worry that resource trading might not end up being very interesting, because it could leave you severely stranded and forced to disband units.
Which is simple, but seems like too much of a punishment; 20 iron and 21 swordsmen, and they *all* fall apart?
It makes me worry that resource trading might not end up being very interesting, because it could leave you severely stranded and forced to disband units.
Yea, if I have 21 swordsman and I lose some iron, I'm disbanding the ones that are over the limit.
The weakness could scale. 21 swords and 20 iron means all of your swords fight at 95.2% effectiveness. (if this isn't the case, it should be modable!)
Hmm. A mod where when you are cut off from supplies of your required resources, a HP multiplier stat starts falling from 100% down to some function of the fraction of supplies you have access to. Maybe even something non-linear, where units at perfect health are less effected (while wounded units are more effected, and maybe have issues healing up without supplies).
Then there would be a military use for blockades -- it would cause damage to the defenders as their resource-requiring units would decay, and slow down the rate at which defenders can heal themselves up.
Hmm. A mod where when you are cut off from supplies of your required resources, a HP multiplier stat starts falling from 100% down to some function of the fraction of supplies you have access to. Maybe even something non-linear, where units at perfect health are less effected (while wounded units are more effected, and maybe have issues healing up without supplies).
Then there would be a military use for blockades -- it would cause damage to the defenders as their resource-requiring units would decay, and slow down the rate at which defenders can heal themselves up.
Ahriman
Tyrant
Which makes you incredibly vulnerable to trade agreement disruptions.
Why would I trade for extra strategic resources if doing so puts me at risk of having to disband all those extra units, when I don't know enough about the attitudes of the AI to know if its likely to strand me or not?
Yea, them's the risks. I guess you play it safe and invade people for their resources....
King Jason
Fleece-bearer
- Joined
- Oct 21, 2005
- Messages
- 2,053
Meh, think of it as a buff. For x turns you military is stronger.
So basically I see strategic resource trades as something you do when you're going to use them, not something you sit on as a power score increase. It's like Total War from the policy tree (for 20 turns your units fight have +33% combat) Though it requires more thought.
If of you trade for some strat resources, and then go to war using those 5 extra units you just built and take X cities... technically the cost of those 5 units bought you X more cities... Or conversely, prevented you from losing X cities if you were severely threatened.
An Example, for the defensive side... buying a handful of oil and pumping out some bombers to halt a larger advancing force on your territory. Since history in past games show us that A.I.'s are receptive to peace if their initial military "gambit" fails... the purchase of your airforce saved you from losing a few cities and halted the war... Which would probably turn out to be much cheaper and less beneficial to your enemy than trying to negotiate peace with them directly.
Boris Godunov
Prince
- Joined
- Aug 23, 2002
- Messages
- 401
Maybe the rules should be changed so that units don't get XP for being on the receiving end of bombardment. I mean, it makes sense for a defender to get XP from actual combat, but getting XP just for sitting there while someone lobs projectiles at you from a distance is a bit nonsensical.
Similar threads
