Apolyton interview with Jon Shafer at Gamescom (Aug 18)

[Tarkhan]

Shafer mentions multiplayer in the interview! That's a bit of a relief, since it has been awfully silent regarding multiplayer.

Hopefully modding info will be forthcoming as well. Two very important aspects of Civ!

 

[alanthreonus]

I wonder if that Easter egg he mentioned has to do with Elvis.

 

[Venereus]

It's a Sid Meier modelled great person! The "Great Game Designer"...

Anyway, afaik there's no way to get new info out of this guy, and doing the interview after release would kill the piece's ability to become a hype-fueled self-promotion for the site, wich was it's point, I think. So it's good on it's own merits, fulfills it's goals.

Oh and, navies FTW!

 

[Polobo]

No...if there is only one correct choice, it isn't a strategy game. IF the naval warfare is balanced to the level of land warfare, with different terrain, lots of different units, promotions etc, then yeah, it could work depending on a couple of extra rules, but if it is like BtS where you simply build Frigates, and then SoL, and have only 2 types of terrain to fight over then no, it won't be any where near balanced.

How many variations of "ocean" are there? Yes it make tactics less interesting but it doesn't affect the strategic importance of water.

From a military perspective you have gun-ships, subs, and carriers; maybe a support cruiser; and the later 3 were not technologically viable until the modern age so adding them earlier would be odd.

We have promotions...

Having an exposed coast - especially with a major city on it - is a significant risk for a player dealing with aggressive opponents. That is offset by the benefit of having access to water and the resources and trade opportunities it provides.

And, strategically, you always risk having to deal with multiple fronts (AI programming aside) whether you have coast or not. It is also a risk for the person attacking on two fronts since their own forces are divided as well.

My only concern would be if "Raiders" could shore-bombard a city with impunity since the added movement means they could approach-fire-retreat in the same turn. As long as city bombardment can hit the raiders the defenders should be able to keep the advantage while maintaining fewer boats than the aggressors.

 

[Krill]

Civ4 was broken broken broken, you have no choice but to always get the best land units available on maps that have a decent amount of land.

Nope...http://forums.civfanatics.com/showpost.php?p=8287741&postcount=114

Also, if you're "forcing" them to split their forces, why aren't they forcing you to split your forces?

Yes I can see that every coastal civ will be forced to have at least a moderate navy. Why is that a bad thing?

It's not the moderate navy aspect, but how navies get implemented. If it is impossible to defend against a navy because it has an uber boat (in CIV, that would be a frigate), then you needed frigates to be able to attack a galleon stack defended by the other players frigates (hence the one right move with research being to get technology that helped the navy first and foremost). If you did not get frigates, you needed to defend all of your coastal cities, and any land entrance to your empire because you could be attacked there as well. Your opponent could land units next to any city, so each city of yours needs to be able to hold off his entire stack of land units that could be transported.

Your opponent only needs to set up a sentry net in the ocean consisting of frigates - you can't take it down with only galleons without losing out net hammers, whereas if you set up a sentry net with galleons, he hammers it out of existence with frigates, and then invades. If you try to invade without frigates...then it is all the more painful when your opponent destroys your stack with the single superior unit type.

So the simple answer? You can only force them to defend their cities, and split their forces, by researching to the tech that enables the single naval unit type that can not be defended against except by itself. Which is the beeline to Astro and Chem in CIV, and whatever tech it is in CiV. So the One Correct Choice.

Of course, this is assuming that they follow the same type of navel warfare used in the past 4 games. I agree with rolo, that I hope that there is a new implementation of naval warfare in CiV.

 

[Krill]

From a military perspective you have gun-ships, subs, and carriers; maybe a support cruiser; and the later 3 were not technologically viable until the modern age so adding them earlier would be odd.

Need some sort of rock/paper/scissors implementation with multiple unit types would be my guess.

Having an exposed coast - especially with a major city on it - is a significant risk for a player dealing with aggressive opponents. That is offset by the benefit of having access to water and the resources and trade opportunities it provides.

It doesn't really matter - even if you don't settle the city on the coast, you can still be invaded navally, and it is another flank that you need to defend. Consider that if you don't settle the city on the coast is pretty much the same as founding on the coast, and then losing the city. Sure, it is a simplistic viewpoint and no where near as detailed a view as I really hold, but it is enough for this discussion. The risk? Your opponents will be aggressive whatever you do, but I don't see how this is anything to do with the idea that a single boat can blockade all of the water in a city?

And, strategically, you always risk having to deal with multiple fronts (AI programming aside) whether you have coast or not. It is also a risk for the person attacking on two fronts since their own forces are divided as well.

I'm pretty sure boats will be able to move further than land units in a single turn...that reaction time, that is provided by slower land units is what enables defenses to shift units around, and use less forces to defend a larger area on land than on the coast. This might have changed though...

 

[Robert Plomp]

Thanks all for your comments! You're right, these questions were not very game related. I'll be honest: the fan in me has many questions, especially after the past 2 days, playing the game, etc. But when we created these questions (weeks ago) we knew that many stuff was not going to be 'revealed' to us. There are marketing strategies out there, and 2K is not going to leak their scoops to Apolyton. So in that way this interview is indeed a bit dated. I love it though to just have this more personal interview.

This interview is not our gamescom interview btw. This one was an earlier one. We hope to release our gamescom video interview asap. It's just that we're amateurs and all new to this It takes us some time

 

[Seven05]

Your opponent only needs to set up a sentry net in the ocean consisting of frigates - you can't take it down with only galleons without losing out net hammers, whereas if you set up a sentry net with galleons, he hammers it out of existence with frigates, and then invades. If you try to invade without frigates...then it is all the more painful when your opponent destroys your stack with the single superior unit type.

So the simple answer? You can only force them to defend their cities, and split their forces, by researching to the tech that enables the single naval unit type that can not be defended against except by itself. Which is the beeline to Astro and Chem in CIV, and whatever tech it is in CiV. So the One Correct Choice.

Of course, this is assuming that they follow the same type of navel warfare used in the past 4 games. I agree with rolo, that I hope that there is a new implementation of naval warfare in CiV.

That's a lot of what-if's. It reminds me of the posts complaining about how horrid combat is going to be due to the way ranged combat will work giving the attacker a 'huge advantage.'

My answer to you will be the same- Since it's a strategy game you will be best served to not allow your opponent gain that sort of advantage over you. If you are unable to do that, you have failed to impliment a successful strategy.

You can make any situation or game element look more benficial or detrimental than it really is by narrowing your focus as you have here. It takes a lot of assumptions to even consider that happening and all you have to do is change one of those assumptions to make it a moot point. Again, it's a strategy game and you will have many options open to you, consider them when figuring out how to not get yourself into such a bad situation in the first place. Or, complain that you lost a game to somebody (or the AI) who was able to build more units than you over an undisclosed amount of time while you weren't paying attention leading them to attack you where you lacked the defenses to hold them back.

 

[Rhye]

Any chance of seeing that for ciV?

Only time will tell.

 

[Krill]

That's a lot of what-if's. It reminds me of the posts complaining about how horrid combat is going to be due to the way ranged combat will work giving the attacker a 'huge advantage.'

My answer to you will be the same- Since it's a strategy game you will be best served to not allow your opponent gain that sort of advantage over you. If you are unable to do that, you have failed to impliment a successful strategy.

You can make any situation or game element look more benficial or detrimental than it really is by narrowing your focus as you have here. It takes a lot of assumptions to even consider that happening and all you have to do is change one of those assumptions to make it a moot point. Again, it's a strategy game and you will have many options open to you, consider them when figuring out how to not get yourself into such a bad situation in the first place. Or, complain that you lost a game to somebody (or the AI) who was able to build more units than you over an undisclosed amount of time while you weren't paying attention leading them to attack you where you lacked the defenses to hold them back.

Actually, it's a complete thread jack...that is how it is in CIV, and hopefully it is not how it is in CiV. However, it's the ability to choke and entire civs' coast cheaply that is in itself, broken.

 

[Thormodr]

Only time will tell.

Thanks. I am sure it will stand the test of time.

 

[bjbrains]

Actually, it's a complete thread jack...that is how it is in CIV, and hopefully it is not how it is in CiV. However, it's the ability to choke and entire civs' coast cheaply that is in itself, broken.

Cheaply? You're going to have to be able to outfight their navy. Also note that their cities can still shoot at you if they get close. Having a relevant navy is a good thing compared to the not-relevant-if-you're-not-invading-by-sea navy of Civ 4.