Arioch's Analyst Thread

[Black Gate]

THE LEVIATHON


Run!

It's the super secret unit.

That'd be interesting

 

[Gizka]

Thomas Hobbes would have been proud

 

[KrikkitTwo]

Possible solution to the wierd terrain stacking....
They don't stack, instead they 'Trump' each other

Grassland: 2 food
Plains: 1 food, 1 hammer
Hill: 2 hammers
Forest: 1 food, 1 hammer


Find the last Terrain type listed... that will tell you the output
Forest trumps hills,
Hills trumps Grassland/Plains

Jungle->2 Food
Tundra->1 Food
Desert->0
Floodplains
etc.
Those all go somewhere in that 'trump' order.


Resources, and improvements are the only things that actually ADD to a terrain's output

 

[Ahriman]

Possible solution to the wierd terrain stacking....
They don't stack, instead they 'Trump' each other

Why is this an improvement?

I don't really understand what is wrong with the Civ4 system, which is very logical and easy to understand.

The blob looks kinda like an oil spill to me....
Maybe its just an oil resource on an ocean tile?

 

[Venereus]

Thomas Hobbes would have been proud

Did anyone alse get this? It's awesome btw.

 

[MisterBarca]

Did anyone alse get this? It's awesome btw.

It was a case of a pedantic, bandwidth-wasting, irrelevant name-dropping

 

[Venereus]

It was a case of a pedantic, bandwidth-wasting, irrelevant name-dropping

I meant the book.

 

[KrikkitTwo]

Why is this an improvement?

I don't really understand what is wrong with the Civ4 system, which is very logical and easy to understand.

I didn't say it was an improvement, I thought that might be what they are actually doing.
It does work... look at what you See.

If you see Forest, its a Forest... you only need to know what is 'underneath' if you plan on cutting the Forest down. (I would gues the same would apply to Jungle)

As for Hills...well fact that its a hill then ends up being more important than the Terrain type, underneath it.

 

[MisterBarca]

I meant the book.

I know.

 

[Venereus]

THE LEVIATHON

The LEVIATHONG!

 

[Ahriman]

I didn't say it was an improvement

Ok, I misinterpreted what you meant by "solution". You meant "explanation".

I thought that might be what they are actually doing.

Agreed.

Seems counterintuitive though. And seems like a step backwards.

 

[KrikkitTwo]

Ok, I misinterpreted what you meant by "solution". You meant "explanation".

Agreed.

Seems counterintuitive though. And seems like a step backwards.

Well not necessarily.

Instead of dealling with different Terrain stackings (Plain+Forest+Hill)
Each 'Terrain' is The same no matter what is Under it

All Forests give X
All Jungles give X
All Hills give X
etc.
Forest+Jungle can then be removed to produce the 'underlying' terrain.

River bonuses, Resource bonuses and Improvement Bonuses then get added.

I would call it a step sideways, instead of summing each tile, and counting Forest/Jungle as a pseudo improvement

You can more easily see the potential for a wide area. X Forests, X Hills, X Grassland, X Plains

 

[SuperSmash5]

If that tile idea is correct, it might seriously limit production capabilities.

 

[Ahriman]

Instead of dealling with different Terrain stackings (Plain+Forest+Hill)

But it was very easy to do this.

It makes no sense to me for example that a forest on a tundra would be the same as a forest on a grassland.

Terrain should always matter, no matter what features are on top of it.

 

[KrikkitTwo]

But it was very easy to do this.

It makes no sense to me for example that a forest on a tundra would be the same as a forest on a grassland.

Terrain should always matter, no matter what features are on top of it.

In this model: Hills, Plains, Forest are all Terrains, there are no 'Features'... There is Terrain, Resources and Improvements (and Rivers)

Chopping a Forest is "Terraforming" and it changes Forest to
Grassland
Plains
Tundra
or
Hills

dependng on what is 'under it'

The 'under terrain' for Hills may only help determine what type of other things can get built on it (ie Farms not buildable on Tundra Hills or Snow Hills)

 

[Ahriman]

Chopping a Forest is "Terraforming" and it changes Forest to
Grassland
Plains
Tundra
or
Hills

Which is stupid. Because you can clearly see the underlying terrain there. And because its not terraforming. And because clearly the yield of a forest depends on the climate its in. A temperate forest is going to grow much faster than one on tundra.

I understand how you're saying you think it works, I just don't think that its a good design.
And I don't see any problem with the Civ4 design.

 

[timski]

Krikkitone - Good logic, and also consider:

* Unimproved Grassland+Hill = 2 Hammers
* Unimproved Deer+Grassland+Hill = 2 Food, 1 Hammer

The implication is that the Deer are worth 2 Food and 1 Hammer (prior to improvement), and that overrides everything else on the tile. It follows improvements may work on this basis, so a Deer Camp has exact production output, regardless of the terrain. I don't think there is anything in the video that would allow us to check that.

In the spirit of simplification, this would make sense: Players only have to remember one pattern for each resource, without needing to calculate the combination of resource and terrain. It also makes it easier to balance the map, since it makes resources more equal (it would no longer matter if your Wheat is on Plains or Grassland). Or this could all be a software bug.

 

[KrikkitTwo]

Which is stupid. Because you can clearly see the underlying terrain there. And because its not terraforming. And because clearly the yield of a forest depends on the climate its in. A temperate forest is going to grow much faster than one on tundra.

You can Semi-clearly see the underlying terrain, it's there if you look, but its not the predominant feature.

The 'gameplay gain' would be that tile yield only comes from that 1 predominate feature (Grassland, Hill, Jungle), +Resources+Improvements (or even eliminate Resources from that calculation)


I personally wouldn't have changed it, but I see it as a reasonable 'step sideways' It does give somewhat less variety in 'terrain types'
In Civ 4 you had
6 grasslands, 4 plains, 4 Tundra, 4 Deserts->17 usable Terrain types
In Civ 5 you have
Jungle, Swamp, Forest, Hill, Grassland, Plains, Tundra, Desert, Floodplains, Oasis->10 usable Terrain types (more if you count the resources)



Separate note 50 gold for disbanding a Frigate... of course the cost of a Frigate is unknown, as is the game speed. But this indicates that Units->Gold might be a worthwhile conversion. (hopefully currency offers a better rate)

 

[Ahriman]

So we have less variety in terrain types, and less variety in improvements (farm and trading post are the only normal flatland improvements).

Why is this a good thing?

 

[Venereus]

So we have less variety in terrain types, and less variety in improvements (farm and trading post are the only normal flatland improvements).

Why is this a good thing?

IDK, ask a minimalist.