Arioch's Analyst Thread

[Gizka]

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

meh, I just read about Hobbes and the Leviathan in school the other day, so Hobbes was the first I came to think of when I read "Leviathan" ; )

Anyways I think it's quite interesting since when playing civ you act like the Leviathan which Hobbes describes in his book
- an authority with absolute power and your citizens have no right whatsoever to question your decisions.
Because of this Hobbes would probably be proud of the whole civ series!

 

[KrikkitTwo]

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?

Because some of that variety was duplicative.

A Lumbermilled Plains Forest was the same as a Mined Grassland Hill

A Grassland hill gave the same as a Plains.. It just got improved differently

Workshops basically turned flatland into hills (something you couldn't do the reverse of) significantly reducing the late game terrain importance.

Watermills were just a bonus for rivers, since you could duplicate the effects.


The new system would be

Grassland/Floodplains/Oasis=Food (+Food or Gold)
Plains=balanced (+Food or Gold)
Forest=balanced (+Hammers or irreversibly make into Grassland/Plains for Food/Gold increase... or Tundra for Gold instead of Production)
Hill=Hammers (+Hammers or Food?-in some cases)

Desert=worthless (+Food or Gold)
Tundra=poor (+Gold)

Jungle= Food (+Science or irreversibly make into Grasslands for Food/Gold increase)
Swamp=poor.. turn to Grassland

and then special 'terrains'
Resources.

 

[Ahriman]

If you had twice as many units/buildings per era; would it make for a better game?

It depends if they're meaningfully different or not.
And your own reductio ad absurdum works against you here; you really don't think that the game would be worse if we removed half the units and buildings?
Not all content can be removed harmlessly.

As long as what is being iliminated is useless sub-optimal choices then I'm happy with it.

What do you mean by this?
To me, there *must* be some suboptimal values in order for terrain to have any meaning.
There is no such thing as Good Terrain unless there is also terrain that is Worse.

Who cares if tundra or forested-tundra gives different yields, I'd never work either.

I care very much whether or not forrested-tundra has the same yields or not as forested-grassland.
Or whether desert hills have the same yield as grassland hills.
It would also be weird for me to care more about preserving forest in tundra (because the alternative was useless tundra) than for me to care about preserving forest on grasslands (because the alternative is useful grasslands).

Having terrain that you probably never want to work is good. It makes terrain control a more meaningful decision. It matters where I expand. It adds a level of strategic decision-making - which is fun.

To draw an analogy: how much fun would Settlers of Cataan be if every tile had the same probability of giving you a resource?

What I wanted is some balanced choices, not many redundant ones

If every choice is balanced, then there is no choice, because it doesn't matter what your decision is.
How is it unreasonable to have forested plains behave differently from forested grassland? If you don't think that matters, then would you be happy if they removed plains entirely, and just had a single terrain type? Flat, hill, forest.
Sounds boring to me.

 

[KrikkitTwo]

It depends if they're meaningfully different or not.
And your own reductio ad absurdum works against you here; you really don't think that the game would be worse if we removed half the units and buildings?
Not all content can be removed harmlessly.

True

What do you mean by this?
To me, there *must* be some suboptimal values in order for terrain to have any meaning.
There is no such thing as Good Terrain unless there is also terrain that is Worse.

You can have good for X v. Good for Y

There is still Desert, Tundra, Mountains, that are overall worse
There is still Swamps that need extra time to be improved

I care very much whether or not forrested-tundra has the same yields or not as forested-grassland.
Or whether desert hills have the same yield as grassland hills.
It would also be weird for me to care more about preserving forest in tundra (because the alternative was useless tundra) than for me to care about preserving forest on grasslands (because the alternative is useful grasslands).

That sounds great (and note, it was that way in Civ 4 as well... Tundra was practically useless, Forested Tundra wasn't too bad.)

Having terrain that you probably never want to work is good. It makes terrain control a more meaningful decision. It matters where I expand. It adds a level of strategic decision-making - which is fun.

see above Bad terrain is still in
Also, because of less flatland improvements, "Good" Terrain is only good at 1 or 2 things.

To draw an analogy: how much fun would Settlers of Cataan be if every tile had the same probability of giving you a resource?

and what if there were a few hundred tiles in the whole map as opposed to 20-30. in that case, it would be a good idea.

If every choice is balanced, then there is no choice, because it doesn't matter what your decision is.
How is it unreasonable to have forested plains behave differently from forested grassland? If you don't think that matters, then would you be happy if they removed plains entirely, and just had a single terrain type? Flat, hill, forest.
Sounds boring to me.

I would be ok if Grasslands and Plains were merged,
but I do like the poorer production
of course Tundra+Desert should stay as separate types of 'flat'

Forests v. Hills create the terraformable v. not types of Hammer sources

 

[MisterBarca]

I am a bit confused. I understand unit production time was lengthened (doubled?) to reduce the unit span in the new 1UPT system. But was building production time lengthened as well? And if yes, what was the rationale?

 

[Ahriman]

"If every choice is balanced, then there is no choice"

I should rephrase what I meant: if every choice has the same effects, then there is no meaningful choice.

You're right that its totally fine if say one terrain type gives more food, while the other gives more hammers.

But equally I would say, its not ok if every terrain is equally useful, even in different ways, because then it doesn't really matter which land you settle.

How is this weird???

Tundra should always be weak terrain, even if it has a forest on it. This is clear from a gameplay perspective (tundra is weak terrain, settle it last, if at all, and often only because you want a bonus resource) and from a realism perspective (trees grow slowly in cold temperatures with little rainfall, they're not going to be very productive as forestry).

I think the choice of whether to chop or not should be similar for different terrain types. Otherwise, you'd always want to chop one type and never want to chop another.

Not to mention that its realistic - it climates which allow agriculture forests tend to get cut down; but in those where its too cold too far you're better off exploiting forests sustainably that being left with barren land.

Its not realistic. Taigia is lousy land, even for forestry. The trees just grow too slowly.
Trees get cut down in good terrain because its good terrain. Lousy terrain really just doesn't get used - or it gets used last, if at all.

and note, it was that way in Civ 4 as well... Tundra was practically useless, Forested Tundra wasn't too bad

In Civ4, the decision about whether to chop or not was pretty much the same on any terrain type.

see above Bad terrain is still in

Except that its canceled out; desert hills or tundra forest aren't Bad anymore.

and what if there were a few hundred tiles in the whole map as opposed to 20-30. in that case, it would be a good idea.

I don't understand your point here. A few hundred tiles would kill that game.
Having lots of differentiation in terrain types doesn't kill Civ. It worked fine in Civ4.
Again, all I'm arguing for is the Civ4 model. What is wrong with the Civ4 terrain model that needed change?

I would be ok if Grasslands and Plains were merged,

Ugh....why? It looks good graphically to have them different, and its good to not have every area able to support a super-city. And it provides for a bit more realism in terms of biome differentiation.

I just don't understand why you think that temperature and rainfall shouldn't affect the productivity of forested areas. How does that improve the game?

 

[AriochIV]

Frigate strength 30 confirmed. Can remove the question mark.

That GameSpot video looks like it's a really old build, and it's essentially the same demo from E3. The unit selection UI in the lower left still has the old large icon, the Frigate has the old high strength, and the English are using a Frigate instead of a Ship of the Line. The presenter also gives the E3 definition of a Research Agreements (bonus research for 20 turns), which I think has changed to a random technology after 20 turns.

The only things that are different in the video are the modern graphics for fishing boats and trading post, and the SS Cockpit and SAM units.

 

[SuperSmash5]

I thought the coast yields 2 gold, not just 1.

If it really does only yield 1, then trading post spam would become much more prevalent, which would disappoint me greatly. D:

 

[YoHo]

Tundra should always be weak terrain, even if it has a forest on it. This is clear from a gameplay perspective (tundra is weak terrain, settle it last, if at all, and often only because you want a bonus resource) and from a realism perspective (trees grow slowly in cold temperatures with little rainfall, they're not going to be very productive as forestry).
[/QUOTE]

to get completely technical, Tundra cannot have forest on it all as the definition of Tundra is "unable to grow trees of any significance."

However, the timberline area is probably very very productive as forest and if it were chopped down would probably revert generally to tundra like qualities.

At least, in terms of gameplay that's how it would make sense.

 

[Ahriman]

to get completely technical, Tundra cannot have forest on it all as the definition of Tundra is "unable to grow trees of any significance."

The tundra terrain type in civ represents both tundra and taiga, and the boreal forests in general.

However, the timberline area is probably very very productive as forest

Based on what? Its not productive. The trees grow really slowly. If you harvested some of them, it would take 50+ years for them to grow back.
Whereas good forested areas can often be harvested every 20 years.

 

[KrikkitTwo]

You're right that its totally fine if say one terrain type gives more food, while the other gives more hammers.

But equally I would say, its not ok if every terrain is equally useful, even in different ways, because then it doesn't really matter which land you settle.
.

Note: they haven't eliminated 'poor' terrain
Desert + Tundra are still Poor terrains

They eliminated some Types of poor terrains but also eliminated some 'good' terrain

so that there is overall still 'bad'
Swamp, Desert, Tundra
and 'good'
Hill, Floodplain, Grassland, Plain, Forest
terrain
(Jungle is an iffy one.. the benefit is late)

(also note: the tundra forest, and desert hills are still bad in the one thing that tundra and desert lack... food)

Tundra should always be weak terrain, even if it has a forest on it.

This is clear from a gameplay perspective (tundra is weak terrain, settle it last, if at all, and often only because you want a bonus resource) and from a realism perspective (trees grow slowly in cold temperatures with little rainfall, they're not going to be very productive as forestry).

If it has a Forest on it realistically, its not Tundra, but Taiga

I think the choice of whether to chop or not should be similar for different terrain types. Otherwise, you'd always want to chop one type and never want to chop another.

In Civ4, the decision about whether to chop or not was pretty much the same on any terrain type.

No it wasn't... Grassland could have something better on it if you wanted food or commerce.
in Civ 4 you Sometimes want to chop grass/Plains forest and Never want to chop tundra forest.
Tundra couldn't have anything better... a Tundra forest was only good for Lumbermill production (unless it was by a river)

Except that its canceled out; desert hills or tundra forest aren't Bad anymore.

'desert hills' are just hills with desert graphics
'tundra forest' is bad because it isn't flexible like grassland forest... you can't use it for food/gold

I don't understand your point here. A few hundred tiles would kill that game.
Having lots of differentiation in terrain types doesn't kill Civ. It worked fine in Civ4.
Again, all I'm arguing for is the Civ4 model. What is wrong with the Civ4 terrain model that needed change?

Well the Workshop-Town-Farm needed to change (because they basically made Flatland the best at everything, but that's improvements.

The Civ 4 model didn't Need to change.

However, going with the new model (especially if resources also trump underlying terrain)

Ugh....why? It looks good graphically to have them different, and its good to not have every area able to support a super-city. And it provides for a bit more realism in terms of biome differentiation.

Well they have different graphics for each continent now.
I do prefer having Grassland and Plains, but it wouldn't be as bad as if they eliminated Desert

If you eliminate plains and, don't want super cities you just make desert more common, or hills more common.

I just don't understand why you think that temperature and rainfall shouldn't affect the productivity of forested areas. How does that improve the game?

It overcomplexifies it... temperature and rainfall doesn't affect grassland output... you change it into a different terrain type. For Forests, high temp+rain->Jungle, low temp/rain->not Forest




In any case the way I see this playing out

when searching for a city site

For Production: Hills, Forests, with some Grasslands in support (although Plains are OK too especially if they are riverside, but they don't really support) [Grassland+Plains Forests are OK too)

For Gold: Lots of Grassland (some plains/Forests a few hills are ok/useful)..Rivers very good (extra gold+food)

For Science: Lots of Grassland (some plains/Forests a few hills are ok/useful)+Jungle...Rivers very good (extra food)

Desert, Tundra, Snow, Mountains Bad
Swamp.. bad short term, OK long term

 

[bjbrains]

Civ has, and always will be a game of abstractions. I don't have a problem with them evening out tiles a bit more by making all non-resourced tiles have no more than 2 cumulative food/hammer output. As to the removal of workshops: They were alternately completely useless (Most of the game), or the best production improvement in the game (Chemistry +caste+state property). Windmills and watermills were usually superfluous, with only niche uses.

Until Civil service irrigation-spreading, cottages were the only option for non-freshwater flatland (barring the useless workshop)! Lumbermills will now be very relevant (since they give a good 1f/2h tile yield) with their early arrival and the nerf to chopping.

Also remember that resources in general appear to be more common, in addition to the top-end output being nerfed(No more 6 food corn tiles or 6/7 commerce gold tiles). Great people improvements will also give you stuff to do with your more 'useless' tiles.

 

[Ahriman]

Note: they haven't eliminated 'poor' terrain
Desert + Tundra are still Poor terrains

They have in part, if a desert hill is the same as a plains or grassland hill, and if a tundra forest is the same as a grassland or plains forest.

If it has a Forest on it realistically, its not Tundra, but Taiga

There is no taiga terrain type in Civ. Many, whats with the pedantry?

because they basically made Flatland the best at everything

No they didn't. A mined hill was still better at production than a workshop flatland.

And forests provided health, which admittedly wasn't as important as it should have been.

It overcomplexifies it... temperature and rainfall doesn't affect grassland output... you change it into a different terrain type. For Forests, high temp+rain->Jungle, low temp/rain->not Forest

Uhh... what?
Temperature and rainfall are what distinguish between grassland, plains, desert and tundra.
Grassland is moderate rainfall moderate temperature.
Plains is moderate temperature low rainfall.
Desert is high temperature low rainfall.
Tundra is low temperature low rainfall.

Why do you think that a forest in an area that gets little rain, and has very long, freezing cold winters, would be as productive as a forest in a temperate zone?

How is it overcomplexified? Its how it worked in Civ5!

Civ has, and always will be a game of abstractions.

Yes, so?
Civ4 was a game of abstractions. The abstractions they had there worked fine.

 

[KrikkitTwo]

No they didn't. A mined hill was still better at production than a workshop flatland.

No it wasn't

Mined grassland Hill = 1,3 ->1,4 with RR
Workshop grassland=1,1->1,2 w caste,->1,3 w Guilds->1,4 with Chemistry->2,4 with SP

Now with 0 supporting Civics the workshop is worse, but with both it is better. (and Caste and SP have other benefits)

 

[SuperSmash5]

I can't believe there's so much we don't know about something so fundamental. Without knowing tile/improvement yields, it's hard to speculate about anything. I had just assumed the basics would be kept the same, but it doesn't seem to be the case.

 

[YoHo]

The tundra terrain type in civ represents both tundra and taiga, and the boreal forests in general.


Based on what? Its not productive. The trees grow really slowly. If you harvested some of them, it would take 50+ years for them to grow back.
Whereas good forested areas can often be harvested every 20 years.

You're right, I was using a bad term. I should have said the Boreal Forest. My intention was to illustrate just as you said that in Civ, Tundra with forest represents the Boreal Forest (and Timberline)

the Boreal Forest derives its human value from the forests growing on it.
Ergo, it makes sense for Tundra+Forest to be worth more than Tundra without forest in terms of the game.

 

[Ahriman]

Ergo, it makes sense for Tundra+Forest to be worth more than Tundra without forest in terms of the game.

That was never in question.

The question was, does it make sense for Tundra + forest to be worth the same as Grassland + forest?

Logic says no.

 

[bjbrains]

That was never in question.

The question was, does it make sense for Tundra + forest to be worth the same as Grassland + forest?

Logic says no.

Real-world logic is inconsistently applied to Civ at best. It's not really relevant to how the game plays.

 

[EmpireOfCats]

I can't believe there's so much we don't know about something so fundamental. Without knowing tile/improvement yields, it's hard to speculate about anything. I had just assumed the basics would be kept the same, but it doesn't seem to be the case.

Yeah. I admit to a tl;dr attack with the last couple of posts, but the amount of discussion between people who know the game far better than I ever will makes me nervous. We've been hearing too much about the beautiful graphics (which are really, beautiful, no doubt) and the new combat system (which is new, yes) and not enough about the most basic game aspects. Why didn't the reviewers catch this?

 

[KrikkitTwo]

That was never in question.

The question was, does it make sense for Tundra + forest to be worth the same as Grassland + forest?

Logic says no.

It says yes if Grassland+Forest is the same as Plains+Forest