Arioch's Analyst Thread

[Sciguy001]

UUs that do something 'different' or have a unique ability:
Minuteman/Foreign legion (Bonuses based on territory)
Camel Archer (Turns the knight into a ranged unit)
Chu-ko-nu (weaker, but has the ability to shoot twice)
Samurai: (Increased GG chance)
Naresuan's Elephant (Turns knight into a heavy infantry unit)
Sipahi- Free pillaging along with faster movement and more sight range
Janissary- Autoheal after killing a unit
Legion- Builds forts/roads

That's a vast majority that we have complete stats for. I'd consider adding the ones that are resourceless as well simply because that will be a huge impact (much bigger than it was in civ 4).
EDIT:
So you don't consider these units "unique" enough?
Musketeer- 4 strength stronger than its equivalent, and more strength than any unit in its time period. Also note that we don't know its full civlopedia entry, so it's quite possible that they have some other benefit
War Chariot- 1 move faster and needs no horses, for a unit that is already the fastest ancient era unit. Egypt at the start is going to always be able to field armies of unparalleled speed.
Hoplite - The strongest (I mean in terms of strength value) ancient era unit by a lot. Competes well with swordsmen despite coming earlier and being resourceless.
Companion cavalry: A faster and stronger version of a unit that is already the fastest and strongest unit in its time period? That's going to be interesting to say the least.

I see your point, but only a couple of the ones that you mentioned have a new unique thing like the Roman Legion does.

 

[bjbrains]

Ok. Fine. He's still lying about this:



Having a slightly higher strength score can in no way, shape or form be considered a unique ability.

We shall see how many of these units we end up with.

You see, now you're arguing over his wording. And we've yet to see a unit in the game that "just" has a higher strength score (we haven't seen the civlopedia entry for the hoplite or musketeer).

Also, saying that he's "lying" just strikes me as aggressive and makes me think you're just trying to ram your point through.

I see your point, but only a couple of the ones that you mentioned have a new unique thing like the Roman Legion does.

Define unique. All the ones I mentioned have major changes/advantages over their basic unit that makes them have a big (potential obviously) impact on the civilization that uses them, which is what the point of all this is, right?

 

[Calouste]

I see your point, but only a couple of the ones that you mentioned have a new unique thing like the Roman Legion does.

There are at least 7 UUs that have an ability that no other military unit has:
Minuteman, Foreign legion, Chu-ko-nu, Samurai, Sipahi, Janissary, Legion

And that's only the stuff we know so far.

Camel Archer might be there as well as the only ranged unit that can move after using it's ranged attack, but we don't know enough yet to confirm that.

 

[Thormodr]

You see, now you're arguing over his wording. And we've yet to see a unit in the game that "just" has a higher strength score (we haven't seen the civlopedia entry for the hoplite or musketeer).

Also, saying that he's "lying" just strikes me as aggressive and makes me think you're just trying to ram your point through.



Define unique. All the ones I mentioned have major changes/advantages over their basic unit that makes them have a big (potential obviously) impact on the civilization that uses them, which is what the point of all this is, right?

I'm not trying to ram my point through really. I just think the marketing by 2K Games and Firaxis so far has been abysmal. It'd be really nice if there were more truly unique units like the Roman Legions. I'd like to see Siam's UU be able to do certain worker actions as well as elephants traditionally have been used to help transform the terrain. Or the Jaguar be able to promote slightly faster or have a promotion that was unique to that unit only. There's a lot of design space being left untapped here.

It really isn't a huge deal for me though as, in general, the UA of most Civs are quite interesting and sufficiently unique. That is one of things that most impresses me about ciV.

 

[YoHo]

Now that there is no longer distance maintenance/corruption like there was in Civ3 and Civ4, would there be much of a purpose in relocating your capital?

Strategic reasons that I mentioned would be the only obvious one.
To protect your seat of government from other civs trying to get the domination victory.

 

[Lyoncet]

Strategic reasons that I mentioned would be the only obvious one.
To protect your seat of government from other civs trying to get the domination victory.

That or moving it to a more favorable location for spaceship part transportation, since each piece is apparently a unit that needs to be moved to the capital (to allow interception by enemies).

 

[bjbrains]

I'm not trying to ram my point through really. I just think the marketing by 2K Games and Firaxis so far has been abysmal. It'd be really nice if there were more truly unique units like the Roman Legions. I'd like to see Siam's UU be able to do certain worker actions as well as elephants traditionally have been used to help transform the terrain. Or the Jaguar be able to promote slightly faster or have a promotion that was unique to that unit only. There's a lot of design space being left untapped here.

It really isn't a huge deal for me though as, in general, the UA of most Civs are quite interesting and sufficiently unique. That is one of things that most impresses me about ciV.

Sure, there's definitely more room for UUs, but I'm not really concerned about unused design space as long as the units we have are interesting, which I think they are. I think keeping the worker abilities to the legion is actually a good thing, as it keeps their uniqueness intact. The elephants don't really need a boost since they're already 22-strength resourceless infantry with a bonus versus cavalry. BTW, we really don't know what the Jaguar does, besides the fact that it's a warrior replacement with the same base stats, i.e 2 move/6 str.

 

[Thormodr]

Sure, there's definitely more room for UUs, but I'm not really concerned about unused design space as long as the units we have are interesting, which I think they are. I think keeping the worker abilities to the legion is actually a good thing, as it keeps their uniqueness intact. The elephants don't really need a boost since they're already 22-strength resourceless infantry with a bonus versus cavalry. BTW, we really don't know what the Jaguar does, besides the fact that it's a warrior replacement with the same base stats, i.e 2 move/6 str.

I wish they'd get rid of the resourceless requirement for N's Elephant. Give Siam the ability to build 4-5 resourceless elephants as part of their UA (well added onto) and then require an ivory resource to build any further ones. Then give the elephant the ability to perform one or two worker actions or perhaps help speed up a worker doing a specific task.

That would add to the flavour of Siam without overpowering it in my opinion. Hopefully they do spice up a few more of the UU without overpowering them. As it stands, N's elephant is fairly good but pretty boring.

 

[Caeserportugal]

Thormodr the N elephant has been confirmed it requires Ivory?

 

[Thormodr]

Thormodr the N elephant has been confirmed it requires Ivory?

It does not require Ivory as far as I know.

I was wishing that it did require Ivory so that it could have a slightly more interesting ability in its place. Sorry for the confusion.

 

[timtofly]

It does not require Ivory as far as I know.

I was wishing that it did require Ivory so that it could have a slightly more interesting ability in its place. Sorry for the confusion.

Maybe it could disband into a new city.

 

[KrikkitTwo]

Where are you getting this definition of Original Capital from?

common definition

The original capital of the Roman Empire was Rome not Constantinople

You could just as reasonably say
Original Capital=the capital prior to being conquered.
In other words, the capital is whichever city, as chosen by the player prior to it being conquered.
Once a city that was a player chosen capital is conquered, then player chosen capital is no longer possible.

That is adding on to the common definition, and assuming the player can move their Capital.

Given that "I want to make my Capital more defensible" is the only significant reason for Moving it, I see no reason whay you could move the 'original capital'... especially if the 'Original Capital' is only significant for Domination Victory.

If there is a "Secondary Capital" that is separate from the "Original Capital" then I can see that being movable...possibly.

If its the original city, then why didn't they just call it your start city?

Because
1)They aren't necessarily going to be as clear as possible (you can't overestimate their obfuscation)
2)What about a Scenario where you start with multiple cities
3)Perhaps there are other effects assigned to "Original Capitals"

 

[AriochIV]

I was just joking about Dennis's veracity. What I meant was that I was disappointed that there aren't more units with "active" abilities (that is, something the player can active use), such as the Legion. Thus far, that's the only active ability we know about.

 

[Lyoncet]

Some of the abilities are pretty spiffy even if they're not active. Janissaries seem really fun, as do camel archers. I'd be OK (not enthused, but OK) with most of the units being a more-or-less static upgrade, but having read Dennis' lines about unit abilities, I felt pretty let down with what we got. Could have been that more units had some interesting ability rather than "gets +4 strength" that got weeded out in different iterations, but that's why you don't say things like. "Each unique unit in the game has its own unique abilities too.... Not just passive bonuses."

 

[YoHo]

common definition

The original capital of the Roman Empire was Rome not Constantinople

Common definition in the real world, not in terms of a game neither of us has full knowledge of.

That is adding on to the common definition, and assuming the player can move their Capital.

Of course, since I was musing on how things would work given a Civ1-4 gameplay feature it makes sense that I would create a definition that made sense in such circumstances.

Given that "I want to make my Capital more defensible" is the only significant reason for Moving it, I see no reason whay you could move the 'original capital'... especially if the 'Original Capital' is only significant for Domination Victory.

Or perhaps for ease of spaceship parts, or perhaps a move to someplace on water to facilitate easier trade routes between cities? Or for that matter, perhaps a different city is placed more favorably with resources and since the value of a trade route is dependent on the status of the capital and the city, having a better capital could improve all cities

If there is a "Secondary Capital" that is separate from the "Original Capital" then I can see that being movable...possibly.

So exactly opposite of the way Civ4 works then?

Because
1)They aren't necessarily going to be as clear as possible (you can't overestimate their obfuscation)
2)What about a Scenario where you start with multiple cities
3)Perhaps there are other effects assigned to "Original Capitals"

1: Oh come on
2: Then one of the cites in that Scenario is the capital and the other isn't. Why is that hard.

3: perhaps there are, what of it?


I realize this is a constant source of arguing on this board, but in the absence of any credible evidence, I see no reason to believe that the feature allowing you to move capitals, a feature that has been in the game for all its iterations is unreasonable in V.

I'm not saying we should assume its in there, but I don't see any good reason to think it isn't either.

 

[Mercade]

I realize this is a constant source of arguing on this board, but in the absence of any credible evidence, I see no reason to believe that the feature allowing you to move capitals, a feature that has been in the game for all its iterations is unreasonable in V.

I'm not saying we should assume its in there, but I don't see any good reason to think it isn't either.

On deliberately moving your capital, have you seen any screenshot that shows that you can build a palace? I haven't.

 

[YoHo]

Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.
I have not seen a screen shot that shows that you can build a palace.

As I said, its entirely possible that feature is gone...its also possible its handled via a new mechanism.
My musings were only presuming it wasn't gone.

 

[KrikkitTwo]

Common definition in the real world, not in terms of a game neither of us has full knowledge of.

Common definition of the word original in describing the game, rather than an individual combat.

Or perhaps for ease of spaceship parts, or

Who said the "original capital" was necessary for that

perhaps a move to someplace on water to facilitate easier trade routes between cities?

That is not true, If I can connect X different together, it doesn't matter which one is the capital.. they are all connected to each other.
Assuming the "Original Capital" is what you need to be connected to

Or for that matter, perhaps a different city is placed more favorably with resources and since the value of a trade route is dependent on the status of the capital and the city, having a better capital could improve all cities

assumes "original capital" is what you connect to for trade routes

So exactly opposite of the way Civ4 works then?

No, the first City both your "Original Capital" AND your "capital".... only the "capital" can get moved to other locations (for better trade/to better exploit bonuses/in case the Original Capital is taken, etc.)

2: Then one of the cites in that Scenario is the capital and the other isn't. Why is that hard.

You asked why they didn'y use the term "original city"

I realize this is a constant source of arguing on this board, but in the absence of any credible evidence, I see no reason to believe that the feature allowing you to move capitals, a feature that has been in the game for all its iterations is unreasonable in V.

It wasn't in Civ Rev, which is where they introduced the idea of controlling the Capitals for Conquest Victory... and where they eliminated distance from the capital maintenance

I'm not saying we should assume its in there, but I don't see any good reason to think it isn't either.

See above... they introduiced this idea so that you only needed to attack and hold a number of cities equal to the number of Civs, rather than every city on the map... If you can move the "Original Capital" then you eliminate the purpose, and have to potentially play 'Chase the Capital'

If some of the "capital bonuses" (trade routes, etc.) are connected to something that CAN move then that 'capital' is almost certainly not the "Original Capital"

 

[Schuesseled]

well theres still room for more active abilities, i'd like to see the mohawk warrior have the ability of forest spreading, if there sitting in a forest in neutral or friendly territory they can spread the forest to a unimproved tile nearby.

that'd be nice.

 

[On3ManC1v]

Can anybody guess when the demo comes out?