Arioch's Analyst Thread

[Arkangelus]

That *would* be nice.

 

[KrikkitTwo]

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.

Synergistic, but not really historic/realistic.

Perhaps a movement+Combat bonus in Forest

 

[YoHo]

But from a game play perspective, the entire point of the domination victory is to capture the "seat of power" is it not? That's the concept it emulates. The sacking of Rome.
If I have the ability to choose to move my capital from one city to another, than ipso facto I'm moving my seat of power and all the bureaucracy and function of the empire with it. If another player captures my first city which is no longer my capital, then why would that have any strategic meaning to my empire? The cultural or happiness impact might be greater, but not the strategic.
It makes no sense for a domination victory to be worried about the original city. If that were the case, then its a meta game type victory.

I'll fully admit I've never played Revolutions, so I didn't know about its game restrictions. That certainly lends credence to the notion that your capital can't be moved, but man, that's a piece of flavor I'm sad to see go.

Having said that, you wouldn't be playing Chase the Capital. Have you never tried to relocate your capital? Building the palace isn't trivial. If its in there, I don't see it being a strategy like the Rebel Capital in "Star Wars: Rebellion" where the capital could be moved anywhere at any time.

 

[Schuesseled]

Synergistic, but not really historic/realistic.

Perhaps a movement+Combat bonus in Forest

Perhaps it could be, but i was giving an example of a possible active ability.

 

[AriochIV]

Can anybody guess when the demo comes out?

I honestly don't think even 2K or Firaxis knows exactly when it will be ready. All that they have said is that it will be in September, before the game ships. So some time between September 1-21.

 

[Louis XXIV]

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.

Ease of trade routes and possibly to take better advantage of social policies would be others. Also, to give the palace benefit to a city that could take better advantage of it.

BTW, most UUs don't historically lend themselves to active bonuses. I'd argue the camel archer is an active bonus, however. And, at the very least, the majority seem to at least have unique, non-stat-related bonuses (and those that don't make up for this by being pretty damn good).

 

[Schuesseled]

even more importantly than for historical reasons, active abilities don't make for great gameplay in all situations, for example japan's samurai unit could have a kamikaze ability which gives a temporary boost in combat strength in exchange for health, but i wouldn't enjoy having to micromanage that ability, or decide when would be a good time to use it, passive abilities are easier on gameplay when we are talking about combat bonuses, acitve abilities only really work with with worker like abilities.

 

[KrikkitTwo]

But from a game play perspective, the entire point of the domination victory is to capture the "seat of power" is it not? That's the concept it emulates. The sacking of Rome.

That depends, if there is a movable capital, you are moving the "seat of power" but you aren't moving the "homeland"

Sacking of Rome is a great example, the seat of power was already split... but the 'homeland' of the Roman Empire was Rome.

If You can move the Capital, then conquering the First Capital is still likely to be the goal of a Conquest Victory.

If another player captures my first city which is no longer my capital, then why would that have any strategic meaning to my empire? The cultural or happiness impact might be greater, but not the strategic.

which is why I think they might not allow capital movement.
Because the Reasons for movng the capital in Civ 1-4 were primarily about cutting down distance (or colonial in Civ 4) maintenance... which has apparently been eliminated in Civ 5.

Making your Capital a Better City spot is a minor enough effect when you have 36 available tiles in your capital's 'fat hex'.. Maybe wanting it to be coastal or riverside, but that seems somewhat minor.

Decreased Space ship Travel time is probably the only important thing, but that then becomes something to plan around.

It makes no sense for a domination victory to be worried about the original city. If that were the case, then its a meta game type victory.

unless capitals are immovable.
or
if you consider it like your 'homeland' of dramatic importance to your people

I'll fully admit I've never played Revolutions, so I didn't know about its game restrictions. That certainly lends credence to the notion that your capital can't be moved, but man, that's a piece of flavor I'm sad to see go.

Me too,
which is why I think a mobile capital might be a good idea IF it is not the target for Conquest Victory (which the 'original capital' language tends to convey)

Having said that, you wouldn't be playing Chase the Capital. Have you never tried to relocate your capital? Building the palace isn't trivial. If its in there, I don't see it being a strategy like the Rebel Capital in "Star Wars: Rebellion" where the capital could be moved anywhere at any time.

I doubt it would be that bad, but I think you probably will only have to take Paris and Washington to win a game with the French and Americans, regardless of how they move their Capital.

 

[Jmyrm]

Having said that, you wouldn't be playing Chase the Capital. Have you never tried to relocate your capital? Building the palace isn't trivial. If its in there, I don't see it being a strategy like the Rebel Capital in "Star Wars: Rebellion" where the capital could be moved anywhere at any time.

Hah, I remember that game - at the time the drop down 3d space battles were a real novel idea.

I agree - nothing quite like a government in exile, not being able to move your 'seat of power' is something I would hate to lose. But losing said capital - moved or not - should have a huge impact on your civilization.

Jmyrm

 

[AriochIV]

So far, I haven't seen a Palace in any of the build options.

Though it doesn't really help that most of the screens we've seen are in a capital.

 

[bjbrains]

So far, I haven't seen a Palace in any of the build options.

Though it doesn't really help that most of the screens we've seen are in a capital.

We've seen enough city screens to be pretty certain that palace moving is not in. Nothing is 'impossible' until we see the full game, but all the evidence we do have shows that you can't (we've seen plenty of other city build screens in various videos like the Giant Bomb one).

 

[bjbrains]

Here's a new video over at http://tv.esl.eu/de/vod/view/22360

Some key things I noticed:
Cultured city states give 10 at friendly, along with open borders.

Allied gives you 20 culture, also the base influence loss rate is 1 per turn (The player has patronage unlocked, but nothing else).

Research agreement costs are based on the most advanced civs level of tech.

Units have a -50% strength penalty for lacking the needed strategic resource!

Stealth bombers!

Paratroopers!

They can apparently paradrop for one movement point, once per turn, and up to 5 squares.

There's also some footage of the Nuclear Missile there. It comes with its own somber music.

 

[Schuesseled]

nice info there, glad of the penalty for not having the resources, otherwise you coul trade for a large amount of resources to build a huge army, then stop trading and only have increased maintenance to worry about.

 

[Guardian_PL]

very nice find bjbrains, thanks for that

EDIT to Venereus
Yeah, but it just sounds wrong to me, especially that nerdy enthusiasm in Murray's voice when he introduces it. I can almost hear excess saliva flowing out of his mouth...

Nah, GDR doesn't make me happy. Call it EVA or MECH infantry and it'll work. GDR sounds too immature to me for a Civ game :/

 

[Venereus]

GDR definitely not a joke...

 

[Guardian_PL]

If someone is fluent in German, perhaps will be able to analyze this video a bit better. It's in a really good quality and zoomed in, so there are a lot of data about combat odds, promotions and such. Perhaps you'll find it useful, though I didn't :/

 

[migkillertwo]

That depends, if there is a movable capital, you are moving the "seat of power" but you aren't moving the "homeland"

Sacking of Rome is a great example, the seat of power was already split... but the 'homeland' of the Roman Empire was Rome.

If You can move the Capital, then conquering the First Capital is still likely to be the goal of a Conquest Victory.



which is why I think they might not allow capital movement.
Because the Reasons for movng the capital in Civ 1-4 were primarily about cutting down distance (or colonial in Civ 4) maintenance... which has apparently been eliminated in Civ 5.

Making your Capital a Better City spot is a minor enough effect when you have 36 available tiles in your capital's 'fat hex'.. Maybe wanting it to be coastal or riverside, but that seems somewhat minor.

Decreased Space ship Travel time is probably the only important thing, but that then becomes something to plan around.


unless capitals are immovable.
or
if you consider it like your 'homeland' of dramatic importance to your people


Me too,
which is why I think a mobile capital might be a good idea IF it is not the target for Conquest Victory (which the 'original capital' language tends to convey)



I doubt it would be that bad, but I think you probably will only have to take Paris and Washington to win a game with the French and Americans, regardless of how they move their Capital.

Ideally if you take their capital they become vassal rather than immediately annexed into your empire.

 

[KrikkitTwo]

Ideally if you take their capital they become vassal rather than immediately annexed into your empire.

That would be terrible.
(except as a game option)

 

[playshogi]

From the video of JS at Apolyton: Bradenburg Gate provides a free Great General.

 

[12agnar0k]

Great video from pete murray there, a nice in depth combat situation in the late game, and heres a little tid bit of information now confirmed that won't really come as too much of a shock.

Submarines ranged attacks dont shoot on land!!!!, It may very well of been easily guessed, but wasn't confirmed anyway till now, yes the torpedo's do follow the laws of physics and stay underwater. (Also it shoots like a torpedo too, which looks cool!!! )

Spoiler :

Lots of other cool combat from that video, but I don't think much new information was in there, we saw paratroopers in action which was cool, they can be dropped a certain range (I didnt think to noter it down) but it seemed to be about 5. If someone with a working internet connection wants to re-buffer it and look it up that'd be cool, I can't be bothered with the 30 mins wait on my dial up lol. But the interesting thing is that after they land on thier target hex, they still have 1 movement point left, so you can attack after parachuting, or move one more hex. Another nice little tid bit of info.

Also if it was uncertain, it was previously mentioned though, a nuclear missile will spread 2 hexes around from the target area, so the nuclear blast covers every hex 2 hexes in each direction, so yeah it will be quite devestating, I believe the Atom Bomb was also confirmed to merely spread 1 hex, so 1 hex in every direction from blast location, truely devestating weapons, and also confirmed when they were used was "we won't be winning any diplomacy victories now", so yeah using a Nuke will still have an unpleasent reaction from other civ's. Negative diplomacy modifiers if you will.