Arioch's Analyst Thread

[12agnar0k]

Well we don't know if you can adopt an opposite policy of an already aquired policy, the assumption is that we will. I don't think theirs much difference in the two options other than you obviously wouldnt invest some culture for X bonus in X tree if it locked out Y Bonuses in Y tree that you want more. Personally I hope and think it will probably be the case that this is not the case, you will be able to adopt an opposite policy, all that will happen is that you will lose any "per turn" bonuses currently active on the other Policy, If at a later point you decided you wanted to use the abilities from the other policy again, you can switch back and the tree will be as you left it, mean while none of the opposing trees bonuses will be active. The cost of changing trees/policies to the opposite will be loosing out on all the bonuses you've spent large amounts of culture on, if you only ever brought 1 bonus from the tree your switching out of then that won't be much of a big deal for you, e.g you took honour and +1 free great general bonus (not a per turn bonus, so you dont care to lose it.) early on for some conquest but later on after not developing it any further you switch to the opposite policy tree loosing your "massively important" +33% bonus against barbs and can now utilise your new Policy. Depending on the culture invested will depend the loss on changing, all that culture could have been spent on a different branch you aren't switiching for a bonus you wouldnt lose, this is cost enough to avoid any anarchy charges.

If the choice is not their, i.e your choice for Honour as apposed to its opposite is permanent, then this will just exclude the "pay a little now for a decent current bonus and switch later or save the culture for a bonus you can keep till the end of the game" choice, not a big deal, but I assume that will not be the case and that small choice will still be in the game.

 

[12agnar0k]

Just read a nice article, its worth a read

WePlayCiv-Hands-on-Civ5-Preview

Some interesting comments in there but a couple things stand out to be mentioned upon.

Newly conquered enemy cities will revolt for a few rounds but the war weariness will stay way longer. To counter this you´ll have to build courthouses or use social policies.

Specialists are also back and if you chose the right social policy they will only consume one unit of food. But don´t lose that capital city: You can´t build a new palace in one of your other cities.

Okay, now firstly, it appears that after conquering a city, it will revolt for a few turns this is new information so its worth stating.

Secondly he stated "You can't build another Palace" but the thing that concerns me about this claim is that he didn't actually lose his Capital during his game so how could he know this, perhaps he has another source of information he neglected to mention, However I do think we can take something from this statement however, I assume the only basis for this claim is that he couldnt build a palace in another city to move his capital, which means that we can confirm that is not in the game anymore, However what happens after your palace/capital is conquered, we've seen the French take a new capital, so this begs the question, does the palace become available to build after your capital is lost, or is a new capital automatically assigned like in Civ4 after you lose your original, if this is the case the the Conquest victory will certainly apply to only original capital cities, as automatic newly assigned capitals for all civ's is not a Capital Domination victory, as it will never be achieved without full conquest.

So anyway,

Revolts in Cities newly captured, - Confirmed
Palace's unable to be built, assumeably reffering to the way a Capital could be moved by choice by Palace building at any time. - Somewhat Confirmed.
The possibility of Automatic Capital Transfer and Conquest only reffering to Original Capitals, and only those in the Original Owners hands (from previous screen shot), - Somewhat Suggested to be true, even if with a little logical deduction.

 

[Lyoncet]

Very interesting; nice find! I'd never considered this before:

But Jon insisted on the fact, that he tried to balance the different nations out: "America got an special unit for the middle part of the game, the minute men and one for late game. So we figured out, that the Americans should have a special ability which would help them in the early game." Same for the Germans: "Furor teutonicos is definitely aimed at the early game and loses some of its meaning as the centuries pass by. This is due to the fact, that barbarians only appear in the fog of war." So the chance that modern age guerrilla units will appear is rather small. Oh and the fact that all western civs have two UUs and no UBs was not an intended design decision.

I'd never even noticed the Western civs part. Still I like the design choice of no Inca-esque "everything about you dominates for one era so if you don't leverage it you're screwed later on" feels a lot better to me.

 

[Venereus]

I'd never even noticed the Western civs part. Still I like the design choice of no Inca-esque "everything about you dominates for one era so if you don't leverage it you're screwed later on" feels a lot better to me.

Inca-esque is so hard to pronounce!!!

 

[AriochIV]

Unfortunately, the writer of the WePlayCiv preview asserts that the Warrior has a strength of 1 and that the Immortal has a strength of 6, both of which we know to be incorrect. So it's hard to tell what parts of the article are accurate.

Okay, now firstly, it appears that after conquering a city, it will revolt for a few turns this is new information so its
worth stating.

I don't think this is really a surprise; several turns of disorder after conquest has been the norm in Civilization for a while now, and the disorder icon (red fist) has been noticeable on cities that have just been conquered since before E3.

Regarding the apparent lack of the ability to build another palace, this could be interpreted that the definition of "original capital" is the one with the Palace in it, and if you lose your capital, a new capital is designated, but a new Palace is not built. If so, that makes it clear which city is the original capital, and also means that you don't get a free insta-built Palace for losing your capital. I don't know if Palaces provide any culture benefit in Civ V as they did in Civ IV, but that was kind of irritating to me in Civ IV when an enemy civilization was rewarded for their failure in war with a free culture-producing item in their new capital.

 

[Venereus]

Regarding the apparent lack of the ability to build another palace, this could be interpreted that the definition of "original capital" is the one with the Palace in it, and if you lose your capital, a new capital is designated, but a new Palace is not built. If so, that makes it clear which city is the original capital, and also means that you don't get a free insta-built Palace for losing your capital. I don't know if Palaces provide any culture benefit in Civ V as they did in Civ IV, but that was kind of irritating to me in Civ IV when an enemy civilization was rewarded for their failure in war with a free culture-producing item in their new capital.

And a bonus to happiness and commerce too! Still, by the time you got their capital you were probably on your way to roll over them, so it wasn't (omg, is still) that important.

 

[Semmel]

Maybe you are only able to build a new palace if you aleady got one. So you can somehow "move" the palace but you can not build a new one if you lost yours. So you have to reconquer the city with your palace in (which is possible, indicated by Greg) which allows you to move your palace to a more secure location (which is not known so far).

 

[12agnar0k]

Spoiler :

Unfortunately, the writer of the WePlayCiv preview asserts that the Warrior has a strength of 1 and that the Immortal has a strength of 6, both of which we know to be incorrect. So it's hard to tell what parts of the article are accurate.

I don't think this is really a surprise; several turns of disorder after conquest has been the norm in Civilization for a while now, and the disorder icon (red fist) has been noticeable on cities that have just been conquered since before E3.

Regarding the apparent lack of the ability to build another palace, this could be interpreted that the definition of "original capital" is the one with the Palace in it, and if you lose your capital, a new capital is designated, but a new Palace is not built. If so, that makes it clear which city is the original capital, and also means that you don't get a free insta-built Palace for losing your capital. I don't know if Palaces provide any culture benefit in Civ V as they did in Civ IV, but that was kind of irritating to me in Civ IV when an enemy civilization was rewarded for their failure in war with a free culture-producing item in their new capital.

Indeed lol, I can't say it was the most accurate data ever, but assuming his reports on revolts and palaces to be true...

Yes it's not a suprise that the city will revolt after conquest, indeed it should, I just didn't think it was ever seen in video footage, if you say that the red fist icon was spotted then obvious it was just me again who didnt see it .

Yeah thats a fair assumption of how things will work, new capital is assigned but its your Palace that is needed for Conquest Victory, and the palace can never be razed or rebuilt, it remains in the original city of each civ, and it is likely that it will give some bonus, say some gold per turn or culture, maybe it also has a positive effect on trade routes, this would make losing it more of a problem, and the fact that capitals can't be assigned means you would never get back the bonus to trade routes, though I'm just randomly speculating now on complete guesses so I will stop .

Spoiler :

Maybe you are only able to build a new palace if you aleady got one. So you can somehow "move" the palace but you can not build a new one if you lost yours. So you have to reconquer the city with your palace in (which is possible, indicated by Greg) which allows you to move your palace to a more secure location (which is not known so far).

The fact that you can't build the Palace in another city already rules out the possibility of "moving" your capital.

The assumption is that a new one is automatically assigned when you lose the original, I see no reason to give the ability to move your capital back to your original capital if you re-conquer it. But conquering back your palace city, will stop you being unellegable from Conquest Victory. Which is something. Also as Arioch queried, perhaps the palace gives you a little gold/culture per turn, this would be worth capturing it back.

 

[Semmel]

Well.. all I ever read was that you cant build a new palace when you lost your old one. But it was never stated as far as I know that you can't move your palace if havnt lost it in the first place.

 

[12agnar0k]

building palace = moving palace, you move it to another city by building in that other city. Once built it is no longer in the first city, this is how you have been able to "move" where your capital is in previous Civ titles, if you can't build a palace then you can't choose to move your capital.

 

[Souron]

With the capital playing a larger role then any previous civ iteration, I hope that you can indeed move your capital if you decide that the location of the original is sub par. Doesn't look like that's the case though, as previously the palace required masonry, and that tech does not have a palace icon.

 

[Wolle68]

With the capital playing a larger role then any previous civ iteration, I hope that you can indeed move your capital if you decide that the location of the original is sub par. Doesn't look like that's the case though, as previously the palace required masonry, and that tech does not have a palace icon.

Add to this the fact that we've never seen a palace in a city build list, I think we can conclude that palaces probably cannot be moved.

 

[KrikkitTwo]

With the capital playing a larger role then any previous civ iteration, I hope that you can indeed move your capital if you decide that the location of the original is sub par. Doesn't look like that's the case though, as previously the palace required masonry, and that tech does not have a palace icon.

Actually, the Location of the capital has a Smaller role
Reasons
1. No distance to capital maintenance this is REALLY BIG
2. Most of the bonuses seem to be +X food or Production to the capital.... which means the actual location of the Capital means less.
3. 37 tile 'fat hex' instead of 21 tile 'fat cross' (decrease in variation)


What Capital Location can affect
1. Trade route income due to the capital being big enough
2. Vulnerability to Conquest
3. "Travel Distance" of Space ship parts.

2+3 i think are totally appropriate, and #1 is minimized by the food bonuses capitals get (2+3 from why location is not important)

 

[Wolle68]

What Capital Location can affect
1. Trade route income due to the capital being big enough
2. Vulnerability to Conquest
3. "Travel Distance" of Space ship parts.

4. Capital specific bonuses from City States, SPs, and UAs. (You might want these at a better city site.)

 

[Schuesseled]

There's also the possibility to have units switch places, even over a distance. I once moved my warrior two tiles right on top of my Chariot Archer (which I didn't see as my Great General was on that tile as well) and the Chariot promptly moved two tiles to the position my Warrior was in

Interesting to get more info on the switch feature

 

[AriochIV]

Interesting to get more info on the switch feature

If both units require remaining movement points to be able to switch, then it's not much of a "feature", just a shortcut to moving each unit manually. And from the description it sounds like you can get some pretty undesirable effects from not moving them manually; he accidentally moved his cavalry out of position and lost all its movement points.

edit: On second thought, it's still a good feature if two units are adjacent, because there's no way to switch them manually without it. But this case of a unit switching from 2 hexes away and losing all its movement points... one has to wonder if it's really meant to work that way.

 

[Ahriman]

If both units require remaining movement points to be able to switch, then it's not much of a "feature", just a shortcut to moving each unit manually.

Not quite. Its a UI shortcut to get around the problem that you can normally only move 1 unit at a time.
So it lets two adjacent units swap places for 1 movement point each, whereas without this ability you would have to move unit A out of the way, move B to where A was, then move A to where B was. And so A has to spend 2 movement points.

*edit*
Ninja'ed.
Yes, swapping from 2 tiles away doesn't really add anything.... unless the hex in between them is also occupied.

 

[YoHo]

4. Capital specific bonuses from City States, SPs, and UAs. (You might want these at a better city site.)

This is a good point, if I'm the romans, I could be in a position where Rome doesn't give me the best set of bennys from my UA.

 

[Schuesseled]

Not quite. Its a UI shortcut to get around the problem that you can normally only move 1 unit at a time.
So it lets two adjacent units swap places for 1 movement point each, whereas without this ability you would have to move unit A out of the way, move B to where A was, then move A to where B was. And so A has to spend 2 movement points.

*edit*
Ninja'ed.
Yes, swapping from 2 tiles away doesn't really add anything.... unless the hex in between them is also occupied.

I was under the impression, that having troops go back 2 places when really you only wanted them to go 1, would be a problem with this system, but your post in bold, has made me realise this is a much better way of doing it, as it allows you to swap units from multiple tiles away instead of only next to them.

It's gonna be a little fiddly to get used to, but then again so is the entire 1upt system.

This is a good point, if I'm the romans, I could be in a position where Rome doesn't give me the best set of bennys from my UA.

I'm pretty sure capitals can't be moved on a player's whim, but there's plenty of reasons why they should be able to, yours is case and point. Having an ability to re-place your capital should be in the game, but you still shouldn't be able to change your original capital because of the domination condition.

Personally i think they should remove the text capture the capital, and instead say capture the enemy palace, or use another word for capital when talking about the centre of trade routes and special abilities.

 

[Venereus]

I'm pretty sure capitals can't be moved on a player's whim, but there's plenty of reasons why they should be able to, yours is case and point. Having an ability to re-place your capital should be in the game, but you still shouldn't be able to change your original capital because of the domination condition.

Personally i think they should remove the text capture the capital, and instead say capture the enemy palace, or use another word for capital when talking about the centre of trade routes and special abilities.

I think the new Domination Victory intends to merge the Conquest and Domination victories from previous games, and so, making the original capital the target of the war for dominance forces you to ravage trough the whole empire to reach it (in theory, or at least in most situations). It makes sense in terms of realism.