Even for Domination Victory, the target should be the most centered and prosperous city, not the city that you possibly neglect after the center of government is moved. As long as you make moving the capital expensive enough, and cost enough turns that it cannot easily done in response to a large army moving toward your capital, there's no problem.
Arioch's Analyst Thread
- Thread starter AriochIV
- Start date
Bump up from page 2, you'd think with the podcast giving a few new tid bits, some posts would have occured in our collected information thread, but I guess not 
ZOC is applied when you try to move withing the Zone, (from one adjacent tile of an enemy unit to another adjacent tile of an enemy unit), Which then consumes all movement points.
This will mean that "moving forward" as apposed to attacking an enemy next to you is greatly discouraged, very nice, like empasuant in chess (bad spelling.)
ZOC is applied when you try to move withing the Zone, (from one adjacent tile of an enemy unit to another adjacent tile of an enemy unit), Which then consumes all movement points.
This will mean that "moving forward" as apposed to attacking an enemy next to you is greatly discouraged, very nice, like empasuant in chess (bad spelling.)
Acutally, empasuant encourages NOT MOVING AT ALL (while, that pawn anyway).
It'd be like a chariot rushing into and then next to an enemy warrior. When you make the second move the warrior would get a free shot. If you survive you can break away from that unit and continue on. This scenario, in chess, always results in the chariot dying unless the unit you are blitzing past decides not to take the shot.
It's hard to draw a comparsion between the two at all since the rules are quite different; but as I write the above I do see what you are getting at.
Yes its not exactly the same, but its the principle I am talking about, which would be, you wouldn't just let enemies move past you and towards your cities and support units, you would want to intercept. ZoC gives you the ability to do this. People have been asking for ZoC to stop you moving but still allow you to attack, I don't think this is particularily realistic, because if an enemy is next to you, and they move in a direction other than at you, you will be charging after them to continue the battle, you won't suddenly break out the tea pots, cups and saucers and sit down to a lovely cup of tea and much on a buscuit all the meanwhile your enemy is still right in front of you all be it coming from a slightly different angle, you will still be in battle gear and infact would have the advantage as the enemy tries to manouver around you, the exception is ofcourse when the enemy first retreats out of your ZoC, they effectively disapear, letting your gaurd down, you no longer are chasing to intercept them, then they can charge in for another attack against you or someone else.
Empasuant gives the opposing player the choice of taking your unit if you decided to move past instead of attack, (in certain situations anyway), which is similar to the ZoC mechanic, the enemy is forced to end their turn and give you your turn in the exact way Empasuant does, the enemy moves forward a tile, and then the decision is yours, you can attack this enemy trying to push past you, or you can ignore it and do something more important, i.e if a cavalry moved past you, and this open up a gap so you could attack his great general, this might be worth more to you than trying to stop the cavalry moving on. So it is a similar situation, and both greatly discourages you from moving forward when an enemy is positioned afjacent to you. In Chess you don't have to take the pawn who challenged you to Empasuant, if their is a better strategical advantage to remaining where you are, perhaps you have a check mate planned. Perhaps the Empausuant Challenge was the only way the other player could trick his opponent to letting him out of a check mate, suffice to say, they are similar in that choice of what to do next is giving over to the other player after you make a decision to not attack. In other words, ZoC will open up some strategic possibilities. It will also make you think where to place troops and how to go about attacking, If two enemy units are placed 2 spaces apart, and you decide to move next to one of them, if you only have 2 movement, you wouldnt be able to exit the ZoC and attack the other unit. You would either need to assault your original target, retreat to attack another turn, or "move forward" and let your enemy decide what hes going to do.
Empasuant gives the opposing player the choice of taking your unit if you decided to move past instead of attack, (in certain situations anyway), which is similar to the ZoC mechanic, the enemy is forced to end their turn and give you your turn in the exact way Empasuant does, the enemy moves forward a tile, and then the decision is yours, you can attack this enemy trying to push past you, or you can ignore it and do something more important, i.e if a cavalry moved past you, and this open up a gap so you could attack his great general, this might be worth more to you than trying to stop the cavalry moving on. So it is a similar situation, and both greatly discourages you from moving forward when an enemy is positioned afjacent to you. In Chess you don't have to take the pawn who challenged you to Empasuant, if their is a better strategical advantage to remaining where you are, perhaps you have a check mate planned. Perhaps the Empausuant Challenge was the only way the other player could trick his opponent to letting him out of a check mate, suffice to say, they are similar in that choice of what to do next is giving over to the other player after you make a decision to not attack. In other words, ZoC will open up some strategic possibilities. It will also make you think where to place troops and how to go about attacking, If two enemy units are placed 2 spaces apart, and you decide to move next to one of them, if you only have 2 movement, you wouldnt be able to exit the ZoC and attack the other unit. You would either need to assault your original target, retreat to attack another turn, or "move forward" and let your enemy decide what hes going to do.
![[Ant]Wimp](https://civfanatics-data.community.forum/avatars/m/35/35417.jpg?1475248323){kind=avatar}
[Ant]Wimp
Warlord
I don't know if this has been discussed before, so forgive me if it has. The search function didn't show anything.
Is there still colonization as in BtS?
Will it be possible to found city states, as a player?
Is there still colonization as in BtS?
Will it be possible to found city states, as a player?
Ahriman
Tyrant
There are no vassal states, or Civ4-style colonies.
No. City states are game entities created at the start of the game, along with the various civs.
You can however turn a conquered city into a puppet state; you lose control over its production choices, but it causes less unhappiness while still giving you all its income.
Louis XXIV
Le Roi Soleil
You can also reestablish a city-state that was conquered by another, iirc
Here's a recap of recent items mentioned in other threads or over on the 2K forums:
Annexation and Puppet cities: When you annex a captured city, there is extra Unhappiness generated from the population due to being an occupied city. This extra unhappiness can only be eliminated by building a Courthouse in that city; establishing a Puppet in the city temporarily postpones this extra unhappiness, but the unhappiness will return the moment you Annex it. This unhappiness does not decrease over time; the only way to eliminate it is to build a Courthouse. There is a status icon for annexation/occupation, which appears to be three vertical red lines. (2K forums thread with Greg's comments)
Unit Stacking in Cities: Though you can temporarily have two units in a city (one garrisoned, and another sitting on the city tile), according to Greg one of them has to move out before you can end the turn. (relevant 2K forums thread)
Revised Combat Bonuses and Penalties: based on the several most recent videos:
+25% defensive bonus for rough terrain (hills, forest or jungle, or any combination thereof).
-33% defensive penalty for open terrain (NOT hill, forest or jungle).
+15% combat bonus for each friendly unit adjacent to the enemy ("flanking").
-20% combat penalty for attacking across a river.
+25% defensive bonus for unit fortification (still unknown whether this is instant or accumulates over turns).
+15% combat bonus for at least one adjacent friendly unit (with Discipline social policy).
+25% combat bonus for proximity to a Great General.
Border Exansion Beyond the City Radius: Borders will continue to grow "naturally" (through city culture production) even after you have maxed out all 37 of the workable city tiles. (link)
Annexation and Puppet cities: When you annex a captured city, there is extra Unhappiness generated from the population due to being an occupied city. This extra unhappiness can only be eliminated by building a Courthouse in that city; establishing a Puppet in the city temporarily postpones this extra unhappiness, but the unhappiness will return the moment you Annex it. This unhappiness does not decrease over time; the only way to eliminate it is to build a Courthouse. There is a status icon for annexation/occupation, which appears to be three vertical red lines. (2K forums thread with Greg's comments)
Unit Stacking in Cities: Though you can temporarily have two units in a city (one garrisoned, and another sitting on the city tile), according to Greg one of them has to move out before you can end the turn. (relevant 2K forums thread)
Revised Combat Bonuses and Penalties: based on the several most recent videos:
+25% defensive bonus for rough terrain (hills, forest or jungle, or any combination thereof).
-33% defensive penalty for open terrain (NOT hill, forest or jungle).
+15% combat bonus for each friendly unit adjacent to the enemy ("flanking").
-20% combat penalty for attacking across a river.
+25% defensive bonus for unit fortification (still unknown whether this is instant or accumulates over turns).
+15% combat bonus for at least one adjacent friendly unit (with Discipline social policy).
+25% combat bonus for proximity to a Great General.
Border Exansion Beyond the City Radius: Borders will continue to grow "naturally" (through city culture production) even after you have maxed out all 37 of the workable city tiles. (link)
SJSerio
Centurion
This makes absolutely no sense whatsoever. Does this mean that you have to keep moving the unit back and forth? It seems too messy of an action (... and nother reason for me to remain skeptical of the OUPT mechanic).
It sounded from Greg's comments like you're not allowed to move a second unit into a city; the only way it can get there is if it's produced there.
So what I meant to say was that you can have two units temporarily in a city.
SJSerio
Centurion
I don't know... all this does is remind me of all the reasons that I am not in favor of the OUPT mechanic with CIV to begin with. I WAS getting to the point of acceptance, but there is just too many wholes with how it works...
Personally, I don't see it fitting well with Civilization. Suspension of Belief can only go so far! At this point, it better rock my world when I finally get to play the game and totally settle all of my fears... otherwise, I hope a mod can at least introduce limited stacks (what I think would have been the better solution to the SOD that everyone complains about). I am getting depressed again!
Limited stacks is worse than both Sod and 1UpT, which is better out of SOD and 1UpT, well they are very different, and for different purposes, In my opinion 1UpT is better, SOD is a "simplification" where as 1UpT is more complex adds strategy to the game, and massively improves combat a long with all the other improvements in ciV.
Louis XXIV
Le Roi Soleil
I think it makes sense. Units are produced in a city. If there's already a unit in the city, one has to leave. Otherwise, it wouldn't be one unit per turn. I'm not sure what's so confusing about it and I'm not sure how this adds surprising new info that could make you go from accepting 1UPT to rejecting it once again.
SJSerio
Centurion
How are limited stacks worse? (How would we know anyway? They just completely skipped over it!) Make a limit of, say, 3 at the start of the game, which can be increased through various techs, socail policies/civics, etc. There would still be tactics and a more complex strategy then unlimited stacks. Plus less micromanagement then OUPT.
So, a city that holds a million people, only has enough room for a single rank of archers (or whatever unit that you put in)? Any additional units ranks of soldiers that you train have to go out and sit in the open field and await orders? It just doesn't make sense! Mark my words, no matter how great the system is, OUPT is going to lead to unit micromanagement HELL!!!
To break it down...
OUPT Benefits
- Increased tactics and strategy
- No Stacks of Doom (if your one of those cryb... err, people who dislike that feature)
- Great for (very specific) Scenarios (think, Battle of Gettysburg)
OUPT Disadvantages
- Less believability (only 1 troop of soldiers in a XXX mile radius)
- Unrealistic scale (...unless the maps are Gi-NORMOUS)
- Unit Micromanagement to the extreme (no more moving groups at a time, unless they somehow made a function that lets you move units in groups)
- Dragged out games while "moving into position" (they would have been just as well having limited stacks with seperate tactical maps)
Limited Stack Benefits
- Increased tactics and strategy (over unlimited)
- No Stacks of Doom
- Less micromanagement then OUPT
- Reasonable scale
Limited Stack Disadvantages
- Scale still unrealistic (when compared to limited, but still reasonable as stated above)
Well, I could break it down even further, but that is a discussion for another thread and I have to be getting to bed. This news just reminded me of all of the reasons that I don't like the idea of OUPT in CIV. I was just getting used to the idea (note, not liking it, but accepting it). Personally, I really don't think that it was thought out completely no matter what they say. IMO, they just came up with the idea and those that were in favor of it got it pushed through! It seems like they never even considered the idea of limited stacks as an alternative. But, that is just how I perceive it!
In brief, the biggest problem with limited stacks is the same as with multi-unit armies: it just ups the requirement for a main-line unit. What I mean is, if the stacking limit is 3, then anything less than a 3-unit stack is worthless. If you want each unit to matter, then 1upt is pretty much mandatory.
1upt comes with a lot of baggage, as it screws up transports and air units and a number of other things. But in theory, at least, I think the advantages far outweigh the disadvantages.
1upt comes with a lot of baggage, as it screws up transports and air units and a number of other things. But in theory, at least, I think the advantages far outweigh the disadvantages.
SJSerio
Centurion
Personally, I have to disagree with both points, though your arguments are noted. I guess we will just have to see it in practice (and, for the record, I hope you are right... but I just have to doubt it for now).
MisterBarca
Prince
- Joined
- May 22, 2006
- Messages
- 536
I had a question about Ancient Ruins. Arioch's info center says that among the boons granted by Ancient Ruins are:
"Weapons upgrades. The unit which enters the tile is upgraded to a more advanced unit."
Does this mean that you can get have a unit upgraded to something that you cannot currently train due to either not having met its technology or resource pre-requisites?
"Weapons upgrades. The unit which enters the tile is upgraded to a more advanced unit."
Does this mean that you can get have a unit upgraded to something that you cannot currently train due to either not having met its technology or resource pre-requisites?
KrikkitTwo
Immortal
- Joined
- Apr 3, 2004
- Messages
- 12,418
Possibly... it could be that if that is randomly selected and you don't have the prereq for an upgrade, it just gives you gold instead (this is the way goody huts worked before.)
As an aside. I hope Archaeology reveals some 'Hidden Ruins' that you can't 'pop' wthout the tech.
I think so, otherwise the boon would be wasted the vast majority of the time.
Similar threads
