Arioch's Analyst Thread

How does absolutely no one have any new information at all? A couple of weeks ago there was multiple updates per week. Now there hasn't been a single piece of new info (besides the demo release date which sucks) for 9 days. Disappointment :(
 
Another possibility; higher bombardment, and indirect fire ability.

Can indirect fire (or any ranged fire for that matter) go over a mountain?
 
Can indirect fire (or any ranged fire for that matter) go over a mountain?

IRL, I've read of WWII naval guns that could fire at targets 42,000 meters away. I gather that to reach that the shell must go a couple thousand meters up in the air.
 
Thornburne, ok I conceed that Civ was made with scale of land in mind, as I vaugely recollect the "x Miles figure" too, ok but one other thing your assuming is that one archer unit can't fill X miles of land, what makes you assume this is just one archer.. or one platoon, maybe it represents 50 million archers, in which case it would fit nicely in the XX miles of land. :)

Anyway enough talk of realism and whether or not it is in the game or if it is important, I would like to talk about 1UpT mechanics but not in here, we are kind of hijacking this nice thread,

The Downside of 1UpT (thread title wasn't called limited stacks like I thought ^>^, 28 pages of detailed anaylsis on 1UpT and SOD and Limited SOD. So yeah, that should tell you what you need to know).

Why not bring back Civ3 armies as apposed to 1UpT A smaller thread where the 1UpT vs Limited stacks discussion also took place.

Read what you can when you can, some of the detailed explanations of why Limited stacks are not as good from a tactical/gameplay point of view will hopefully be clear.
 
Probably not. Since we do know that some terrain can impede indirect fire (I think it was in the latest cast), I'm going to guess mountains would block it.

While it sort of applies logically that indirect fire (or direct fire for that matter, although I assume it would be true with direct fire) wouldnt by pass mountains, any proof of this, because I have never heard anything about it.
 
While it sort of applies logically that indirect fire (or direct fire for that matter, although I assume it would be true with direct fire) wouldnt by pass mountains, any proof of this, because I have never heard anything about it.

This indicates that Archers might be able to fire over lakes... but not coast (since they are different tiles) no bombarding over the English Channel.
 
Wrong, where are you getting your information from? lol.

"Indirect Fire" means that you can shoot a target not within your sight range (but within your firing range) so long as another unit can see it.

Archers don't start off with Indirect Fire for a start, although you may be able to upgrade them to fire indirectly. Although this may have a tech requirement, which I assume is true with several promotions to stop them being used early on.

A Battleship is a confirmed unit to start off with Indirect Fire. Not sure on any others. (Obviously Nukes/Fighters/Bombers will have fire indirectly too or their range of 8 or so will be limited to around 2 because of sight radius.)

And no where is it indicated or suggested that Indirect fire will be blocked by mountains, also Direct fire is not even confirmed to be blocked by mountains (it was never borught up), although that is a reasonable assumption certainly on direct fire, you would need to shoot around it, just like you have to shoot around a hill or forest tile to get to a tile 2 hex's away with an archer that isn't placed on a hill themselfs. But this isn't confirmed to be true, perhaps they illogically decided to allow shooting over mountains lol, but certainly its not as likely to be on indirect fire as much, because of the nature of indirect bombardment, it doesn't require a direct line of sight so the fact that a mountain would be in the "direct way" won't necessarily remove the ability to shoot over it. Although its still a good possibility that Indirect Fire is limited by the laws of physics too ;).
 
This indicates that Archers might be able to fire over lakes... but not coast (since they are different tiles) no bombarding over the English Channel.

umm no.

Archers and other ranged units can fire at ships on the coast, so if it is a one tile coast, (which isn't as common as in previous civs, coasts are bigger now) then they could indeed shoot to the other side.
 
Thornburne, ok I conceed that Civ was made with scale of land in mind, as I vaugely recollect the "x Miles figure" too, ok but one other thing your assuming is that one archer unit can't fill X miles of land, what makes you assume this is just one archer.. or one platoon, maybe it represents 50 million archers, in which case it would fit nicely in the XX miles of land. :).

LOL... well, that would fit your theory, but I am sure that even the most diehard "gameplay > realism" supporters would have to say that would be too unrealistic of a stretch! That same screen, however, does list number of troops as well, though I haven't figured out the equation to determine how much each unit consists of to equal that number.

Nonetheless, I should not that I am Sicilian and, as the saying goes, "NEVER go in against a Sicilian, when death is on the line!!!

:lmao: ...


... :faint:

Anyway enough talk of realism and whether or not it is in the game or if it is important, I would like to talk about 1UpT mechanics but not in here, we are kind of hijacking this nice thread,

The Downside of 1UpT (thread title wasn't called limited stacks like I thought ^>^, 28 pages of detailed anaylsis on 1UpT and SOD and Limited SOD. So yeah, that should tell you what you need to know).

Why not bring back Civ3 armies as apposed to 1UpT A smaller thread where the 1UpT vs Limited stacks discussion also took place.

Read what you can when you can, some of the detailed explanations of why Limited stacks are not as good from a tactical/gameplay point of view will hopefully be clear

I'll try to go through it when I can, but there is a lot to go through. Though I am sure that there are solutions to any problem that I encounter. It may take some time, but I will try to draft of a mechanic system that would work... (no worry, I will not put it in this thread). :)

And no where is it indicated or suggested that Indirect fire will be blocked by mountains, also Direct fire is not even confirmed to be blocked by mountains (it was never borught up), although that is a reasonable assumption certainly on direct fire, you would need to shoot around it, just like you have to shoot around a hill or forest tile to get to a tile 2 hex's away with an archer that isn't placed on a hill themselfs. But this isn't confirmed to be true, perhaps they illogically decided to allow shooting over mountains lol, but certainly its not as likely to be on indirect fire as much, because of the nature of indirect bombardment, it doesn't require a direct line of sight so the fact that a mountain would be in the "direct way" won't necessarily remove the ability to shoot over it. Although its still a good possibility that Indirect Fire is limited by the laws of physics too ;).

Actually, I believe they mention in the recent podcast (from Firaxis... might have been elsewhere that I have heard/read it) that units will not be able to shoot over forest unless they are on top of a hill. From that, I would assume that you would not be able to shoot over a mountain. Otherwise, it would be inconsistant.

I would not be surprised, however, if some more modern units are able to (like Battleships, Missle Cruisers, Rocket Artillery, etc).
 
Thats what I said, archers cant fire over a hill or forest unless standing on a hill. You can safely assume shooting over mountains is not possible either.
However, does indirect fire work the same way. We have seen no indication that hills/forests or mountains will block an indirect fire, although it is possible that this is the case.
 
Thats what I said, archers cant fire over a hill or forest unless standing on a hill. You can safely assume shooting over mountains is not possible either.
However, does indirect fire work the same way. We have seen no indication that hills/forests or mountains will block an indirect fire, although it is possible that this is the case.

Well, my understanding is that indirect fire just allows for ranged units to shoot at a target that they can't see (outside of their vision range) but other units can spot them. I assume that the same rules would apply as far as obstacles. It would make sense to me, however, (disregarding scope ;)) that more modern units with longer range would be able to ignore the terrain obstacles.
 
Well the idea behind the whole "not being able to shoot at a unit 2 hex's away with forests in between, or behind a hill, is not that the hill/forest would block the fire, but it blocks the line of sight, can't very well fire at the enemy if you cant see them, (this is why standing on a hill helps), unless you have indirect fire ofcourse in which case not seeing them isn't the problem. Atleast this is how I see it. Afterall Archer's are perfectly capable of shooting over a hill or forest, their weapons curve up and high to reach enemies far away, its not like a gun which shoots straight (ish) and long which would hit the hill and not the enemy.
 
Sorry for posting a random question, but I didn't want to waste a new thread on this: from what we've seen, are there going to be unit art styles for regions?
 
So that's a review by cyberstrategie. It's in French, quite extensive, I'll translate it later. There are several new screenshots of the early game. Of course they're playing Paris :)

EDIT: There is a home page, an article dated 22 August 2010 and a newer article dated 26 August 2010.

Civilopedia screenshot of the Utopia Project.
Spoiler :
civ-5-utopia-project.jpg


Civilopedia screenshot of the Rock of Gibraltar
Spoiler :
civ-5-rock-gibraltar.jpg
 
Interesting screenshots of Utopia and Gibraltor. I hope these are draft entries of the civilopedia since Utopia contains no information about requirements or prerequisites.
 
Back
Top Bottom