Arioch's Analyst Thread

[Sahkuhnder]

Seems like Monty can war his way to a cultural win.

As if Monty wasn't a big enough war-monger already without this new incentive.

You civ is alone on an island with Monty...

 

[12agnar0k]

Some lovely information with this new video, I will see If I can get my hands on a copy, even if I have to buy an english version of that magazine if it exists in the UK too that is.

Some posts are of people correcting wrong assumptions and going "oh well", such as noting we wont be able to "unbuy" social policies.
Well that was already obvious, some people and thier crazy idea's.

I wonder if the special abilities are tied to leaders or civ... in other words, will there be a use and possibility for a "unrestricted leader" option? I hope so, otherwise I dont think I will play germany much, sure it is not a terrible ability but I cant see how it could be as strong as some of the others, even with alot of barbarians

I think people are severly under estimating the German ability. I will explain.

Firstly the assumption that the option "no barbarians" will exist is not that likely anymore, while previously we would have had no reason to speculate its removal from the game now that a civ has its unqie ability based upon barbarians, too remove the barbarians from the game would unbalance the work done to balance the civs to give fair game play.
Similarily, the existence of other options such as "one city challenge" can't be safely assumed anymore, as this would unbalance the game too, India for example would have the best ability by far gaining +50% growth at no cost, and Romes ability would become obsolete.
So one can't rely on such options still existing in Civ5, though I admit, they very well could still exist. No need to start worrying yet.

Secondly, assuming my concerns are incorrect, and that Civ5 will have all the options of Civ4 in customising your game experience, Raging barbarians will give a nice advantage to Germany, so while in one "customisation" Germany will be disadvantaged, in another it will be advantaged, just because in one particular "customisation" Germany is disadvantaged isn't reason enough to call thier ability the worse. Assuming One-City challenge is still in, Rome would be severly disadvantaged, this doesn't mean thier ability should be classed as bad.

Units "captured" as it were from barbarians, may not have to have maintanence costs, this is purely speclatory as to how they could of made the "poor" ability better. But if true, this would make the ability better, perhaps it was balanced as such or another such advantage.

Now moving away from idle assumptions for a moment.. ish, say a swordsman costs 1 Iron to build, Germany will eventually be able to "capture" a swordsman when barbs tech up to it. One can safely assume that because it was not built, it does not consume an Iron source, this means that a German army can contain units made from "Strategic resources" over that of which its Strategic Limits let's it have. This may not be the case, but again this is another potential benefit.

At the very least we know, the german ability will allow them to gather some extra gold from "barbarian hunting" as well as bolster thier forces. This is useful as all the other civilisations will only be leveling up from barbarian hunts at the risk of loosing units, you as German can get so much more benefit for the same the risk involved.
Also generating units without needing to spend time building them is certainly a plus, you can concentrate on more worthy endenvours such as building specialist buildings or wonders. Rather than building units to combat barbarian hordes.

Why have this ability in the first place, some of you may ask, well the Germanic People were tribial for a lot longer than other cultures of Europe. They didnt "unite" to form a country as it were (apposed to several tribes each with its own ruler) untill I believe around 1000AD. This means in early game play, Germany should be better in "tribal" aspects as they existed longer than any other major civilisation of Europe purely as tribes, and in Civ that refers to Barbarians, as they are the "tribal" aspect of this game. Hence Germanys Barbarian based ability to generate free units and gold.

 

[CTH]

I think people are severly under estimating the German ability. I will explain.

Firstly the assumption that the option "no barbarians" will exist is not that likely anymore, while previously we would have had no reason to speculate its removal from the game now that a civ has its unqie ability based upon barbarians, too remove the barbarians from the game would unbalance the work done to balance the civs to give fair game play.
Similarily, the existence of other options such as "one city challenge" can't be safely assumed anymore, as this would unbalance the game too, India for example would have the best ability by far gaining +50% growth at no cost, and Romes ability would become obsolete.
So one can't rely on such options still existing in Civ5, though I admit, they very well could still exist. No need to start worrying yet.

The game is not balanced for special options in custom game, like OCC. So you cant draw any conclusions from what abilites the civs has if there is a "no babarian" option or not in the game.

I dont agree witht he assumption that the units captured wont count in matter of resources. I imagine it would work the same as if someone gift you a unit, and I cant belive that unit gifted to you wouldnt count towards the resouce limit. However I dont think it is unreasonable to belive that you could capture units even if you have reached your resource limit. It has been confirmed that you have to pay upkeep for aditional units above the limit.

 

[staterman]

Only just had time to check out the website and read some of these comments.

Great work people! especially AriochIV for the clear and concise website

 

[Commander Bello]

It would be very strange to have a special non-sinking rule for carriers, especially since this would mean that carriers can't sink other carriers. But yes, ships having ranged attacks is going to mean air recon for your carriers is going to be very important. Which is realistic: WWII carrier combat was about finding the enemy first. Hopefully they will give carriers enough fighter slots to do adequate recon and still be able to attack.

Although I agree with your historical analysis, having different "fighter slots" on the one and same carrier would be a massive violation of the 1upt rule, wouldn't it?

 

[Souron]

Why have this ability in the first place, some of you may ask, well the Germanic People were tribial for a lot longer than other cultures of Europe. They didnt "unite" to form a country as it were (apposed to several tribes each with its own ruler) untill I believe around 1000AD. This means in early game play, Germany should be better in "tribal" aspects as they existed longer than any other major civilisation of Europe purely as tribes, and in Civ that refers to Barbarians, as they are the "tribal" aspect of this game. Hence Germanys Barbarian based ability to generate free units and gold.

The wiki article on [wiki]Furor Teutonicus[/wiki] also offers some (limited) explanation.

 

[Louis XXIV]

Although I agree with your historical analysis, having different "fighter slots" on the one and same carrier would be a massive violation of the 1upt rule, wouldn't it?

As I understand it, the one per tile rule doesn't apply to aircraft.

 

[Tomice]

Well that was already obvious, some people and thier crazy idea's.

It's a crazy idea to change governments? I was the strongest supporter of the unbuying SPs theory, and I clearly marked it as "my thoughts". I did not misinform people. And I still find it way more crazy not being able to change from Piety to Rationalism.

It might be good gameplaywise, but Civ1-5 are games that live to a certain extent from the fun to "replay history", so some amount of realism is needed IMHO.

I will not complain about it anyway, until I experience it ingame. Until then, I'm slightly worried, but hope they know what they are doing.

 

[Wezqu]

As I understand it, the one per tile rule doesn't apply to aircraft.

Yes and if I'm not wrong it has been stated several times in different places.

 

[Erufailon]

I think you have to go back to Civ II to find Swamp, and I'm not sure that counts.

Civ III conquests included volcanoes and marshes as new terrain, so I'm pretty sure it's not a brand new feature. can't remember the swamps though, meaning it's time to play Civ2 again

 

[12agnar0k]

It's a crazy idea to change governments? I was the strongest supporter of the unbuying SPs theory, and I clearly marked it as "my thoughts". I did not misinform people.

And I still find it way more crazy not being able to change from Piety to Rationalism.

Well I didnt mean to call your crazy or say you were misinforming people if you think thats the case which you didnt specifically imply either. It was more of a whimiscal comment . I have made crazy suggestions too.

Anyway, as for "not being able to change from Piety to Rationalism", I assume then this is one of the "coupling" of Social policies where by if you take one you can't take the other, I do believe it was said as this though "If you choose Piety you can't use Rationalism at the same time", Which implies that you may very well indeed be able to "unselect" one tree in favour of another one. If circumstances change and the other is more beneficial, its just that unlike someones "crazy idea" that was suggested you won't be able to get a refund when "abandoning" a tree, the culture spent on it so far remains spent and further progression would be capable from where you left off if you were to switch back.
Atleast this is the implication.

If indeed you can switch between policies, I hope they dont have the "anarchy" like they did before, where by you could avoid paying maintanence indefinitely by continually changing policies. A large loop hole I hope they sewed up.

As I understand it, the one per tile rule doesn't apply to aircraft.

No it has been confirmed that on each hex thier can only be 1 of each type of unit, these being Military/Civilian/Air, this was confirmed long ago.

Anyone stating that "air craft can stack" are wrong.

As always I will try to deal in facts, if something is not a fact I will say "probably or may", If however I am wrong I don't mind being prooved as such, so if you think its been confirmed that Air Craft will be able to stack can you please post where this is confirmed. I try to avoid spreading flase facts where possible .

 

[Aussie_Lurker]

Well I didnt mean to call your crazy or say you were misinforming people if you think thats the case which you didnt specifically imply either. It was more of a whimiscal comment . I have made crazy suggestions too.

Anyway, as for "not being able to change from Piety to Rationalism", I assume then this is one of the "coupling" of Social policies where by if you take one you can't take the other, I do believe it was said as this though "If you choose Piety you can't use Rationalism at the same time", Which implies that you may very well indeed be able to "unselect" one tree in favour of another one. If circumstances change and the other is more beneficial, its just that unlike someones "crazy idea" that was suggested you won't be able to get a refund when "abandoning" a tree, the culture spent on it so far remains spent and further progression would be capable from where you left off if you were to switch back.
Atleast this is the implication.

If indeed you can switch between policies, I hope they dont have the "anarchy" like they did before, where by you could avoid paying maintanence indefinitely by continually changing policies. A large loop hole I hope they sewed up.



No it has been confirmed that on each hex thier can only be 1 of each type of unit, these being Military/Civilian/Air, this was confirmed long ago.

Anyone stating that "air craft can stack" are wrong.

As always I will try to deal in facts, if something is not a fact I will say "probably or may", If however I am wrong I don't mind being prooved as such, so if you think its been confirmed that Air Craft will be able to stack can you please post where this is confirmed. I try to avoid spreading flase facts where possible .

Well, I wasn't suggesting that you get back *all* of your culture points . Obviously abandoning 1 social policy tree for another should come at a *huge* cost-either in a delay between abandonment of 1 & take-up of another or the loss of the bulk of the culture points you've spent on it (say 90%).

Aussie.

 

[Souron]

I don't know to what extent you've worked in the German preview, but one fact you're missing is that great general can built forts, which explains the build action better than being able to build academies.

 

[Gre_Magus]

To me, the use of the words "At the same time" implies that it is possible to switch. Otherwise I assume they would have used words like "Cannot both be used".

And if you switch out of a tree, you do lose something the tree specific bonus, even though the tier specific bonus may be a one off.

That said, pure speculation, but as a native speaker that is how I interpret "at the same time".

I agree with this, and would love some confirmation (Greg please?) of whether you can in fact choose to "abandon" a social policy after you started it.

 

[PinkHammurabi]

Considering this is how a Government is chosen this time around, and you've never been stuck with a Government structure in the past, I'm sure you'll be able to switch things around. Even outside of that somewhat flimsy argument, I don't think any of the developers would see it as a wise decision to make it a one-time decision with full-committal.

Also, Gre_Magus, your avatar looks like Paul McCartney. A Lot. I can't shake it.

 

[Calouste]

I don't know to what extent you've worked in the German preview, but one fact you're missing is that great general can built forts, which explains the build action better than being able to build academies.

I like that. Gives your Great General something to do while not at war. In general there seems to be a lot of effort in the game to make sure that resources you have have some purpose even if you don't use them for their main purpose at a specific time, instead of just being idle or irrelevant. Excess happiness counting towards Golden Ages, Roman Legions that can be used to build roads, a Social Policy you can adapt that will make your garrisons reduce unhappiness, Great Generals building forts, strategic resource limitations. Makes we wonder if there is something they have done about that big pool of idle Workers you usually ended up with in Civ4 somewhere between the Middle Ages and Railroad. At least now you get some gold back when you disband a unit, but it would be nice if workers could do something useful while waiting for the next improvement tech to come around. Can't make them spam roads either in Civ5.

 

[ERLoft]

Just wanted to thank you Arioch, for putting this together in a nice, easy to follow format!

 

[Gre_Magus]

I was looking over Arioch's site again, and I noticed this:

A Research Agreement is a joint research project of a single technology by two cooperating civilizations.

I thought it was just an overall boost to science for x number of turns in exchange for y gold. But I actually would prefer a system in which you had to both research the same tech. Has this detail really been confirmed?

 

[Peng Qi]

I usually do not play with barbs, I simply can't stand them...and that means Germany's bonus is useless in such games without barbs. Must be a joke...

Just like Netherlands is almost useless in Pangaea in Civ4, or how "always peace" ruins every warmonger civ. You can't honestly be upset that, when you use a nonstandard rule that isn't part of the normal game, some civs end up nerfed.

 

[AriochIV]

I have learned lately to take anything I hear from a preview (that I don't also see in a screenshot or video with my own eyes) with a grain of salt. I've seen a lot of things "confirmed" in previews that turned out to be wrong.

If you look at the Social Policies screen from the closed demo, the player has invested points in Piety, but the button to purchase Freedom is still there. This is not definitive, but I think it's strongly suggests that it's possible to switch out of a tree you've already invested in.

I thought it was just an overall boost to science for x number of turns in exchange for y gold. But I actually would prefer a system in which you had to both research the same tech. Has this detail really been confirmed?

You're right. In the E3 closed demo, the presenter described the Research Agreement thus: "it's something where if you both invest a lump sum of money, you and the other AI civ, you'll get 20 turns of bonus science." He also says that if the other civ cut's off the deal halfway through, "you're out both the gold and the science."