Arioch's Analyst Thread

[Aussie_Lurker]

It really looks like health is out. There's no indication of health anywhere in any city screen, interview, or any materials at all. While it is a change, I think a reworked happiness fills much of the same role as health did. Also, health was just a secondary, less punishing (but harder to keep up) happy cap in Civ 4.

Sorry, but I don't agree. IMHO, Pollution/Health served a completely different role than Happiness-& the system they had in Civ4 worked *extremely* well in meeting that role. I can see no justification AT ALL for its removal! A Civ Game without some kind of "pollution" mechanism just wouldn't feel like a Civ game to me!

Aussie.

 

[PinkHammurabi]

Sorry, but I don't agree. IMHO, Pollution/Health served a completely different role than Happiness-& the system they had in Civ4 worked *extremely* well in meeting that role. I can see no justification AT ALL for its removal! A Civ Game without some kind of "pollution" mechanism just wouldn't feel like a Civ game to me!

Aussie.

As far as CivIV mechanics are concerned, how do you come to the conclusion that it "served a completely different role than Happiness"? Aside from some rather small differences in consequences suffered, Health was a redundant mechanic as it relates to Happiness. That's not necessarily a complaint, mind you- I enjoyed the Health system in addition to Happiness. But nevertheless it served a nearly identical function.

As far as justification of removal, it's omission may very well be (and likely is) a result of balanced gameplay mechanics. With the way they're changing empire mechanics, including health scenarios that are significantly unique may prove to be either an unnecessary development burden or simply a superfluous management mechanic where it creates additional restrictions, rules and micromanagement options that do not add the overall enjoyment of the game.

While I understand your feelings about a lack of representation of health and pollution, it may very well be a wise gameplay decision.

 

[Jaybe]

Sorry, but I don't agree. IMHO, Pollution/Health served a completely different role than Happiness-& the system they had in Civ4 worked *extremely* well in meeting that role. I can see no justification AT ALL for its removal! A Civ Game without some kind of "pollution" mechanism just wouldn't feel like a Civ game to me!

Aussie.

Don't forget that non-pop polluters will be limited by resources (e.g., the factories/coal relationship).

 

[bjbrains]

Sorry, but I don't agree. IMHO, Pollution/Health served a completely different role than Happiness-& the system they had in Civ4 worked *extremely* well in meeting that role. I can see no justification AT ALL for its removal! A Civ Game without some kind of "pollution" mechanism just wouldn't feel like a Civ game to me!

Aussie.

I think it would help if you explained exactly what about gameplay functions health served that haven't been replaced by reworked happiness and natural limits on polluting buildings?

 

[AriochIV]

Health was new to Civ IV, but pollution has been in Civ since the beginning. Just because we haven't seen any sign of health doesn't mean that there is no pollution mechanic.

On another subject, I noticed that tooltips on the build menu at 03:22 in the video show bombardment ranges and and also resource requirements for a few units.

Crossbowman - Cost: 120, Moves: 2, Range: 2, Ranged Strength: 12, Strength: 6
Trebuchet - Cost: 150, Moves: 2, Range: 2, Ranged Strength: 20, Strength: 6, Required: 1 Iron
Longswordsman - Cost: 150, Moves: 2, Strength: 18, Required: 1 Iron
Knight - Cost: 150, Moves: 3, Strength: 18, Required: 1 Horses
Musketman - Cost: 120, Moves: 2, Strength: 16

So Longswordsman and Trebuchet each require 1 Iron, Knight requires 1 Horse (but no Iron), and Musketman and Crossbowman don't require any resources. And the Longswordsman's base strength has indeed been increased from 16 to 18.

 

[Aramel]

I wonder if Musketmen get some kind of bonus vs. mounted units. They seem to be filling the same role that spearmen and pikemen do: weak, cheap frontline units with no requirement. Probably not +100% though, or then they could kill cavalry!

 

[Celevin]

Sorry, but I don't agree. IMHO, Pollution/Health served a completely different role than Happiness-& the system they had in Civ4 worked *extremely* well in meeting that role. I can see no justification AT ALL for its removal! A Civ Game without some kind of "pollution" mechanism just wouldn't feel like a Civ game to me!

Well when it comes to realism, I agree. It's nice to see health and pollution mechanics.

Gameplay wise both health and happiness both served the same purpose of keeping cities from exploding, they just both went at it in different manners.

Health took away 1 food. Happiness took away 1 citizen, which was at least 2 food and 1 production, and sometimes a lot more. Happiness hurt way too much in my opinion, especially compared to health.

Civ5's is interesting, and I don't know what to think. We have 2 types of happiness, and they don't seem to be hard caps on citizens anymore (although maybe empire-wide happiness is the soft cap, and city-wide happiness is the hard cap?). It sounds like it's inbetween Civ4's health/happiness. Really, it's trying to do the same as health, happiness, and maintenance.

I'm guessing the reason for having happiness be the new "maintenance" is your empire suffers, but your empire doesn't sound like it's going to go bankrupt anymore like in Civ4. Instead if you grow too large and don't have the happiness to support it, it'll have a soft shut down in culture, production, growth, and great people! It sounds like unlike the bankruptcy from maintenance, you can squirm out of this by starving your citizens and thus gaining happiness

I'm wondering if previous health resources, like cows and deer and wheat, will now give some other type of bonus. Someone suggested "+1 food for every city per health resource" which sounds cool and not that overpowered to me. Then those mountain towns in the middle of nowhere would actually grow, which makes sense as food would be shipped to them.

 

[Jaybe]

I wonder if Musketmen get some kind of bonus vs. mounted units. They seem to be filling the same role that spearmen and pikemen do: weak, cheap frontline units with no requirement. Probably not +100% though, or then they could kill cavalry!

That wouldn't bring me any joy. Until bayonets were developed, muskets were generally accompanied by pikes. European early musket (matchlock) units were actually mostly pikes (e.g., the Spanish tercio), though Sweden’s Gustavus Adolphus was reversing the ratio.

OTOH, there's 1unit/hex, so perhaps different promotion priorities could simulate the evolution.

 

[bjbrains]

I wonder if Musketmen get some kind of bonus vs. mounted units. They seem to be filling the same role that spearmen and pikemen do: weak, cheap frontline units with no requirement. Probably not +100% though, or then they could kill cavalry!

I doubt that they will, it's already a well positioned unit for its cost and lack of resources. I don't think they want knights to get slaughtered by a unit of the same time period that compares favorably to resource-requiring longswordmen!

 

[Aussie_Lurker]

I guess that my big issue is that the Health system made Food resources far more important (yes they gave a small bonus to food in their tile) & also gave an additional reason for building health giving buildings such as aqueducts & public transport. So take away health & I feel you lose a fairly significant part of the game!

Aussie.

 

[Suho1004]

I agree with Aussie Lurker here. It's not so much that I am disappointed in the removal of the disadvantages, but it would seem that lacking a health system would make the food resources less important.

Unless perhaps having a variety of food types improves happiness? This is an idea I have seen implemented in other games.

 

[Aussie_Lurker]

Also, from a modding perspective, having both health & happiness gave us a lot more flexibility in terms of designing buildings, civics & the like!

Aussie.

 

[bjbrains]

I guess that my big issue is that the Health system made Food resources far more important (yes they gave a small bonus to food in their tile) & also gave an additional reason for building health giving buildings such as aqueducts & public transport. So take away health & I feel you lose a fairly significant part of the game!

Aussie.

Well I'd be surprised if food resources didn't have some other benefit to make up for the absence of health, and the extra buildings are pretty superfluous. They exist because health does, they don't add anything. As to modding: you can probably always mod in health or something similar if you want.

 

[PieceOfMind]

Someone probably mentioned it already (yep, I think it was Celevin), but to get the 15 from the 8 citizens I'm guessing the library is +25% science, the Great Library is simply +2 scientists, and each scientist gives 2 each, making a total of:
(8+2*2)*1.25 = 15.

Presumably, the Great Library will also give great scientist points.

 

[Aussie_Lurker]

Well I'd be surprised if food resources didn't have some other benefit to make up for the absence of health, and the extra buildings are pretty superfluous. They exist because health does, they don't add anything. As to modding: you can probably always mod in health or something similar if you want.

That's a poor argument for the removal of health BJ. Pollution, overcrowding & health are all a part of the real world, & should be in the core game in order to accurately reflect their importance. Simply relying on Happiness alone doesn't cut it for me!

Aussie.

 

[mjs0]

I guess that my big issue is that the Health system made Food resources far more important (yes they gave a small bonus to food in their tile) & also gave an additional reason for building health giving buildings such as aqueducts & public transport. So take away health & I feel you lose a fairly significant part of the game!

Aussie.

I agree with this...I will miss health if it is gone from the game, I always felt is served a unique and valuable purpose.

Health was new to Civ IV, but pollution has been in Civ since the beginning. Just because we haven't seen any sign of health doesn't mean that there is no pollution mechanic.

On another subject, I noticed that tooltips on the build menu at 03:22 in the video show bombardment ranges and and also resource requirements for a few units.

Crossbowman - Cost: 120, Moves: 2, Range: 2, Ranged Strength: 12, Strength: 6
Trebuchet - Cost: 150, Moves: 2, Range: 2, Ranged Strength: 20, Strength: 6, Required: 1 Iron
Longswordsman - Cost: 150, Moves: 2, Strength: 18, Required: 1 Iron
Knight - Cost: 150, Moves: 3, Strength: 18, Required: 1 Horses
Musketman - Cost: 120, Moves: 2, Strength: 16

So Longswordsman and Trebuchet each require 1 Iron, Knight requires 1 Horse (but no Iron), and Musketman and Crossbowman don't require any resources. And the Longswordsman's base strength has indeed been increased from 16 to 18.

On the subject of units and resource requirements: When I first heard about this new feature my initial thought was that we would end up with a system where defenders were requirement free, but to wage campaigns of aggression would require units with resource requirements.
Everything I am seeing seems to be in line with this...inexpensive, resource free defenders, but offensive units are the ones with the requirement...even trebuchets requiring iron.
Does anyone else see a pattern here?

 

[Calouste]

I wonder if Musketmen get some kind of bonus vs. mounted units. They seem to be filling the same role that spearmen and pikemen do: weak, cheap frontline units with no requirement. Probably not +100% though, or then they could kill cavalry!

Don't think Musketmen need any more advantages. Their main advantage is that you have an infantry unit that is pretty close to the Longswordsman, but you can actually use your Iron resources for Trebuchets instead. (I assume that when you disband a Longswordsman you get to remelt all those armors and swords )

 

[Celevin]

I thought it would have been normal unit at x strength with no requirements, then elite unit with 1.2x strength requiring iron/something else. Sort've like the swordsmen / longswordsmen. I seem to have been proved wrong.

 

[Calouste]

I agree with this...I will miss health if it is gone from the game, I always felt is served a unique and valuable purpose.




On the subject of units and resource requirements: When I first heard about this new feature my initial thought was that we would end up with a system where defenders were requirement free, but to wage campaigns of aggression would require units with resource requirements.
Everything I am seeing seems to be in line with this...inexpensive, resource free defenders, but offensive units are the ones with the requirement...even trebuchets requiring iron.
Does anyone else see a pattern here?

Yes, you mean the pattern you see is that you no longer lose the game when you have no strategic resources near your starting location?

 

[mjs0]

Yes, you mean the pattern you see is that you no longer lose the game when you have no strategic resources near your starting location?

Bingo!

You could also say that there is no longer a disadvantage to turtling and ignoring the quest for resources, you can focus on city growth and tech and end up with few offensive units but plenty of inexpensive resource-independent defenders from more advanced tech.
I'm really looking forward to trying India, which is unusual, I very rarely play with anything but random civs.