Arioch's Analyst Thread

[Calouste]

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.

There was a screenshot of Berlin that had the message "requires Sugar". So it could well be in there.

I'm not too fussed about health as it was in Civ4 disappearing, because it was pretty much a duplicate of the happiness system, although I understand Aussie Lurker's position that some kind of health effect should be in the game to reflect reality, but so far it doesn't look like there is anything like that before Steam Power.

 

[AriochIV]

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?

I think there's a clear division between primary units that require resources, and secondary units that don't, but I don't necessarily see the resource-free units as "defensive." Musketmen have a good basic strength that is useful both for attacking and defending. Archery units are going to be just as important on attack as on defense.

 

[mjs0]

I think there's a clear division between primary units that require resources, and secondary units that don't, but I don't necessarily see the resource-free units as "defensive." Musketmen have a good basic strength that is useful both for attacking and defending. Archery units are going to be just as important on attack as on defense.

Valid points.
I guess one's playstyle influences one's view of units. It is absolutely true that many units are multi-purpose, but I am looking at the units that require resources and seeing mostly offensive units (e.g. units that require horses and siege units often get no terrain defense bonuses) There are some good multi-purpose units in there also (e.g. Longswordsman) but they are expensive and a larger force of weaker but well-positioned defensive units should still stand a good change at holding them off, but not at attacking them.

Given a hypothetical situation* where equal production leads to 4 longswordsmen facing off against 5 musketmen:
If the longswordsmen are on offense it is a pretty even fight, probably favouring the defender especially if they are fortified in good terrain.
If the musketeers are on offense I suspect the longswordsmen have a slight advantage even unfortified on open ground.

So I would assert that the 'secondary units' are sufficient for defense but "suboptimal" for offense.

Still, I don't see the bulk of the resource requiring units (we desperately need an agreed shorthand for these terms!!!) as primary, I see them as primarily offensive.

So its more a case of 'I won't miss large numbers of the those offensive units if my strategy is defense' than 'I cannot play offense if I have few resources'.
Which goes back to Calouste's statement that "you no longer lose the game when you have no strategic resources near your starting location.", it's just going to be harder to win a pre-1000AD domination victory

-------------------------
*I know this is unlikely in reality because a variety of units will be used, but I'm not sure how else to directly compare them

 

[YoHo]

I know it was mentioned earlier or in another thread, but I wonder if they're going back to the Civ1-3 system for the health buildings where you simply can't advance in city size without buildings like aqueducts and the like?
That system wasn't inherently flawed. Don't know if it makes sense to have it AND the happiness mechanism.

 

[Schuesseled]

I don't see why health being gone is a problem.

Health, allowed for a mechanic where food production could be slowed or turned negative without enough resources or building boosts.

In Civ5, unhappiness, provides a corruption like affect draining on all your cities produxtiveness, hammer food gold etc. all decreases, so you no longer need a seperate mechanic for food deprieciation.

 

[mjs0]

An additional comment on the likely demise of the health system and globalization of happiness:

Even if there were no gameplay advantage to a city-based health system there are other reasons to mourn its passing.

One of the advantages of having a diverse set of core features in the code and UI is modding.

By having access to an implemented health system it makes it easier to add additional similar features. Without either health or happiness implemented as per city mechanics it leaves us without an easy basis for adding or usurping such features in mods, either in the code or in the UI.

 

[Sir Og]

I think the best solution to health/happines would have been to lump them together, since they were essentially the same.

You could call all resources that were previously "health" and "happines" recources "quality of living" resources (or some other not so ridiculous name)

Essentially the more you have of those the better. Larger empire, more productive empire, etc.

 

[Souron]

Right, it's possible that factories cause unhappiness, until you build a recycling plant.

 

[Mustakrakish]

So far looking good to me. One problem I have is that cities look like crap. I'm not the only one who thinks so right? I mean they look worse than in civ4... How come?
Yes they might fix that by the time of release, but I don't believe in magic and elves, so I'm not holding my breath...

Where can I see that damn new info rich video? It seriously starts to annoy me.

 

[V. Soma]

Where can I see that damn new info rich video? It seriously starts to annoy me.

You're not the only one...

 

[killmeplease]

maybe they look so because there's no buildings like granaries, barracks etc

 

[Mustakrakish]

Dude, trust me. You're talking to the guy who made Advanced Combat Odds :hint hint: and the one who spotted a bug in the BtS odds calculator (that still exists to this day FYI, but not in ACO where it's fixed)

What kind of bug exactly? I always knew there's something wrong...

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.

You don't have to agree, that's the beauty.
But I don't see it serving a different role. Both unhappiness and unhealthiness are capping my city growth. Nothing more nothing less, except that unhappiness is worse. So what is the point aside from me having to built 2 different buildings for the city to grow instead of just one? But I guess we MUST have it because it's more realistic that way, even if it's pretty much an unnecessary feature.

Now if they made those serve truly different roles... For example unhappiness screwing with your production, not growth (People may not want to work, but I don't see unhappy people refusing to um... make love ) while unhealthiness screws with your growth (babies dying due to poor unhealthy conditions )


EDIT: Actually now that I think of it, isn't that what current civ4 system basically tries to do? But fails

maybe they look so because there's no buildings like granaries, barracks etc

I never found those building making the city look better, quite the opposite actually. So no.

 

[Louis XXIV]

Health should be a feature related to population size. It was a better system, imo, than a hard cap because there was more flexibility (but the net effect was similar). I'm hoping they have something. Afterall, I'm pretty sure Aqueducts are still improvements and they need a role.

 

[Calouste]

Two new articles up on the official site. They read like the beginners' manual but there are some interesting tidbits in there. The big one is that building maintenance is back, with buildings costing between 1 and 5 per turn. Also confirmed that some buildings require resources, for example the Circus needs either Horse or Ivory (Clowns on their own apparently aren't fun enough. No indication that you when you defeat Barbarian Lions or Bears, the Circus has a 50% chance of providing an additional either). And the monument is now a prerequisite for the Temple.

 

[bjbrains]

This confirms the 'morale penalty' for unhappiness that we heard about. The city article also confirms upgrading via gold, and the 4 specialist types - priests are out.
Links: http://civilization5.com/#/community/feature_all_about_cities
http://civilization5.com/#/community/feature_happiness

 

[Calouste]

Yes, note also there seems to be no sliding scale for unhappiness. You're either happy, unhappy, or up the creek. Which I prefer over a "5% penalty per unhappy face" scheme.

And it also confirms that a good move at the start of a war is to cut off your opponent's luxury resources, maybe more so even than their strategic resources.

 

[PieceOfMind]

What kind of bug exactly? I always knew there's something wrong...

The details are probably a bit boring, and it's not all that serious a bug - only occurring occasionally when attacking with siege units - but since you asked...
http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=310196

 

[Aussie_Lurker]

This confirms the 'morale penalty' for unhappiness that we heard about. The city article also confirms upgrading via gold, and the 4 specialist types - priests are out.
Links: http://civilization5.com/#/community/feature_all_about_cities
http://civilization5.com/#/community/feature_happiness

Wow, that news is a *huge* disappointment-& a surprise too! If there are no priests, then what are the specialists in the Temple Building in this screenshot?

http://www.civfanatics.com/gallery/showimage.php?i=2906&c=36

I'm guessing it's probably artists, but that really makes no sense to me. Man, this game is going to require some *major* modification!!!

 

[Aussie_Lurker]

Yes, note also there seems to be no sliding scale for unhappiness. You're either happy, unhappy, or up the creek. Which I prefer over a "5% penalty per unhappy face" scheme.

And it also confirms that a good move at the start of a war is to cut off your opponent's luxury resources, maybe more so even than their strategic resources.

Hmmm, I'm much more of a fan of the sliding scale system myself. I'm also really annoyed that multiple copies of the same resource don't provide multiple happiness-IMHO it weakens the entire trade system !

Aussie.

 

[Kramer3980]

I'm also really annoyed that multiple copies of the same resource don't provide multiple happiness-IMHO it weakens the entire trade system !

If copies of the same resource all provided bonuses there wouldn't really be any incentive in trading for other resources unless someone is willing to trade a strategic resource for a luxury, but most likely they will want several luxury resources in exchange for a strategic one. Limiting the benefit to only 1 lux resource will make civs want to trade one of them away if they can get another lux resource that they dont already have.