Arioch's Analyst Thread

[PinkHammurabi]

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!!!

Temples having culture-yielding specialists is a big problem... how, exactly?

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.

Really? It's been that way forever. Not to mention, I imagine that people will be happier with access to Gold, Gems, Silk, and Cotton instead of just a whole mess-load of Gold. If anything, an abundance of one item only DECREASES its value. I don't understand your logic at *all*.

I must say, I'm pretty thoroughly confused my most of what you consider to be life-altering, major problems in game design for Civ5.

 

[Mustakrakish]

Damn Aussie, you seem to have a lot of... "interesting" problems with the game. Just stop spending so much time in these civ5 threads. Why are you torturing yourself?

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.

Clowns suck! I hate clowns!

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

Thank you!

 

[Thyrwyn]

Gold maintenance for buildings is back, too...

There’s one downside to buildings: most of them cost gold to maintain. The price depends upon the building in question, and can range from 1 to 5 per turn. The gold is deducted from your treasury each turn. A later feature will explain more about gold, including how you earn it and what else it can be spent on.

 

[Aussie_Lurker]

OK, just to clarify.

@ PinkHammurabi. I guess I'm just disappointed with the removal of Priest Specialists. I know they've removed religion, but I still felt there was room for priests, given the existence of the Piety Branch of the Soc Pol tree.

As to Luxury Trading-I just felt that, with the move to finite resources *and* global happiness, we had a chance for multiple copies of the same resource to actually *matter*! Too often I find myself with 3 or 4 dyes, & no-one to trade the excess to, because they all already have 1+ dye themselves. Once multiple copies of the same resource matter, then otherwise lost opportunities for trade can potentially open. Maybe to improve the odds of trading, it could work that only the first copy gives you the maximum happiness, but subsequent copies give you less. Perhaps, after the 3rd or 4th copy, additional copies grant no further happiness. That way a Civ with a healthy surplus can trade their excess to someone who only has 1 or 2 copies.

Aussie.

 

[Thyrwyn]

RE: Removal of Priests - Maybe they could provide happiness?

RE: Luxury Trading - diminishing returns could work, the faster they diminish, the more likely you are to trade.

 

[Calouste]

OK, just to clarify.

@ PinkHammurabi. I guess I'm just disappointed with the removal of Priest Specialists. I know they've removed religion, but I still felt there was room for priests, given the existence of the Piety Branch of the Soc Pol tree.

As to Luxury Trading-I just felt that, with the move to finite resources *and* global happiness, we had a chance for multiple copies of the same resource to actually *matter*! Too often I find myself with 3 or 4 dyes, & no-one to trade the excess to, because they all already have 1+ dye themselves. Once multiple copies of the same resource matter, then otherwise lost opportunities for trade can potentially open. Maybe to improve the odds of trading, it could work that only the first copy gives you the maximum happiness, but subsequent copies give you less. Perhaps, after the 3rd or 4th copy, additional copies grant no further happiness. That way a Civ with a healthy surplus can trade their excess to someone who only has 1 or 2 copies.

Aussie.

I haven't seen in the Civ5 screenshots so far the clusters of luxury resources that were common in Civ4, so it might not be the problem it used to be. It would be useful if you could trade or give them to city states, but I haven't seen any evidence yet that that is possible.

 

[Schuesseled]

Loving this:

[[[[When your happiness is negative and your happiness icon is looking angry, your population is “very unhappy.” If your population is very unhappy, your cities stop growing altogether, you cannot build any Settlers, and your military units get a nasty combat penalty.]]]]

Sexilious!

 

[12agnar0k]

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!!!

Thats a culture specialist, you know... because a temple is part of a civ's culture ,

Also the pink/purple Icon gives it away.

Also we shouldn't have priests anymore due to religion being gone, temples are only around because few silly religious people built them in your city before you had them executed, but you didnt demolish the temples because they looked nice.

.......

"Priests could give happiness" In what deluded world do you think priests make people happy, if you call indoctrination and dellusional story telling, "happiness" then fair enough.

.......

We dont really need priests, we have culture+gold+science+production, what else is there. We don't yet know what the great people will do, other than probably suciding to fill the golden age well. They may not be able to sac for research techs anymore, and with the removal of religious techs anyway, a great priest wouldnt be needed.
In my opinion, "its all good".

 

[Thyrwyn]

I suggested priests giving happiness because it is the only "currency" that does not have a specialist. I'm perfectly content with not having them, but if we did I would rather see them provide something that other specialists did not - happiness is all that is left.

 

[Schuesseled]

a better happiness spreader would be an entertainer, they had this in a previous civ, no?

 

[Louis XXIV]

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.

I really hate that building maintenance is back. That was honestly one of the smartest changes in Civ4 (they realized that all it did was discourage infrastructure in order to favor expansion). It'll hopefully be balanced with everything else and not be a major factor, but that'll probably be the biggest learning curve for me (just like no REXing was when I picked up Civ4).

I also like that monument is the first improvement to build (so Barracks come later). Although I'm getting a slight 2001: A Space Odyssey Vibe.

 

[Louis XXIV]

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!!!

I wouldn't say major modification, but certainly modification. Civ games have always laid good groundwork that creative modders can take advantage of to embellish the game. My thoughts are that someone will come out with a religion mod (my hope is it won't simply copy the Civ4 style, but do something more Civ5 appropriate). Priest specialists could return for that (which would, overall, be very interesting).

EDIT: Sorry about doubleposting, I haven't had my coffee yet (I think I thought I was in two different threads).

I'm going to echo the thoughts that having Priests give happiness makes sense from a gameplay perspective. Temples in all previous games have given happiness and religion in Civ4 gave happiness as well. A Priest specialist would fill the role since no one else has it so far. Sure, the Entertainer made sense from a gameplay perspective before, but either could logically fill the role. In addition, it makes more sense that a ruler would have influence in making someone a priest. Entertainers (with the exception of those that entertained the monarch, not the masses or organized events like gladiators) weren't really something that a ruler took much interest in.

 

[Silvestris]

Annexed Cities: If you capture and annex foreign cities, your population doesn’t much like it.

Why? An annexed city speaks for a good running war.. 1. WW Scenario "OMG GOSH WE GERMAN ANNEXED PARIS LETS FIGHT AGAINST OUR GOVERMENT!" thats just unlogical and stupid..

It would be okay when I lose troops myself or citys that my people would get angry, but thats system now is just <snip> and speaks not for a good game.

Moderator Action: Warned for foul language
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889

 

[craig123]

Why? An annexed city speaks for a good running war.. 1. WW Scenario "OMG GOSH WE GERMAN ANNEXED PARIS LETS FIGHT AGAINST OUR GOVERMENT!" thats just unlogical and stupid..

It would be okay when I lose troops myself or citys that my people would get angry, but thats system now is just <snip> and speaks not for a good game.

I think it's the occupied population that are unhappy.

 

[Silvestris]

They write "your population" so I think they mean the overall &

 

[craig123]

But if you're Germany and you annex Paris, the population of Paris are now your population.

 

[Windsor]

The empire-wide happiness does seem a bit strange. Build a theater in St.Petersburg and the people of Grozny becomes happy? Capture Paris and Rome becomes less productive? :\

Per city happiness does seem to reflect regional differences within an empire better. Looking forward to playtesting this.

 

[craig123]

I think you can justify it (as someone said elsewhere) that when you capture or found a new city, doctors, lawyers, teachers, builders, etc. move to the new city from your existing cities, leaving your existing cities less happy and less productive.

Although I think the real reason is Gameplay > Reality.

 

[AriochIV]

Using a global happiness value as a replacement for corruption/maintenance may make sense from a gameplay persepective, but it's ass-backwards from a realism perspective. I can see how more population in a city makes people in that city unhappy, but having there's nothing about having more cities that should make anyone unhappy, and it could be argued it should make you more happy. Likewise, the idea that having occupied someone would make the rest of your empire unhappy is pretty backwards; the citizens of Rome would get upset if you didn't conquer someone recently, as that's where much of their wealth and slaves came from. Maybe the Firaxis guys spent too much time watching CNN and not enough reading history books.

I don't think there was anything wrong with the more realistic health/happiness/maintenance model, so this is one case where I don't see the rationale behind the simplification.

 

[Celevin]

Using a global happiness value as a replacement for corruption/maintenance may make sense from a gameplay persepective, but it's ass-backwards from a realism perspective. I can see how more population in a city makes people in that city unhappy, but having there's nothing about having more cities that should make anyone unhappy, and it could be argued it should make you more happy. Likewise, the idea that having occupied someone would make the rest of your empire unhappy is pretty backwards; the citizens of Rome would get upset if you didn't conquer someone recently, as that's where much of their wealth and slaves came from. Maybe the Firaxis guys spent too much time watching CNN and not enough reading history books.

I don't think there was anything wrong with the more realistic health/happiness/maintenance model, so this is one case where I don't see the rationale behind the simplification.

I see what you're saying.


You're saying there should be a 4th option to take back slaves and women for a production and happiness bonus.