Arioch's Analyst Thread

[AriochIV]

Let's take a look at the description from Arioch's site (assuming that he got that from an interview or article or otherwise official source)... Now the breakdown... "now only requires" implies that this is different from previous Civ's. "...capture of all enemy capitals" does not say anything about "ORIGINAL" capitals!

I wrote that line myself, so don't try to parse anything magical out of it.

I'm fairly certain I saw a screenshot of a Civ that lost its capitol and had another city that had the capitol "star" graphic on it.

You did.

 

[Tomice]

Arioch, you are a legend!



Krikkitone, your #1 doesn't work.

Even if it was 100 turns to build a new palace, the agressor could never conquer 10 or so other capitals before the first victim has a palace again.

And the longer the victim has to live without capital, the more useless the attempt to build it would be: he would never recover from 100 turns without trade routes and other disadvantages.


So the only logical explanation seems that conquest is all about the original capitals, but you can have a replacement capital for most other functions.

It may be confusing, but I can't find a better solution.



I can't believe in the elimination theory. First of all, the above screen clearly contradicts it (as did azazell).
Furthermore, the game mechanics don't allow the simultanious addition of 10 cities to your empire. Think about the unhappiness penalty!

 

[Celevin]

It's not that confusing, I think it'll be pretty easy for people to see. A question is that under those circumstances for domination, will capitol razing be possible? It could lead to quite a few different problems or strategies.

 

[KrikkitTwo]

Arioch, you are a legend!



Krikkitone, your #1 doesn't work.

Even if it was 100 turns to build a new palace, the agressor could never conquer 10 or so other capitals before the first victim has a palace again.

And the longer the victim has to live without capital, the more useless the attempt to build it would be: he would never recover from 100 turns without trade routes and other disadvantages.


So the only logical explanation seems that conquest is all about the original capitals, but you can have a replacement capital for most other functions.

It may be confusing, but I can't find a better solution.

It is also a logical possibility that there is no Replacement Capital.... that even if "Conquest Victory" isn't an issue you are crippled if an enemy takes/besieges your capital for any length of time.


Those would (I think) be the key issue
Is there a "Secondary Replacement Capital" that can take most of the functions of the "Original Capital"

THere is also "can the original Capital be Razed?" which I doubt (given the Civ Rev situation)

 

[YoHo]

For purposes of a musing on my part, not implying any assumption of the real game mechanics.

In previous versions of Civ, you had the ability to move your palace and thus your capital.
In fact, this could have advantages if your empire expanded in a lopsided way.

anyway, if we presume that the victory condition is "all original capitals." And we presume that one can still voluntarily move their capital by building a new castle, then I presume such a moved capital would still count as the original capital would it not? I wonder, presuming that you had the time/cash to do it, if it looked like you would lose your capital, could you not move the seat of government somewhere else before the final blow and thus thwart the enemy?

And presuming that is the case, could you then intentionally as you explore found a city that is tactically better placed and move your capital there to get the best advantages possible. Heck, in history, capitals have moved for all sorts of reasons.

The alternative is that perhaps the victory condition is really "Must hold all original cities"

 

[AriochIV]

Anecdotal evidence from the GamesCom testimonial threads suggest that the Panzer has +1 movement and the Landsknecht has the same stats as a Pikeman, but it cheaper.

As we learn more and more about the various Unique Units (and it's true that there's a lot we still don't know), the picture is growing clearer that they seem to be pretty much as they were in Civ IV: just copies of the regular units with slightly enhanced stats, or one additional promotion or attribute. There's nothing particularly wrong with that, but Dennis Shirk's comments back at E3 led me to expect a bit more:

Shack: What about unique units. Are these just pallete swaps with some bonuses?

Dennis Shirk: Each unique unit in the game has its own unique abilities too.

Shack: Are these - for lack of a better term - spells to be cast or are they passive bonuses?

Dennis Shirk: Not just passive bonuses. The Roman Legion, for instance, can build roads and forts, things previously just given to the worker [unit]. As the Romans, your legions are going across the landscape and paving their own roads at the same time. There are a lot of unique units like this. They don't just look different; they do different things.

I call bullshift on Dennis.

It's not that confusing, I think it'll be pretty easy for people to see. A question is that under those circumstances for domination, will capitol razing be possible? It could lead to quite a few different problems or strategies.

I don't think you're allowed to raze a city-state or a capital. When the player takes Tenochtitlan in the GameStar video, he is only given the options to Annex or Create Puppet.

 

[KrikkitTwo]

For purposes of a musing on my part, not implying any assumption of the real game place.

In previous versions of Civ, you had the ability to move your palace and thus your capital.
In fact, this could have advantages if your empire expanded in a lopsided way.

anyway, if we presume that the victory condition is "all original capitals." And we presume that one can still voluntarily move their capital by building a new castle, then I presume such a moved capital would still count as the original capital would it not? I wonder, presuming that you had the time/cash to do it, if it looked like you would lose your capital, could you not move the seat of government somewhere else before the final blow and thus thwart the enemy?

And presuming that is the case, could you then intentionally as you explore found a city that is tactically better placed and move your capital there to get the best advantages possible. Heck, in history, capitals have moved for all sorts of reasons.

The alternative is that perhaps the victory condition is really "Must hold all original cities"

no
capital= city the palace/capitol is in

Originally capital=city the palace/capitol was Originally in

Also I agree with bs on dennis... notice he said "each" and then changed it to "a lot"... maybe there are 3-4

 

[Tomice]

What is "to call bullshift"? the online has dictionary has everything, but not this.

 

[AriochIV]

What is "to call bullshift"? the online has dictionary has everything, but not this.

If you remove the "f", the result means to call someone out for speaking an untruth.

 

[Tomice]

For purposes of a musing on my part, not implying any assumption of the real game mechanics.

In previous versions of Civ, you had the ability to move your palace and thus your capital.
In fact, this could have advantages if your empire expanded in a lopsided way.

anyway, if we presume that the victory condition is "all original capitals." And we presume that one can still voluntarily move their capital by building a new castle, then I presume such a moved capital would still count as the original capital would it not? I wonder, presuming that you had the time/cash to do it, if it looked like you would lose your capital, could you not move the seat of government somewhere else before the final blow and thus thwart the enemy?

And presuming that is the case, could you then intentionally as you explore found a city that is tactically better placed and move your capital there to get the best advantages possible. Heck, in history, capitals have moved for all sorts of reasons.

The alternative is that perhaps the victory condition is really "Must hold all original cities"

It my be possible IMO. So you can move your capital if it is badly placed (of course not instantly), but if it gets captured ONCE, you lost it for the purpose of domination victory.

The replacement "palace" might have a different name, indicating it's no fully functional (like "provisional seat of government", just shorter )

 

[Tomice]

If you remove the "f", the result means to call someone out for speaking an untruth.

I thought as much, but I wouldn't have expected it from the stoic and self-controlled Arioch!

 

[Thormodr]

I thought as much, but I wouldn't have expected it from the stoic and self-controlled Arioch!

He is perfectly within his rights to do so as Dennis Shirk told a bald faced lie.

 

[YoHo]

no
capital= city the palace/capitol is in

Originally capital=city the palace/capitol was Originally in

Where are you getting this definition of Original Capital from?

You could just as reasonably say
Original Capital=the capital prior to being conquered.
In other words, the capital is whichever city, as chosen by the player prior to it being conquered.
Once a city that was a player chosen capital is conquered, then player chosen capital is no longer possible.

If its the original city, then why didn't they just call it your start city?

 

[Sciguy001]

He is perfectly within his rights to do so as Dennis Shirk told a bald faced lie.

Well what he says does apply to the Roman legion, so he's only telling 1/26th of a lie

 

[Thyrwyn]

Don't all the UUs that we have seen screen shots of have something other than modified stats? Samurai increase GG generation, War Chariot no resource cost, Legion can build roads and forts, Janissary heals, Sipahi gets free pillaging, etc....?

 

[Thormodr]

Well what he says does apply to the Roman legion, so he's only telling 1/26th of a lie

Dennis Shirk said this:

There are a lot of unique units like this. They don't just look different; they do different things.

So far, we haven't seen a lot of unique units that do very much besides being cheaper or don't require resources. We've seen a few, in my opinion. I guess we'll have to wait and see but so far the returns don't look promising.

 

[bjbrains]

Dennis Shirk said this:



So far, we haven't seen a lot of unique units that do very much besides being cheaper or don't require resources. We've seen a few, in my opinion. I guess we'll have to wait and see but so far the returns don't look promising.

UUs that do something 'different' or have a unique ability:
Minuteman/Foreign legion (Bonuses based on territory)
Camel Archer (Turns the knight into a ranged unit)
Chu-ko-nu (weaker, but has the ability to shoot twice)
Samurai: (Increased GG chance)
Naresuan's Elephant (Turns knight into a heavy infantry unit)
Sipahi- Free pillaging along with faster movement and more sight range
Janissary- Autoheal after killing a unit
Legion- Builds forts/roads

That's a vast majority that we have complete stats for. I'd consider adding the ones that are resourceless as well simply because that will be a huge impact (much bigger than it was in civ 4).
EDIT:
So you don't consider these units "unique" enough?
Musketeer- 4 strength stronger than its equivalent, and more strength than any unit in its time period. Also note that we don't know its full civlopedia entry, so it's quite possible that they have some other benefit
War Chariot- 1 move faster and needs no horses, for a unit that is already the fastest ancient era unit. Egypt at the start is going to always be able to field armies of unparalleled speed.
Hoplite - The strongest (I mean in terms of strength value) ancient era unit by a lot. Competes well with swordsmen despite coming earlier and being resourceless.
Companion cavalry: A faster and stronger version of a unit that is already the fastest and strongest unit in its time period? That's going to be interesting to say the least.

 

[Stalker0]

Dennis Shirk said this:



So far, we haven't seen a lot of unique units that do very much besides being cheaper or don't require resources. We've seen a few, in my opinion. I guess we'll have to wait and see but so far the returns don't look promising.

Roman UU - build roads.
Ottoman UU - gets healed after each battle.
Chinese UU - obtain more great general points.

So there's 3 just off hand.

 

[Calouste]

It my be possible IMO. So you can move your capital if it is badly placed (of course not instantly), but if it gets captured ONCE, you lost it for the purpose of domination victory.

The replacement "palace" might have a different name, indicating it's no fully functional (like "provisional seat of government", just shorter )

Now that there is no longer distance maintenance/corruption like there was in Civ3 and Civ4, would there be much of a purpose in relocating your capital?

 

[Thormodr]

Ok. Fine. He's still lying about this:

Dennis Shirk: Each unique unit in the game has its own unique abilities too.

Having a slightly higher strength score can in no way, shape or form be considered a unique ability.

We shall see how many of these units we end up with.