He should have a 1700s Virginian accent
French gaming site Factornews has published their demo impressions of Civilization V from the floor of E3. It covers much of the same ground as other articles but there are also some nice new bits of info as well.
The article starts to talk about the visuals and the improved UI: it praises the resource availability indicators at the top of the screen and the combat odds display before battles. After talking a bit about the transition to hexes, the new combat model, border expansion and specialists, it discusses Settlers and Workers:
On ne sait pas grand chose au niveau des unités qu'on peut produire �* part un gros changement : il n'y a pas besoin de bouffe pour faire des travailleurs et des colons. Les travailleurs se font comme n'importe quel unité et les colons ne peuvent être produits que si la ville dépasse différents seuils de population. Du coup, on suppose qu'on pourra spammer nettement moins de colons et qu'il sera plus dur de faire des villes �* gogo juste pour choper une ressource ou emmerder un adversaire.
Translation: We do not know much about how many units can be produced due to a big change: there is no [longer] a need for food for building Workers and Settlers. The Workers are like any other unit [now] and Settlers can only be produced if the city exceeds certain thresholds of population. So we assume that one can spam far fewer Settlers and that it will be harder to create a crapload of cities just to grab a resource or annoy an opponent.
The article goes on to talk about the changes to the Spaceship Victory and diplomacy, informing us that a research agreement costs 150 gold and gives each side a 15% boost in research. It also discusses city states before going into Social Policies, where it reveals 9 of the 10 branches in the game (by their English names): Tradition, Liberty, Honor, Piety, Patronage, Order, Autocracy, Freedom and Rationalism (the 10th one is Commerce, mentioned by Jon Shafer in an interview). It also mentions that Aristocracy and Oligarchy are examples of Policies within the Tradition branch, and claims the Piety branch consists of different religions (though based the Three Moves Ahead podcast this probably refers to just the (placeholder) icons, not the names of the policies or what they represent).
You can read the full article, in French, over at Factornews.
The great advantage that muskets had was that they took very little training to learn how to use. While ancient archers, as well as English longbowmen, took years and years to learn how to accurately shoot their weapons and (and even to develop the strength to pull the bows), peasant conscripts with no previous firearms experience could rapidly be taught to fire muskets to the (low) level of accuracy that could be achieved by the weapon.
Yeah, because Mao's reign of terror is always thought of as a happy time... only 70 million or so people died.
That matter troubles me too Rex... But here:
Lets imagine this battlefield in real life: A line of macemen, behind them longbowmen and opposing line of musketmen. Now can you imagine musketmen killing off longbowmen before macemen? No, they won't be able to do that. Now can you imagine longbowmen firing a cloud of arrows on musketmen from behind the macemen? YES!
Now when it comes to more advanced units like infantry against the same longbowmen and no deadmeat in between them, that's another story.
QUOTE]
SickFak, Yours was one of several good comments about the tactics of the scenario I set up with a line of Musketmen advancing to attack a defensive formation in which a line of Maceman were supported by a line of longbowmen, and macemen also held the flanks. Please don't take the exact formation I described to literally as far as distances or numbers. The point was to raise this issue:
Under the rules we've heard for Civ 5, the most advanced archery units will have a huge and longstanding advantage over all gunpowder units due to the new RANGE rules, until the advent of extra-range units, presumably armor and air units late in the game. Historically, we know that archery units quickly were considered obsolete and disappeared from the world's armies as soon as gunpowder units became available, so I believe this is one of the most unrealistic sets of rules I've seen and would like to see it rethought.
Let's consider the issues you raise in response. You point out that we would expect the longbowmen to have a change to attack the approaching musketmen with "a cloud of arrows" but not the other way around. I'm troubled by your observation and several related ones and others, because we don't actually have a clear understanding of what the Civ game designers have in mind by "musket." In the 1500s, late arquebusiers were refered to as muskets. In the 1800s, late muskets featured rifling, though we usually think of advances like breechloading and rapid fire when we talk about the modern "rifles" of the Rifelman units in Civ games. If we take a medium between these eras, a musket might be thought of as the basic weapons used during the American and French Revolutions and the Napoleonic era. Tactics varied widely. Some armies fought effectively in well-drilled formations so that a line shot and ducked to reload while the next line aimed and delivered its volley. But musket were also used for terrain-related ambush or defensive tactics and were accurate enough to allow sharpshooters to pick off officers and mounted troops.
Suppose we have that kind of musket in mind in Civ. Basically, the best of the non-rifled muskets. Take a look back at my scenario:
In a real battlefield, the musketmen are well separated from the macemen and the longbowmen, but are advancing. Let's assume neither side can really take cover and we simply have layers of military formations. The musketmen will rapidly close to a location at which they will retain complete range advantage over the macemen, and have no disadvantage against the longbowmen. They do not have to close and fight the macement to be able to open a withering fire against the gunless troops and once these are disposed of, the archers will also be open to attack. The musketmen will be so overpowering against the macemen, that these never even get into the fight. Although the musket will take some damage from the longbowmen while dealing with the macemen, their numerical edge will ensure that they survive and can then close and defeat the longbows easily with bayonets.
Now take the Civ5 battlefield as it has been described so far. The muskets have no range other than movement. The longbows do. The muskets will have to close and fight with the macement in order to even have a shot at the longbows. The entire time, the muskets will be taking damage from both the melee and ranged attacks. And the longbows will take no damage at all. (I assume this last point because anything else would be absurd. If you have range against nonrange and the fight is across that range, then the range troops take no damage until the distance with the nonranged troops is closed. But that would be a difference with older Civs.) The muskets would be at a surpreme disdvantage. As a result of such scenarios and the easy tactics of defeating muskets with combined melee/archer defensive positions, there would never be a reason for Musketmen to be developed for offensive, even though historically we know they were used in offensive situations.
On the other hand, consider same scenario with numerically superior numbers of muskets on defense and an attack coming from longbows screened by macemen. In a real battlefield, the ranged muskets would have much the same advantage as before. The longbow would enjoy superior range, but it simply be a matter of the muskets advancing and counter-attacking to nullify that edge. The macemen would remain a nonfactor. The longbow would only enjoy an edge if they could pin down the muskets with no chance to close the gap. Otherwise, the guns win easily.
Now take the muskets on defense in Civ 5. If they remain immobile and the macemen don't close the gap, all they can do is die from the longbows' ranged attacks. If the muskets counterattack, they will have a one-to-one edge against the macemen, but the longbows will be safe to to inflict substantial damage. And the longbowmen will have the option of falling back and firing again, so that the muskets will continue to take damage as they advance, but may never be able to close and inflict damage of their own. (And whatever they were defending will be left undefended.)
So again, I think the addition of RANGE without its application to gunpowder makes the game highly realistic on the significant historical transition to gunpowder.
That matter troubles me too Rex... But here:
Lets imagine this battlefield in real life: A line of macemen, behind them longbowmen and opposing line of musketmen. Now can you imagine musketmen killing off longbowmen before macemen? No, they won't be able to do that. Now can you imagine longbowmen firing a cloud of arrows on musketmen from behind the macemen? YES!
Now when it comes to more advanced units like infantry against the same longbowmen and no deadmeat in between them, that's another story.
QUOTE]
SickFak, Yours was one of several good comments about the tactics of the scenario I set up with a line of Musketmen advancing to attack a defensive formation in which a line of Maceman were supported by a line of longbowmen, and macemen also held the flanks. Please don't take the exact formation I described to literally as far as distances or numbers. The point was to raise this issue:
Under the rules we've heard for Civ 5, the most advanced archery units will have a huge and longstanding advantage over all gunpowder units due to the new RANGE rules, until the advent of extra-range units, presumably armor and air units late in the game. Historically, we know that archery units quickly were considered obsolete and disappeared from the world's armies as soon as gunpowder units became available, so I believe this is one of the most unrealistic sets of rules I've seen and would like to see it rethought.
Let's consider the issues you raise in response. You point out that we would expect the longbowmen to have a change to attack the approaching musketmen with "a cloud of arrows" but not the other way around. I'm troubled by your observation and several related ones and others, because we don't actually have a clear understanding of what the Civ game designers have in mind by "musket." In the 1500s, late arquebusiers were refered to as muskets. In the 1800s, late muskets featured rifling, though we usually think of advances like breechloading and rapid fire when we talk about the modern "rifles" of the Rifelman units in Civ games. If we take a medium between these eras, a musket might be thought of as the basic weapons used during the American and French Revolutions and the Napoleonic era. Tactics varied widely. Some armies fought effectively in well-drilled formations so that a line shot and ducked to reload while the next line aimed and delivered its volley. But musket were also used for terrain-related ambush or defensive tactics and were accurate enough to allow sharpshooters to pick off officers and mounted troops.
Suppose we have that kind of musket in mind in Civ. Basically, the best of the non-rifled muskets. Take a look back at my scenario:
In a real battlefield, the musketmen are well separated from the macemen and the longbowmen, but are advancing. Let's assume neither side can really take cover and we simply have layers of military formations. The musketmen will rapidly close to a location at which they will retain complete range advantage over the macemen, and have no disadvantage against the longbowmen. They do not have to close and fight the macement to be able to open a withering fire against the gunless troops and once these are disposed of, the archers will also be open to attack. The musketmen will be so overpowering against the macemen, that these never even get into the fight. Although the musket will take some damage from the longbowmen while dealing with the macemen, their numerical edge will ensure that they survive and can then close and defeat the longbows easily with bayonets.
Now take the Civ5 battlefield as it has been described so far. The muskets have no range other than movement. The longbows do. The muskets will have to close and fight with the macement in order to even have a shot at the longbows. The entire time, the muskets will be taking damage from both the melee and ranged attacks. And the longbows will take no damage at all. (I assume this last point because anything else would be absurd. If you have range against nonrange and the fight is across that range, then the range troops take no damage until the distance with the nonranged troops is closed. But that would be a difference with older Civs.) The muskets would be at a surpreme disdvantage. As a result of such scenarios and the easy tactics of defeating muskets with combined melee/archer defensive positions, there would never be a reason for Musketmen to be developed for offensive, even though historically we know they were used in offensive situations.
On the other hand, consider same scenario with numerically superior numbers of muskets on defense and an attack coming from longbows screened by macemen. In a real battlefield, the ranged muskets would have much the same advantage as before. The longbow would enjoy superior range, but it simply be a matter of the muskets advancing and counter-attacking to nullify that edge. The macemen would remain a nonfactor. The longbow would only enjoy an edge if they could pin down the muskets with no chance to close the gap. Otherwise, the guns win easily.
Now take the muskets on defense in Civ 5. If they remain immobile and the macemen don't close the gap, all they can do is die from the longbows' ranged attacks. If the muskets counterattack, they will have a one-to-one edge against the macemen, but the longbows will be safe to to inflict substantial damage. And the longbowmen will have the option of falling back and firing again, so that the muskets will continue to take damage as they advance, but may never be able to close and inflict damage of their own. (And whatever they were defending will be left undefended.)
So again, I think the addition of RANGE without its application to gunpowder makes the game highly realistic on the significant historical transition to gunpowder.
I think you're overlooking what may be the obvious. He has one maceman (weaker than musket) and one longbow (dead in melee for sure) and you would have two Musketmen units. It was the economy of scale that also greatly affected warfare with the musket- cheap and easy to produce (given the right society) and easily picked up by anyone.
Seems like Civ V will generally simulate this correctly. Your 2 musketmen will wipe out a longbow/mace(whatever) combo lickity split unless the terrain dictates some strange situation, in which case that would seem to be fine. Muskets are notoriously LOW RANGE weapons, rifles changed that. But loading them quickly enough for battle didn't come until later.
I think you're overlooking what may be the obvious. He has one maceman (weaker than musket) and one longbow (dead in melee for sure) and you would have two Musketmen units. It was the economy of scale that also greatly affected warfare with the musket- cheap and easy to produce (given the right society) and easily picked up by anyone.
Seems like Civ V will generally simulate this correctly. Your 2 musketmen will wipe out a longbow/mace(whatever) combo lickity split unless the terrain dictates some strange situation, in which case that would seem to be fine. Muskets are notoriously LOW RANGE weapons, rifles changed that. But loading them quickly enough for battle didn't come until later.
Hey bite, have you look at this web site lately.
http://www.weplayciv.com/
There is a lot of missing info there on the first 4 pages.
Like this:
The article goes on to talk about the changes to the Spaceship Victory and diplomacy, informing us that a research agreement costs 150 gold and gives each side a 15% boost in research.
Regarding the Archers vs Muskets/Rifles range...
I'm not an expert in weapons or history, but if you asked me to justify giving archers a range of 2 versus guns a range of 1, I would say it is because arrows arc.
You can shoot arrows over your own infantry and hit an enemy, but you can't shoot bullets through your own guys to hit an enemy. Of course, that only really applies on flat terrain, I suppose, but it is enough of a justification for me. I don't think that having gunpowder units able to cause damage at a range would be good for gameplay.
PS - I think that this is what someone meant a while back when they said that the archers could hit the musketeers, but the musketeers would have to shoot through the macemen before attacking the archers.
I suppose someone could develop a hail of bullets technique similar to the cloud of arrows, especially with a short range weapon like a musket, but the effect doesn't seem to be the same with the tiny projectile.)
Memory allocation has been completely discarded in Civ 5.
I would argue that the width of a hex is greater than the range of any weapon prior to the rifle.
My bottom line: If arrows have range thanks to distance and ability to shoot over, there are a large number of modern troops besides artillery that also should qualify for the same battlefield edge.