Discussion in 'Civ5 - General Discussions' started by hewhocaves, Feb 18, 2010.
Wow...I never saw that picture before.
Disregarding how many units one can build from a single resources, IF there is no more unit stacking, then small empires will have to rely on natural passes to defend themselves against large empires. Just like the Greeks did against Persia, Or Switzerland again conquering forces.
awww, religions/corporations were fun bringing a lot of different tactics ..
too bad they removed it
Corporations was an expansion pack add anyway. It makes perfect sense to add them back in later.
but I am just talking about concept.
nevertheless if you check 7 pages of posts you will see a quite a lot complains about lack of religion
and i am bit afraid with 1-tile-1-unit system :| ... that we have to see in action
About the 'one resource' thing - I think that mechanic may go hand in hand with other mechanic changes.
I heard somebody else say (not sure what their source was) that they were trying to reduce overall units on the map, especially late game (i.e. even late game you will rarely have more than 10-20 units total, or something like that). If you're only going to have a small amount of units, then this 'one rescourse one unit' could work fine. Alternatively, each 'rescourse' could have 3 or 4 stacks within it. i.e. Take your horse tile, with 4 'horses' within it. You build one horseman, one of those horses dissapear. You may have the 'one rescourse one unit' but one tile may not equal only one unit.
wouldn't it be better to have drawbacks for each additional unit on same field ?
like unhappiness, maintenance cost, etc (for maintaining army)
If there really was the one ressource = one unit system, the advantages would be clear: Less Units, A better overview, no big calculations needed. I like the general idea behind it. Of course, we know by far not enough!
and Shawod-XIII of course, I agree. Soft limits are always better than hard limits (hint: stability)
Is this possibly the new road system for civ 5? Would be a lot more realistic than the old methods in previous Civ games.
It looks as though that is just the underlaying city texture, you can see a road texture however in the center of the city.
Those are just sub-plots of the city like there are for farms, I think.
I'm kinda glad they might be taking away SoD. It will make the warfare a whloe more relalistic and fun at the same time! I just hope Rhye makes a mod like Rhye's and Fall of Civilization. That was fun, and I want to see it in ciV.
yes. for early game such micromanaging may help.
especially if you want to chop-haste a build, worker micromanagement becomes important.
still, i would prefer it removed. call to power style of improvements is better.
density of forest? it would be fine and realistic.
in SMAC, there was 3 issues about terrains.
1) rainfall : dry, medium, wet (forgot names)
dry giving no food while medium gave 1 food, 1 hammer and wet giving 2 food. (in fact not hammers but minerals etc.)
2) with or w/o funghi
3) amount of rocks: similarly with rainfall
this is in fact a simialr system with civ4.
in old civ series, the terrain was either hills or forest. no forest on hills or flatland.
so civ4 system is simlar with SMAC approach, which is realistic.
similarly, forest density could be implemented.
but i think "very dense forest" is already a jungle in that matter which can be chopped with iron working instead of br workng.
wow if civ5 will improve graphics as much as civ4 did after that picture, then i have to buy an 2500 euro PC?
oh, i wouldn't like graphics to be over-detailed. it would ruin games on huge maps.
The road system seems somehow incomplete, but I do not agree that the roads are just an overflow from the city. They are clearly imposed on a different hex.
Doing away with the roads and railways might actually be a good thing.
While looking VERY carefully at these screenshots, I've realized something...one part of that farm got SMALLER as the city grew. Can farms get eaten away? The part I am referring to is the one that was previously on the horse fence, but now is gone. But, during this time, the farm has also expanded in a different direction a bit (in that little corner facing towards the sea). I also noticed that in the "before" shot, you couldn't see the expanding lines to the northwest of the farm, but in the after shot, you can, despite no further advancing in that direction.
Does this mean you will somehow have more control over farms, selecting which little plots to farm? Or does this mean that the city eats away at the farm while it grows in a different direction? Or, is this simply the result of weeds and decreased fertility on that plot, making it unfarmable for a bit? You guys decide.
EDIT: After even CLOSER examination, the farm did not grow in the direction I thought it did, rather, the border moved a bit, and the beach grew. But why? Did they change some stuff between the two screenshots?
EDIT2: Actually, after examining it again as much as possible, I see that the farm did not grow, nor shrink. The developers just for some reason put a ridge between the horses and the farm, and changed the borders, the beach, and the expanding stuff to make everything look better. Why change it, though? Unintentional continuing development, or red herring?
I am still curious about why there are no units in cities. Is this simply not allowed?
It's probably not strategically necessary. With limited units and dynamic borders, it'd probably be wise to post units on your borders in case of war. I'm sure you could post units in cities, but there'd be no reason to if you are on the coast like in the two cities we see (peninsula/ isthmus one and Asian one).
My guess would be that that's an effect of the angle of the image, rather than something to garner a game feature from.
Separate names with a comma.