Escapist Preview First Pics of Carrier, New Diplomatic Options

[Minor Annoyance]

So did anyone else start wondering how to mod 'favors' into civ 5?

 

[shaglio]

So did anyone else start wondering how to mod 'favors' into civ 5?

Well, I did mention something about that in post #59. As for the "how to" part, that's far beyond my minimal computer expertise. I'm just hoping somebody with bigger modding chops will do it.

 

[SammyKhalifa]

I think you might not be taking the curvature of planet into account. It would have to be a ballistic gun to achieve that distance. Launching ballistic projectiles at speeds enabling them to travel that far would seriously compromise the carriers capability to function as a carrier (think of the recoil of a battleship wreaking havok on the flight deck). But not only that, it also takes away space and ressources that could be used to enhance its carrier role (more anti air, better radar, stronger missile defense, another launch tube)... Either way you'd even be better off making the carrier smaller and putting the gun on another ship type.
Even using the carrier for multiple roles is a bad idea, since one good hit on the runway could make it inoperable, possibly loosing all of the aircraft (maybe redundancy is why there are two runways that cannot be used simultaneously anyway). You don't want a carrier taking fire and if you have a gun on it that can hit the enemy, chances are the enemy can retaliate.

I don't know. How far in the future is this game supposed to begin (let alone progress far enough to develop that kind of craft)?

Speculators 500 years ago probably imagined that ships of the 21st century would need giant, giant sails.

There could be any manner of technology to make them look like that. Or, you know, the artists thought it looked cool.

 

[KrikkitTwo]

I don't know. How far in the future is this game supposed to begin (let alone progress far enough to develop that kind of craft)?

Speculators 500 years ago probably imagined that ships of the 21st century would need giant, giant sails.

There could be any manner of technology to make them look like that. Or, you know, the artists thought it looked cool.

perhaps it is a specialized communications array (since the planes would all be remote controlled)or it is an exhaust port (which is pointed forward while the ship is active to reduce its signature t satellite targeting)

 

[3of5]

perhaps it is a specialized communications array (since the planes would all be remote controlled)or it is an exhaust port (which is pointed forward while the ship is active to reduce its signature t satellite targeting)

It looks very similar to the gun mounted on the T4 supremacy naval fighter. I'm guessing it it would be a gun, because on that destroyer type unit it replaces the T3 missile batteries and because it is mounted on the axis of the ship, where recoil would not give it much angular momentum. Actually most details about the units are very well thought trough (there are even the fighter craft elevators on the rear near the tower and a higher bulwark protecting the launch runways from smaller units fire, so aircraft can be launched even when under fire, allowing for some defense. I'm guessing that the designers layed the carrier out for not being too squishy (because of 1UPT and there generally being few units overall on the map in Civ5), so the gun should explain why the carrier could hold its own when attacked. Its ok for game design, but still bad carrier design. Its bad storytelling too, since you'd have to handwave away obvious problems with tech magic: "Oh they have inertial dampeners!" "Oh, sure, its an energy weapon that needs LOS (compromising the save return of fighters). Damn fighters would even cross the guns projectile path when landing front to back on the deck (the elevators they have to reach taxiing are at the rear).
On the scale civ games play they should rather model carriers as carrier fleets, with naval escorts. Remember how a carrier fleet would look like in Civ4?

 

[Lord Tirian]

Oh, by the way, Firaxis confirmed that the screenshots are of the arid biome:

Huh... this could actually mean that the changed lighting isn't just an overall (though nice) change of the lighting effects but that we might have biome-specific lighting. That'd be a really neat way to make them distinct beyond just having different map generation.

 

[3of5]

Huh... this could actually mean that the changed lighting isn't just an overall (though nice) change of the lighting effects but that we might have biome-specific lighting. That'd be a really neat way to make them distinct beyond just having different map generation.

 

[Deggial]

I definitely love the variation in lightning!

However, if the lightning is indeed biom-dependent, this would mean that we will not see variability in the biomes themselves.
Personally, I would have loved if lighning would have been an independent feature at map creation.
Who sais, that a "lush biome world" can not orbit a blue dwarf as well as a red giant? It is really just a matter of distance!
For me, this would have created an even greater feeling of diversity (mathematically it definitely does...) than a biom-dependent light tinting.

(I am really not a fan of the "make everything optional"-philosophy. But in this particular case, an option for "biom-independent sun color" in the setup menu might be a nice addition. After all, it doesn't affect gameplay at all but is a mere color-change during rendering. In contrast to many other "simple" game options, this one should not involve much coding.)

 

[KrikkitTwo]

I definitely love the variation in lightning!

However, if the lightning is indeed biom-dependent, this would mean that we will not see variability in the biomes themselves.
Personally, I would have loved if lighning would have been an independent feature at map creation.
Who sais, that a "lush biome world" can not orbit a blue dwarf as well as a red giant? It is really just a matter of distance!
For me, this would have created an even greater feeling of diversity (mathematically it definitely does...) than a biom-dependent light tinting.

(I am really not a fan of the "make everything optional"-philosophy. But in this particular case, an option for "biom-independent sun color" in the setup menu might be a nice addition. After all, it doesn't affect gameplay at all but is a mere color-change during rendering. In contrast to many other "simple" game options, this one should not involve much coding.)

Well I think the idea is lighting depends more on the atmosphere than the star. (and the atmosphere is the biome)

 

[dashwinner]

i'm extremely optimistic about this game, and i'm rarely the one to point at flaws, but doesn't it seem to anybody else that this favor system is a way of covering the current diplo problems?

'I got it, this idea. We can put it in and we don't have to change any code. Very little and we just put it in and see if it works,'" Miller said.

 

[KrikkitTwo]

i'm extremely optimistic about this game, and i'm rarely the one to point at flaws, but doesn't it seem to anybody else that this favor system is a way of covering the current diplo problems?

'I got it, this idea. We can put it in and we don't have to change any code. Very little and we just put it in and see if it works,'" Miller said.

Do you mean Covering the current diplo problems or Fixing them?

Some of the diplo problems are due to the fact that the AI can't perform tactical combat on 1UPT so situations where declaring war Should be a good idea for the AI are actually terrible.

Also, it may fix some of the problems and not fix others... in which case it is still a good idea.