"Fall Patch" announced

[kamex]

a social policy to cover that would not be remiss. similar to whipping slaves in civ iv.

scorched earth however should completely be an option, if you are being invaded you can then have the option to destroy 'infrastructure which would benefit the enemy', which might possibly cause the enemy from failing to take your city, depriving them of the means of healing their army. it's always worked for russia, historically.

Yes, but Russia's main advantage is its climate. Which isn't represented in Civ at all (and never has been AFAIK. (I think its was in Rhyes and Fall in CIV IV))

 

[Socratatus]

It`s a pity climate doesn`t play a role in Civ games, except for land types (desert, arctic). Can`t see why a moving or even dynamic `climate` layer couldn`t be made, affecting things around about. Imagine fighting a warin storms that stop the use of aircraft or coming across heavy snows that slow movement one turn, or even parched sun drought to affect crops, etc?

 

[Naokaukodem]

What do you mean new rules what? All the scenario's still have the vanilla combat system (10 hitpoints ) they olso have the vanilla tech tree

Ah ok then I don't know. I was refering to things like not able anymore to save policies for example, I had by then a game going when I was saving policies, and then after patch I couldn't save them !

 

[SammyKhalifa]

It`s a pity climate doesn`t play a role in Civ games, except for land types (desert, arctic). Can`t see why a moving or even dynamic `climate` layer couldn`t be made, affecting things around about. Imagine fighting a warin storms that stop the use of aircraft or coming across heavy snows that slow movement one turn, or even parched sun drought to affect crops, etc?

Cool for a scenario, but that would even further deteriorate the suspension of disbelief between turns and the amount of time they're supposed to represent. Not many storms last like 5 years.

 

[Rooftrellen]

Cool for a scenario, but that would even further deteriorate the suspension of disbelief between turns and the amount of time they're supposed to represent. Not many storms last like 5 years.

I agree there for things like storms.

However, some things like droughts can last years or even decades, flooding can become a problem with years of heavy rain one after another, and some weather phenomena can certainly affect people or the land for years, even if it takes only a week, a day, or a few minutes.

 

[SammyKhalifa]

I agree there for things like storms.

However, some things like droughts can last years or even decades, flooding can become a problem with years of heavy rain one after another, and some weather phenomena can certainly affect people or the land for years, even if it takes only a week, a day, or a few minutes.

That's true and I agree to a point, but then we're getting back into Events, which a lot of people seemed to be pretty adamantly against for some reason (personally I kind of liked them as they added flavor when done right).

 

[Rooftrellen]

That's true and I agree to a point, but then we're getting back into Events, which a lot of people seemed to be pretty adamantly against for some reason (personally I kind of liked them as they added flavor when done right).

And I'll agree with you here.

I quite liked the events and thought they added a lot to the game. Not one single random event ever made me want to rip out my hair as much as seeing a civ found a pantheon on turn 1 or seeing "decisive victory" and sending my expensive, well promoted unit to attack an injured less advanced unit, only to see it not kill that unit and get killed by it next turn.

And I've seen both of those.

And I turned on the tsunami event in Civ4, and it still never made me that mad.

 

[Socratatus]

Cool for a scenario, but that would even further deteriorate the suspension of disbelief between turns and the amount of time they're supposed to represent. Not many storms last like 5 years.

A turn last one year? I should`ve paid attention to the time of turns.

But didn`t the Patch notes mention that the month would be shown for long games? this gave me the impression that turns were perhaps some months rather than a year.

I`ll agree a storm lasting a year wouldn`t work well.

p.s. wait, that can`t be right. You`re telling me one battle lasts a year?

 

[SammyKhalifa]

A turn last one year? I should`ve paid attention to the time of turns.

But didn`t the Patch notes mention that the month would be shown for long games? this gave me the impression that turns were perhaps some months rather than a year.

I`ll agree a storm lasting a year wouldn`t work well.

p.s. wait, that can`t be right. You`re telling me one battle lasts a year?

Nothing in Civ scales very well in terms of time. Think of how long it takes to build a stone wall or a library or train a warrior in the ancient era.

 

[elprofesor]

In ancient eras, battles actually last centuries!

If you think it thouroughly, Civilization doesn't make much sense, so you better turn off your brain somewhat. I believe there was a thread listing all the gameplay points that don't make any sense; it was quite long.

 

[woodshadows]

Yes, but Russia's main advantage is its climate. Which isn't represented in Civ at all (and never has been AFAIK. (I think its was in Rhyes and Fall in CIV IV))

that was just one example, possibly the most famous. lots of examples in which climate didn't play such a decisive role:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scorched_earth

 

[berni19]

Random events are great if the player dont have the feeling if they had to much role in his gameplay. So basically they must be more or less undetected but still a factor to be noted in your action moves. It is similar like the judge in soccer. He is always on the field but if you dont see him to much "in the play", means that he plays his role very good - just like with these random events. They shouldnt be "too much" factor as i see it.

 

[nokmirt]

I just got a new Win 7 laptop last month - no intention of 'upgrading'.

I only asked as I thought the plan was it would be out before Windows 8... it seems not!

Oh yes I know. I went and changed the subject. Sorry.

 

[Socratatus]

Nothing in Civ scales very well in terms of time. Think of how long it takes to build a stone wall or a library or train a warrior in the ancient era.

I just started a new game on marathon to test. The years actual jump by a decade... 10 years! So a single battle can last 10 years??

And I thought GDRs were bad.

 

[Sherlock]

I'm so bored I almost just bought Elemental Fallen Enchantress.

But then I thought, 'do I really want to buy a game with 10 year old graphics that hasn't been out long enough to know what the bugs are'? No.

So. Still waiting.

 

[vcutag]

I agree there for things like storms.

However, some things like droughts can last years or even decades, flooding can become a problem with years of heavy rain one after another, and some weather phenomena can certainly affect people or the land for years, even if it takes only a week, a day, or a few minutes.

At least bring back global warming from nuclear warfare. That one actually made sense.

 

[Rooftrellen]

At least bring back global warming from nuclear warfare. That one actually made sense.

Not really...the number of nukes detonated before and during the Cold War are nothing in comparison to the nukes you can drop in a game of Civ, and there was no change in the climate due to them, as far as I am aware.

I know that at the first test there was the idea it might...cause some...drastic global warming (by way of setting the atmosphere on fire), but as far as I know, no global warming OR cooling are attributed to nuclear bombs (and fewer and fewer scientists are accepting any human cause of climate change...and you might be surprised how few ever believed in it).

On the nuclear thing. Ever heard of the tsar bomb? The thing had it's power cut in half and, if buried before detonation, would have been one of the most significant seismic events of recorded history. It carried (in it's weakened form) more explosive power than EVERY bomb used in all of World War II, and the shockwave of the thing wouldn't let the fireball reach the ground and could be measured three times as it went around the world over and over.

http://www.damninteresting.com/the-most-powerful-bomb-ever-constructed/

No influence on the climate, but when you're talking about something a quarter as strong as Krakatoa's eruption, you're getting close. However, that bomb would have absolutely obliterated any city. The nukes in Civ are much much weaker....MUCH weaker, and generally more in line with the bombs dropped on Japan to the vast majority tested though the Cold War, which are totally insignificant to the global climate. No global warming or nuclear winter.

 

[kamex]

Not really...the number of nukes detonated before and during the Cold War are nothing in comparison to the nukes you can drop in a game of Civ, and there was no change in the climate due to them, as far as I am aware.

I know that at the first test there was the idea it might...cause some...drastic global warming (by way of setting the atmosphere on fire), but as far as I know, no global warming OR cooling are attributed to nuclear bombs (and fewer and fewer scientists are accepting any human cause of climate change...and you might be surprised how few ever believed in it).

On the nuclear thing. Ever heard of the tsar bomb? The thing had it's power cut in half and, if buried before detonation, would have been one of the most significant seismic events of recorded history. It carried (in it's weakened form) more explosive power than EVERY bomb used in all of World War II, and the shockwave of the thing wouldn't let the fireball reach the ground and could be measured three times as it went around the world over and over.

http://www.damninteresting.com/the-most-powerful-bomb-ever-constructed/

No influence on the climate, but when you're talking about something a quarter as strong as Krakatoa's eruption, you're getting close. However, that bomb would have absolutely obliterated any city. The nukes in Civ are much much weaker....MUCH weaker, and generally more in line with the bombs dropped on Japan to the vast majority tested though the Cold War, which are totally insignificant to the global climate. No global warming or nuclear winter.

Agreed. The thing I don't like is how you can 'scrub out' fallout. how does that work?

 

[Socratatus]

The nukes in Civ are much much weaker....MUCH weaker, and generally more in line with the bombs dropped on Japan to the vast majority tested though the Cold War, which are totally insignificant to the global climate. No global warming or nuclear winter.

Don`t agree.

The modern Nuclear bombs in Civ5 are weak because of a game mechanic, but they are meant to be the modern day nuclear bombs. I`m not talking about the WW2 ones dropped on Japan.

READ the details in CIV5 about the Nuclear bomb, it even says it`s a part of MAD and would be insane to use in real life. However in game, it`s quite safe to have a whole war with multiple nukes flying about and suffer little Collateral damge, ie, Radiation Fallout does nothing in the long term.

So they are based on the modern nuclear missiles, just the Devs made them weak as water for gameplay. The nukes in Civ5 should have a much longer fallout effects in the game, affecting climate conditions.

 

[Qpla]

Also, disappointed to see no multiplayer additions. I played Civ 4 almost exclusively in multiplayer, but the inconsistent AI makes it impossible here. If only they could improve the MP AI to single player's level, perhaps I could encourage friends to get it.