First Look Persia

How cool would it be if those musketman could now throw grenades like the Civ 4 grenadiers!?! I miss that unit

 

No one is saying the game has unrealistic aspects. But there are some easy ways that, within the game world, it can be more realistic than not. I see little reason for immortals to be unable to capture cities, and it's an annoying mechanical aspect of the game as well.

 

I see just as little reason cannons cannot capture cities.

 

It would be overpowered. And cannons did not walk into cities to capture them--historically that was the task of infantry, or perhaps cavalry (though being mounted in a city poses a disadvantage in melee combat).

 

Would be overpowered. Look at that. Now it's about gameplay at once. So why can't the "immortals can't capture cities" not be gameplay? After all, they already got the rather huge advantage that they take no damage while damaging the city.

 

O course gameplay > realism overall. It is, after all, a game, and not a historical simulation. But the immortals being unable to capture cities is just laughably stupid, especially given that ancient warfare in Persian times was all about foot soldiers (with cavalry to kill those that flee or rush in to surround an enemy, etc). Cannons capturing cities would be more realistic than having immortals religiously refrain from taking cities.

 

Could someone explain to me what the +2 Appeal bonus of Persia's UI is supposed to do? As far as I know appeal matters for seaside resorts, neighbourhoods and national parks - but if you build the UI on a tile, you can't buil any of three things mentioned there. So what is that appeal bonus good for?

I really don't understand this.

 

Doesn't it apply to neighboring tiles?

 

Can confirm, Persia an excellent early rush civ. Found Australia next door rather early, built 3 Immortals, 2 archers (upgraded from slingers) and a heavy chariot. Was slightly concerned about Aus' 100% production bonus, but with the extra movement and the extra strength of the Immortals I was able to overwhelm his cities quite quickly. And apparently, Persia only suffers half warmongering and weariness from surprise wars (I was in classical by then)

 

Well, that would make a lot of sense! But it just says "+2 Appeal", there's nothing about adjacent tiles.

 

I think that's how tile appeal improvements have always worked. Mines, rainforests and the like affect the tiles next to them, not the tile itself

 

Cut it out with your logic, THERES COMPLAIN' TO BE DONE!

 

You're right, it says "-1 Appeal" for mines. And I've just tested the Persia UI, it does indeed affect adjacent tiles.

Which begs the question why Firaxis is so bad at writing gameplay related Civilopedia content and tooltips. Maybe I should send them an application for that job.

 

I countered that logic. He has not replied to my post since. And the offensive implication that I'm complaining just for the sake of it is foolish. People do not complain because complaining is fun; they do it to point out something that ought be corrected. I am guessing that we are all fans of Civ here, so any criticism as to realism, historical or otherwise, is not simply invalidated because you don't care about it. There are others that do. And all the insults you heap in the world won't alter that.

As to the logic of the cannons--name one siege where an army of just cannons attacked a city's walls and the cannoneers then walked in to capture the city. Most nearly all sieges in ancient/medieval times relied on foot soldiers to storm the city, not siege weapons.

If you disagree about immortals capturing cities, that's one thing. But simply chirping in to insult others is not useful to anyone.

 

No. That's not how ancient/medieval sieges worked. If you storm a city, it's a hard fight, even if you outnumber them 10-1. It's always a last resort, far better is to just lay siege to the city and wait until they surrender because they got nothing to eat anymore and are dying to all kinds of diseases.

So yeah, maybe units shouldn't conquer cities at all - instead, you can now lay siege to a city from outside it's attack range, and slowly the city starves. If no one breaks the siege, eventually they surrender wheter their leader wants it or not.

Or do we now change back to "gameplay trumps realism"? You've been kinda flip-flopping that point of view.

 

so can someone who is already able to play the game name the exact bonus of the Apadana? Just the two envoys per wonder? Or some culture etc. as well? Also, what's the quote? Carsten Niebuhr? Arrian? Kefter? Or even something from the Bisotun inscriptions?

 

It's exactly as said. 2 envoys per wonder. The quote is from a Persian ruler describing how the Apadana was built, destroyed, and built again.

 

Anybody know if a Battering Ram will cause an Immortal to do more ranged damage to city walls?

 

You sure do like raising irrelevant side issues. If you want to attack critiques of historical realism in Civilization at large, be my guest--but this is hardly the thread for that. When I first criticized the immortal being unable to take cities, a later point made was that leaders living for thousands of years was also unrealistic, or that cannons being unable to take cities was unrealistic. This is hardly the point. The narrow, specific issue I pointed out was that immortals being unable to take cities (during *ancient* times in particular) was historically unrealistic. No one has been able to counter that except to raise examples of all the other unrealistic things going on in Civ. Which is hardly a great defense--at worst, it's an attempt to misdirect the discussion elsewhere to cover up an inability to actually address the point.

As far as your medieval siege point--sure, many sieges in medieval times were won via starving out the enemy. But the reason the besieged may not have sallied out to meet the attackers was because the attackers were not composed entirely of cannons (which could be captured), but rather also foot soldiers, archers, etc--other troops that would actually have killed those walking out. The way siege warfare works in Civ VI is the way it works at large.

Gameplay trumps realism, but that doesn't mean instances where things are unrealistic ought to get a free pass. It's not an all or nothing equation. There can be things criticized for gameplay reasons when they are historically accurate, and historically inaccurate things that can be criticized even if they make gameplay sense. A besieging army composed entirely of cannons is both unrealistic AND bad gameplay, so that side issue you raise (which had little to do with Persia or immortals in the first place) can be quashed thus.

I wonder, on a different note, how people like playing Cyrus in Civ VI--is it as exhilarating as the Immortal spam rush of Civ IV?

 

I wonder why we are complaining that immortals can't take city, where also plain archers can't.
After all, archers had as well small melee weapons in any time of history. They do defend melee attacks in civi lol.
But at the end, it's just for balance reasons. At the end, that immortal can or cannot take cities don't bother me as much as their real usefulness as a unit in game.