Fun Civilization Speculation Time!

[Eagle Pursuit]

THe Elephants would probably be a good unit to garrison your cities with. The extra strength would help the cities' defenses a lot. I can't remember if it was ever determined if a city's defenses took on the bonuses and penalties of the units garrisoned within, but if so, you'd force your enemy to send weak pikemen against your walls and get crushed.

 

[Twahn]

I fundamentally disagree with you here.

Iron creates Swordsmen as well as other buildings, presumably the Russian Krepost will require Iron. More Iron will always equal more swordsmen. More horses will always equal more horsemen. Seeing as these are the strongest units during the Classical Era, more of these will always be better.

The only way your argument makes sense is in a trade vacuum where resources are not actually used for anything.

Pretty sure it was you that made the rules regarding discussion on resources and the assumption that all are of equal value...

For the sake of arguement, let's just assume that 1 Banana is Equal value to one Iron. If this disintigrates into a ridiculous conversation about how Bananas around equal to Iron, then I will simply call you a stupid person.

Yep, that's you right there. Kind of doing a 180 on your own rule there mate.

Unfortunately a lot of your post is also filled debating an argument that I never put forward, which is that Russia's UA, regardless of which way the game handles it, is unbalanced. I never said this, and don't believe it either.

All I ever postulated was that we didn't actually know whether the Russian ability would literally give them double resources or just allow them to get double value from the resources they have. That's all.

It's actually you that are arguing about Russian power when you say that if their UA is treated as I hypothesised that it might be, that this would make it not special (may as well continue the "bolding of special" tradition that you've started ), or underpowered.
They actually remain special in either situation. They get double iron and horses. In your example where both they and Greece have a 2 iron resource and the Russians trade one away, they either have +1 or else +2 traded resources that the Greeks don't while still retaining the same amount of iron. I'm not sure how either scenario makes them unspecial in your eyes?

We'll just agree to disagree though I think. I've got nothing new to add.

I'll remain thinking that we don't actually know how it will work, and it could easily be either way.
And you can remain vehemently arguing that it must work only how you want it to because "Russia is not overpowered, dammit!"

Either way, stealth_nsk's original point remains valid. Russia also has an advantage in trade, yes.

 

[Polobo]

I'll remain thinking that we don't actually know how it will work, and it could easily be either way.
And you can remain vehemently arguing that it must work only how you want it to because "Russia is not overpowered, dammit!"

Cop-Out

While it "could" be either way it can only "actually" be one of the two. We are speculating, with some degree of educated guessing, which of the two ways it is likely to be. Its not necessarily how we personally would implement such a system but inferring how Firaxis implemeted given what we already know.

Whatever reasons you feel that the bonus should not apply to tradable resources the supposed fact is that not allowing them to take advantage of their UA in trade would require special rules to make work.

As for the use of special; you obviously recognize that there are degrees of special and that being special can and often does require a context (i.e., I am better "at something"). With respect to trading the discussion is whether they are better "at trading" that others (or, at least, whether, they can make better use since they have more resources available to trade). If you don't extend the double resource to "tradable goods" then they are not special with respect to trading. That said, I see the point that since Russia has more good inventory to begin with that even with "normalized trading" they come out ahead; they still trade the same percentage of their inventory (not special) but their total possible inventory relative to their controlled tiles never changes (still special). So you have something in-between; but that requires new, and mostly useless, rules to make work.

 

[Szpilman]

You can also be special as in having special needs.

 

[Seven05]

So cop outs and special people aside...

I look forward to trying out many games with many different empires. I'll probably play the first game as Greece like I always do and since I'm normally pretty aggressive I'm sure it will involve a lot of war.

I'm also interested in America for the first time in any Civ game. Their ability looks interesting and I'm curious to see its effect on the game.

England is another civ I'm looking forward to, I've always aimed for naval supremacy in Civ games and they look like they have a nice little advantage for it.

I can't say I've formulated any strategies because there is so much I don't know about Civ 5. I think it's safe for me to assume I won't be aiming for cultural or space race vistories anytime soon, especially with the change to hexes and 1upt. Although if the social policy mechanic turns out to be as interesting as it looks... you never know.

 

[sensual benny]

Well because SPs cost more for a number of cities, I think most civs will essentially stop getting new social policies when they expand.. until those cities are built up.

France will be able to avoid that, since their new cities also produce culture, so they will do very well with the Liberty Branch... which favors rapid expansion.

When I play France though (and I'm planning on playing them first) I definitely won't be taking Liberty, since it's incompatible with Autocracy, which rolls around at about the same time as the Foreign Legion and comes with some great offensive bonuses.

 

[JonoLith]

I can't say I've formulated any strategies because there is so much I don't know about Civ 5. I think it's safe for me to assume I won't be aiming for cultural or space race vistories anytime soon, especially with the change to hexes and 1upt. Although if the social policy mechanic turns out to be as interesting as it looks... you never know.

I'm totally with you here. The combat seems so well fleshed out that it'll be very difficult for me to try and go for another victory condition, unless the combat option becomes untenable.

It will probably straight up take a cold war situation for me to want to win with a space ship.

 

[Venereus]

I'm totally with you here. The combat seems so well fleshed out that it'll be very difficult for me to try and go for another victory condition, unless the combat option becomes untenable.

It will probably straight up take a cold war situation for me to want to win with a space ship.

Combat is unavoidable, regardless of the victory condition you're persuing.

 

[JonoLith]

Combat is unavoidable, regardless of the victory condition you're persuing.

Here's hoping it's actually good!

 

[_hero_]

One thing to remember regarding Ancien Regime – that 2 culture/turn/city will get you your first few SPs extremely quickly, but it loses its steam well before… steam. It looks like SPs end up costing multiple thousands of culture points later in the game, and while we don't know exactly how that curve works (apparently it depends on # policies bought and # cities owned), we can assume that it's a little less linear than 15-30-45-60-2000, which would make AR less useful for culture wins than for getting your first few SPs in place very quickly.

The point isn't so much to get you a great increase in total SPs, but rather that you will gain many additional turns of each your first, second, and perhaps third and fourth SPs over any other civs (except maybe Aztecs). With proper planning, that extra boost can be used to put yourself ahead of another civ. Those extra turns of tradition with +1 food might mean getting a population ahead in the early game. Those extra turns of Honor might get you 3-4 barbarian camps you otherwise wouldn't have killed. That's a nice good and XP boost. Those extra turns of Piety might get you a golden age sooner. Early Liberty might get you a few extra cities and if ICS is still viable this can really be huge.

The social policies are meant to be a major amplifier to your strategy it seems. Getting those extra turns of benefit can swing things in your favor, especially on hard difficulties or multiplayer games when there's little margin for error.

Some of these bonuses can be used to help you increase your long term culture, it's not so much the +2 per city adding up to get you more SPs as it is the SPs themselves giving you a head-start over other civs. That's what I meant when I said France's bonus can make them powerful for all strategies with proper use of the SPs. To suggest that they are far better at conquest than anything else as the OP did is a bit close-minded IMO. Obviously their UUs help, though I don't know that infantry and musketeers are enough of a boost to actually take cities. I'd imagine they are better at taking out enemy troops than actually taking their cities.

 

[JonoLith]

Some of these bonuses can be used to help you increase your long term culture, it's not so much the +2 per city adding up to get you more SPs as it is the SPs themselves giving you a head-start over other civs. That's what I meant when I said France's bonus can make them powerful for all strategies with proper use of the SPs. To suggest that they are far better at conquest than anything else as the OP did is a bit close-minded IMO. Obviously their UUs help, though I don't know that infantry and musketeers are enough of a boost to actually take cities. I'd imagine they are better at taking out enemy troops than actually taking their cities.

This is actually a really excellent point. While it is certainly true that the timing of the UUs cannot be ignored, it's not blatantly apparent that they should be used for taking cities outright. Combine this with an early SP lead and it can be said that the French could very easily go for any kind of victory.

However, I can't seem to shake the idea that the French should always, at the very least, be aggressive once Steam Power rolls around. It's when their Special Ability stops working, and they should have both of their UUs on the board. Everything seems to come to a head for them in that moment, and I think that if someone doesn't capitalize they're really allowing crucial piece of the French's puzzle pass them by.

I suppose then you could say that there's no reason then that the French need to use that moment to attempt to Dominate the world, but border expansion, and securing resources could defiantly be key. While, in the end, they might win culturally, I think that they'll always be an aggressor in the Industrial Era.

 

[JonoLith]

I'm going to start updating the original post with edits, if only to throw fire on the debate!

Mwah ha ha!

 

[_hero_]

This is actually a really excellent point. While it is certainly true that the timing of the UUs cannot be ignored, it's not blatantly apparent that they should be used for taking cities outright. Combine this with an early SP lead and it can be said that the French could very easily go for any kind of victory.

However, I can't seem to shake the idea that the French should always, at the very least, be aggressive once Steam Power rolls around. It's when their Special Ability stops working, and they should have both of their UUs on the board. Everything seems to come to a head for them in that moment, and I think that if someone doesn't capitalize they're really allowing crucial piece of the French's puzzle pass them by.

I suppose then you could say that there's no reason then that the French need to use that moment to attempt to Dominate the world, but border expansion, and securing resources could defiantly be key. While, in the end, they might win culturally, I think that they'll always be an aggressor in the Industrial Era.

Oh I agree it would be downright foolish to not use their UU to expand, and on a small map with few civs that pretty much is a conquest victory, but on a large map with many civs, with the new happiness system in play, it simply might not be enough to make France a sure fire conquest civ.

 

[sensual benny]

I'm sure Napoleon is interested in conquest, and I'm looking forward to seeing how well he does as an AI.

I'm really looking forward to seeing how all of them play, in fact. What I've heard of the new AI personalities has me really excited -- Montezuma is said to be really theatrical, trying to maneuver all other civs around him into position in his master plan, while Askia believes in the divine justice of his conquests, and considers anyone who defeats him to be an agent of the devil, who must be purged.

 

[JonoLith]

I'm sure Napoleon is interested in conquest, and I'm looking forward to seeing how well he does as an AI.

I'm really looking forward to seeing how all of them play, in fact. What I've heard of the new AI personalities has me really excited -- Montezuma is said to be really theatrical, trying to maneuver all other civs around him into position in his master plan, while Askia believes in the divine justice of his conquests, and considers anyone who defeats him to be an agent of the devil, who must be purged.

That's actually something that I'd love LOVE more information on, as it's going to really decide what kind of strategies get employed.

 

[JonoLith]

Some recent edits what with the new info regarding units and buildings of the unique variety.