GamerNode on Civ5 after Pax East

[vidion]

Maybe you still have to pay maintenance for units you settle into a city. They won't die until that city is captured. And you can build walls and castles to boost those hit points. Just a new type of specialist.

Medic III-heals every unit within a radius of 3 tiles and faster.

 

[The_J]

What are you talking about ?
Why should moving a unit into a city result in absorbance of the unit?
I guess, you'll just have defeat first the unit, and then the city. Easiest way, isn't it?

 

[Chalks]

What are you talking about ?
Why should moving a unit into a city result in absorbance of the unit?
I guess, you'll just have defeat first the unit, and then the city. Easiest way, isn't it?

If you would be so kind as to RTFA, you would encounter the following:

Gone is the old way of stacking units into cities that would fight off invading forces. Instead, cities will now have health points that must be completely depleted before being taken over. Players will still be able to put units into the cities, but this will now absorb the units into the city and boost its hit points instead of allow the unit to battle invaders.

 

[The_J]

Opened the thread again to edit, i see i'm to late .
Have read it now, sorry.

Okay, then why does anybody doubt, that it will just be one unit, which can be absorbed?

 

[vidion]

Players will still be able to put units into the cities, but this will now absorb the units into the city and boost its hit points instead of allow the unit to battle invaders.

It seems like the unit stationed in the city can't fight off invaders. It only contributes hit points to the city. You can still put only one unit in a city. "units into the cities" and not "units into the city"

 

[Chalks]

Opened the thread again to edit, i see i'm to late .
Have read it now, sorry.

Okay, then why does anybody doubt, that it will just be one unit, which can be absorbed?

It's not so much doubt but rather distaste for the idea of grinding up soldiers and building walls out of the remains.

It's kinda difficult to justify as an actual analogue of a real world tactic. Perhaps some sort of concept of turning the unit into a militia living in the city and defending it... as I said before, I really want to know more about it to find out what the justification for the system is.

 

[Ahriman]

You can still put only one unit in a city. "units into the cities" and not "units into the city"

You cannot definitively conclude this from the quote provided. If you could absorb multiple units into one city, but still wanted to talk about multiple cities, then "unities into the cities" would also be gramatically correct. They could be pluralizing city just because a player has multiple cities at a time, not because multiple cities are needed in order to absorb multiple units.

Also, trying to get data from finely parsing grammar of video game zine writers is pretty questionable at best.

 

[Thyrwyn]

trying to get data from finely parsing anything but the actual code is questionable at best. Aint language grand?

 

[KrikkitTwo]

Well It depends if
1. The unit is absorbed ie it is destroyed and the city hp go up
OR
2. The unit is there... while it is in the city, it does no defensive combat instead it gives a buff to the 'city's hp stats' While it is there.


So In any case, you must only fight and defeat the "City" to win.

The qustion is whether units Merge into the city OR give the city an 'aura buff' like a medic does.

(As long as the Archer is present the city gets +10 hp)


I think it will probably be the latter, ie a unit (if present) gives a buff to the city while it is present.

 

[Thormodr]

Grinding up units into city defenses. *Ewwww*

 

[Ahriman]

Was that supposed to be a pic of an MtG "Living Wall" card?

["Fee, fie, fo, fum, .... I'll grind their bones to make my...walls?"]

 

[Thormodr]

Was that supposed to be a pic of an MtG "Living Wall" card?

["Fee, fie, fo, fum, .... I'll grind their bones to make my...walls?"]

Oops, it was supposed to be Wall of Bone and Living Wall. MTG is a Fun game anyway.

Maybe it will look like the Catacombs of Paris.

 

[seasnake]

tying the size of the garrison to the population would be a good incentive to avoid whipping your people too much. You'd have to really think about going a number of turns without proper defense at a time when you just added a very tempting wonder.

 

[Aussie_Lurker]

Although its rampant speculation on my part, I concur with an earlier poster when I say it'll be like this: You can have 1 unit defending your city in the normal fashion. However, if your city survives an attack-but loses hit-points-then you can "disband" a unit in the city to replenish those hit-points (probably based on the total strength of said unit to avoid it being exploited). Once absorbed, I don't believe they'll ever be available to you again as a regular unit.
To my mind, it would be like taking the troops & using them to reinforce/replenish the garrison/national guard-depending on the era you're looking at.

As to Medic Units, I reckon they'll still be in the game, but will probably work on adjacent units. This would make taking out a Medic unit a very important part of military strategy. Alternatively, it might be that only units with the Medic promotion can actually heal on the battlefield.

Aussie.

 

[PieceOfMind]

I see the "grind up your units into wall" idea took off for a bit, by a few posters.
I think it's being over dramatised a bit.

In an abstract sense, why must one consider the hitpoints of a city to be its walls and buildings? Why can't you imagine its ability to defend itself be more like the men (and women) capable of defending it? The city can do something to defend itself even without a dedicated military unit because even some guys with pitchforks can do some damage.
Indeed, to capture a city you do not necessarily need to reduce its walls to dust - you just have to stop those people defending it from defending it, probably in most cases by killing them.

The point of my above posts is that I find it highly unlikely we're going to see any mechanics that result in anything describable as "cities of doom". Cities might become difficult to capture, but I don't think we'll have a case of moving tens or hundreds of units into a city being anywhere near some sort of powerful strategy compared with what else could be done with them.

It's all speculation of course, but I trust the comments "moving combat out of cities". Correct me if I'm wrong but I think it was Shafer himself who made that comment.