Offhand, I'd say that it would not have any effect on barbarians as they currently have a different unit producing mechanic than regular Civs, and I don't see that changing for GS.
[GS] Gathering Storm General Discussion Thread
- Thread starter bite
- Start date
acluewithout
Deity
- Joined
- Dec 1, 2017
- Messages
- 3,470
I read in the features thread that from now on you need animal husbandry to reveal horse tiles on the map. Im wondering how would that affect the horseman from barbie camps if within 5 hexes away from a horse tile. And since military units need specific amounts of strategic resources(to build and for some to maintain ) does that mean that barbarian camps have a limited output now ?(probably not but my mind wonders)
That would be a terrible design decision.
Horses are a very special case in terms of strategic resources - they’re sort of “strategic resource light”, in that you can see them from turn one, and they apply to the same unit line for two different eras (Light Cav ie horsemen / classical and cavalry / industrial) and that unit line doesn’t even need a resource for its third upgrade. Making horses the same as say iron would be lame.
Leyrann
Deity
Some people argue (and I do think they may have a point) that horses shouldn't be strategic resources at all because you can breed them (which, surprise, you can't do with iron, niter*, coal, etc).
*Industrial processes should be able to make it though, from a certain point on. Then again, Civ has never really cared for industrial processes.
Some civ is going to get a unit governor, people have suggested Sweden, but I think Ottomans would be a great choice.
They had the system where a bey(governor/lord) controlled far-flung areas of the empire, called beyliks, so Ottomans could have UA called Beylik where they could get an extra governor, and maybe other governor bonuses too.
They had the system where a bey(governor/lord) controlled far-flung areas of the empire, called beyliks, so Ottomans could have UA called Beylik where they could get an extra governor, and maybe other governor bonuses too.
- Joined
- Jun 20, 2004
- Messages
- 4,535
That would fit, i would also say Persia is a good choice if it is going to a revamped Civ
Horses were hidden until revealed by techs in previous Civilization iterations, so there's a precedent for it. I think I'd prefer that they not be hidden, but I don't feel very strongly about it.
I guess if I wanted to defend it I could say that the Horses resource represents horses that were bred to be strong enough to be ridden into combat, which don't actually exist in nature (which would be why chariots, driven by smaller wild-ish horses don't require Horse resources). So you'd need Animal Husbandry for such herds to even exist.
I guess if I wanted to defend it I could say that the Horses resource represents horses that were bred to be strong enough to be ridden into combat, which don't actually exist in nature (which would be why chariots, driven by smaller wild-ish horses don't require Horse resources). So you'd need Animal Husbandry for such herds to even exist.
This is why later infantry units don't require Niter even though they still use gunpowder, and why battleships don't require Iron even though they're made of steel. If a chemical or industrial process makes a rare resource into a commodity, then it ceases to be represented as a limited strategic resource.
Almost all empires worked that way though. It‘s not unique to the Ottomans.
Disgustipated
Deity
I was thinking the drone unit in the game will get reworked. I would like to see it get some offensive capabilities. As we were discussing in the units thread, things like carriers are becoming obsolete. I believe in the future, much combat will involve robots and drones. Human labor cost is significant. Especially when you see SGLI pays quite a bit of money upon death of a soldier. Soldiers dying represents a significant loss of capital from the training, medical, and insurance costs.
While I agree that much future combat will increasingly involve robots and drones, carriers are most definitely not becoming obsolete. Small drones are fine if you want to plink at terrorists with Hellfire missiles, but if you want to carry a significant payload you need much heavier aircraft (manned or not) and they need to be based within range of the target. If you want to project airpower, even with UAV's, carriers are still the best way to do this. Carriers were mostly a US-only game for a long time, but right now there's a carrier building boom going on, with all of the major international players getting involved. I think over the next 50 years represented by the new future era, carriers will become more important rather than less so.
Disgustipated
Deity
Carriers are so expensive would we ever use them in a war against China? They can easily destroy them (assuming they find it). They are still quite useful in small regional wars, however. Which is why China is pursuing them. They have regional interests as well, especially as they push their influence into Africa and other places.
I don't agree that they can be so easily destroyed, but as you suggest, the most likely wars in the next 50 years will not be direct confrontations with other superpowers. Drones will also be of limited use against other equally sophisticated opponents, but that does not make them useless or obsolete.
acluewithout
Deity
- Joined
- Dec 1, 2017
- Messages
- 3,470
Well, I’m not really going to argue the logic of it all. But I think the current approach adds some variety to the whole strategic resource thing, and I’d hate to lose that.
I think infantry and mechanised infantry should require oil.
I don’t have a clear rationale why in my head, but partly I think it would be more fun and strategically challenging (although the AI might need a leg up).
Disgustipated
Deity
Mech infantry maybe, but not regular infantry. Ww2 troops did much of the marching on foot, not lazy like modern day troops. They also used trains when available.
As for the horse debate, moving to animal husbandry isn't too big a deal. Is there anyone here who doesn't often research animal husbandry as their first tech? Sometimes I research mining if my initial builder has more mines/quarries to improve. If I notice a lack of resources in my capital, I'm just going to assume there may be horses there. It will make the initial decision of whether to settle in place or not more difficult, however.
They also used trains when available. As for the horse debate, moving to animal husbandry isn't too big a deal. Is there anyone here who doesn't often research animal husbandry as their first tech? Sometimes I research mining if my initial builder has more mines/quarries to improve. If I notice a lack of resources in my capital, I'm just going to assume there may be horses there. It will make the initial decision of whether to settle in place or not more difficult, however.
ChocolateShake
Prince
- Joined
- Dec 28, 2016
- Messages
- 525
About the unique governor - does this imply that Rise and Fall might be required for Gathering Storm, or is it possible they'll integrate a basic governor system for that civ? Is there are precedent for an expansion pack requiring another? Was just thinking about this.
I research it as first tech if I have horses in my capitalMech infantry maybe, but not regular infantry. Ww2 troops did much of the marching on foot, not lazy like modern day troops.
As for the horse debate, moving to animal husbandry isn't too big a deal. Is there anyone here who doesn't often research animal husbandry as their first tech? Sometimes I research mining if my initial builder has more mines/quarries to improve. If I notice a lack of resources in my capital, I'm just going to assume there may be horses there. It will make the initial decision of whether to settle in place or not more difficult, however.
It says "This content requires the base game Sid Meier's Civilization VI on Steam in order to play" on the Steam store page, so it shouldn't require R&F. IIRC if you bought only BNW in case of Civ V, you got all the mechanics introduced in G&K, but missed the civs.
Now to read 58 pages + screenshot thread.
TheMarshmallowBear
Benelovent Chieftain of the Ursu Kingdom
It is tradition for the Expansion Packs to contain all of the previous expansion pack apart from Scenarios, Leaders and Civilizations. So you'll be getting all the new Natural Wonders (I think, I can't remember how Civ 5 handled that), City States*, and few others. So you won't need RF for GS, GS will come with most of RF.
Leathaface
Emperor
Terrific idea. I'm looking at these streamers on twitch building 10 knights, pairing 1 Knight with a battering ram, then conquering with ease on turn 85.
How boring.
Connor_CivFan
Chieftain
I read in the features thread that from now on you need animal husbandry to reveal horse tiles on the map. Im wondering how would that affect the horseman from barbie camps if within 5 hexes away from a horse tile. And since military units need specific amounts of strategic resources(to build and for some to maintain ) does that mean that barbarian camps have a limited output now ?(probably not but my mind wonders
Dear god no.
Similar threads
