From what I gather, and it doesn't flat out say, you have more than one turn of anarchy and you LOSE your previous investment. So jumping around to me seems extremely counterproductive. You want to pick one and stay there I think.
-
We created a new subforum for the Civ7 reviews, please check them here!
Just got my CIV V Strategy Guide!
- Thread starter ltarmstrong3
- Start date
From what I gather, and it doesn't flat out say, you have more than one turn of anarchy and you LOSE your previous investment. So jumping around to me seems extremely counterproductive. You want to pick one and stay there I think.
Feyd Rautha
Prince
It's different for me. In my post above it says "short period of anarchy" and that you are "wasting" (not "losing") the advances in the other fields.
Diplomat32
Chieftain
- Joined
- Aug 10, 2010
- Messages
- 55
I don't know if this has been mentioned before but according to the strat guide the stonehenge wonder gives you free monument in every city on the lower difficulty level but gives you +8 culture in your wonder city on higher difficulty levels. So, the stonehenge gives a different bonus depending on the difficulty level. I had never heard before that wonders would different bonuses based on the difficulty level.
Ahriman
Tyrant
Changing the names isn't really the issue; the issue is that the core promotions (that are required at level 1, 2, or 3 for most other promotions) are terrain specializations.
Which is bizarre.
I would much prefer that the pre-reqs for various specializations (ranged defense, anti-cavalry, etc.) were generic combat promotions like Civ4 than forcing me to take terrain specializations.
Schuesseled
Deity
- Joined
- Mar 31, 2008
- Messages
- 2,081
Imagine if every civ had united front, investing in city states would become so expensive it would hardly be worth it.
Zhahz
PC Gamer
I thought this has been covered? Maybe not definitively.
I think you lose anything you've invested in the first branch and get some anarchy (anarchy may not be confirmed).
Considering how "expensive" SPs are, I think switching is a bad idea to the degree of switching being a moot point. You should really plan ahead before you get to later SP trees to avoid it, IMO. You most likely won't hop around, maybe just one hop for a drastic situation rarely. Civic swapping is gone (and I really like the SP system so much more on paper and can't wait to use it).
The SP system is very flexible and allows adapting to situations but trees you'd wanna switch between come later enough that you should be able to have a basic plan by then, I'd think.
Schuesseled
Deity
- Joined
- Mar 31, 2008
- Messages
- 2,081
All that happens as far as i know is that you lose access to the social policies in one branch whilst you have access to the other branch. And you can switch back presumamly for another period of anarchy.
heh, so we don't know for sure what do we lose with the switch
I hope we lose the whole branch... and you have to build it up again if you get back...
ltarmstrong3
Chieftain
Be sure to look at the first posting on the first page of this thread, there much of the Manual details are coalated by category links as split off by the moderator, thanks and enjoy
Louis XXIV
Le Roi Soleil
Actually, factual reports of information is not copyrightable. Creative ideas are and a creative organization is, but the actual info is not. For example, it would be OK to report what the Pyramids do in the game. It would technically be a copyright violation to repost their strategy suggestions on how to get the best use out of the Pyramids. Also, if they organized the info in some unique way, you couldn't organize it the same way (although this isn't likely to come up, since a list of wonders and what they do isn't a unique way).
Reading ahead: durindana explained it too. Oh well, so much for using my random legal knowledge to educate others. civzombie even cited the Feist case that I was about to mention. Damn slowness!
Oh, there are still infos missing, e.g. buildings, wonders, terrain, etc.
In the starting post is a list of what has been extracted into different threads, would be nice if you could make some additions, where they are needed.
I kind of like it.
They aren't specific terrains, so it's not that you get a strength bonus when only in grasslands, you get that bonus when not in a forest/jungle or on a hill. Or the opposite, but again the specific terrain doesn't matter.
The reason I like it is that it influences your strategy much more than simply picking one that gives you a flat bonus to strength. Although you can achieve that by taking both sets effectively making the more general bonus strength cost twice as much as a more specialized approach. This is good because otherwise the general strength bonus would always be the better choice.
I also like it because they did away with Shock's bonus agains melee which was worthless once gunpowder came around. It's likely that because of this change the lack of a generic strength bonus will work better since you no longer need to take that to prevent obsolete bonuses later in the game.
Schuesseled
Deity
- Joined
- Mar 31, 2008
- Messages
- 2,081
I think terrain specializations is a little more interesting than just a basic strength upgrade, plus it offers the possibility of having situations where your super strength unit is just a regular one.
And as the guy pointed out above, not having unit specfic upgrades (for the majority of units) means that they can't go obselete.
And as the guy pointed out above, not having unit specfic upgrades (for the majority of units) means that they can't go obselete.
Ahriman
Tyrant
Which is the problem.
In which circumstances is having experienced, veteran troops no better than having green recruits?
I don't mind having terrain specializations, I do mind not having any "core" promotions that are always useful, and the fact that all the other interesting specializations are tied into the specialization promotion tree.
I have no problem with shock becoming obsolete, it give you a tradeoff decision to make. Formation will become obsolete now, with no cavalry in the modern era, so its not like this issue is gone.
Feyd Rautha
Prince
really? Can someone confirm this?
I'm not seeing that. I can see where the confusion comes based on the flavor description of the wonder, but it says (in regards to culture rush civs wanting Stonehenge), "Such nations like getting Stonehenge if they can, but being able to build their own monuments quickly and get off the ground is just as important." The wording is odd, but the next sentence is "It's the people who are going to rush for early war that needs Stonehenge even more. These folks don't have much time for Monuments. They're too busy getting military units ready for war and rushing their barracks."
Translation: Stonehenge becomes a "super monument" for those who are too occupied in other areas to produce one in each city...NOT...Stonehenge puts a monument in each city.
He could be looking elsewhere on this, but everything I see says it adds 8 culture and that's it. Furthermore, on higher difficulty levels, 8 culture is a much bigger boost than a monument in each city because you're far less likely to get four cities up quickly enough nor would you want to based on restrictions I've seen.
jagdtigerciv
Prince
- Joined
- Sep 27, 2007
- Messages
- 468
Why did this exciting thread spiral into a copyright and plagiarism discussion? 
Schuesseled
Deity
- Joined
- Mar 31, 2008
- Messages
- 2,081
Fair enough, but if you wish you can still have universally useful units, by aquiring both drill and shock (or other unit type equivalents), It's just this way those who want to specialise in one particular terrain can. (although you will lose out on early aquistion of the more powerful abilities on the other hand.)
It's not a problem.
The generic Combat I - V promos are pretty boring and require little thought in chosing them over anything else. With the new setup you have to make a choice, you can go for both Shock and Drill which will give you the same net effect as the old Combat promotions but that will make it more difficult to get to more advanced promotion. So, you have to make a choice between focusing on one specific advantage in order to gain access to advanced promotions or diversifying at the cost of slower advancement.
You have the tradeoff decision that you have no problem with, the difference being that it won't obsolete. Since Drill includes hills and isn't limited to forests and jungles it will still be useful even if you start in the desert or if everybody chops every forest/jungle on the map. It just won't be useful if you decide to have that unit fortify on a flatland tile.
Also, remember that -33% defensive penalty on open land? Shock gives you a way to mitigate that for yourself or further exploit it against your opponent. Since units in rough terrain already have a defensive bonus you can increase that for your own defending units or take it with the intention of using your units to attack defenders in rough terrain. Either way it's a much more interesting decision than picking Combat II for a generic bonus over Shock for a bonus against melee units, especially if the maps are even remotely realistic with regions where hills are more prominent and regions that are mostly flatlands.
In the end you'll probably end up with a mix of the two, some units with Drill II, others with Shock II. That is much more desireable than most units with Combat II and a few oddballs with something else. Combined with 1UPT and you have another facet to your units that needs to be considered.
Generally speaking, Shock will be the promotion for your offensive units since you'll want to attack into flat land terrain as often as possible but now a unit with an offensive focus will be at a disadvantage if you try to turtle up on some hills awaiting reinforcements. A unit with Shock II with be at a disadvantage defending on a hill against a unit with Drill II, much better than the simpler case with both units having Combat II in which case defending rough terrain is always in the defenders advantage.
Similar threads
