Last CivFanatics Preview: Filling in the Gaps!

[Melendwyr]

Also, I assume the Aztec Jaguar gets +25% to defense in a jungle. +25 would seem to be a bit too much.

 

[Civrules]

Right. It is +25%.

 

[Lord_all_Mighty]

Is everything else that the info says about the Jaguar Warrior accurate as well? I'm worrying about what Arathorn said earlier in this thread. It appears that the Aztecs aren't getting much of an advantage here.

 

[Louis XXIV]

The pre-realease info (soon will be changed to the Info Center) isn't all that correct with unit statistics.
Eventually I'll be updating it.

Sheesh, that's kinda confusing

So what's the advantage to the Arab uu anyway?

 

[Civrules]

Sheesh, that's kinda confusing

So what's the advantage to the Arab uu anyway?

What it says on the preview.

The Jaguar's info is correct. Remember that it still gets bonuses such as attack and defense. The Roman Praetorian doesn't get any.

 

[Dearmad]

Can UN resolutions be repealed!?!?

Any paratrooper abilities? I liked those.

 

[Tommy1234567890]

Great info

The Ceasefire sounds like it could be exploited to switch units quickly across the world unless I'm mistaken about the exact mechanism.

where does it say anyhting about a cease fire if you foind it could you paste it on this thread?

 

[Melendwyr]

Well, I'll just have to wait and see. If doubling the movement can make the Musketeer worthwhile, maybe there are subtleties I'm not seeing with the Fast Worker. I still don't see how it's worth it - but if it's the normal cost, as least it's getting something for nothing.

 

[Melendwyr]

The Jaguar's info is correct. Remember that it still gets bonuses such as attack and defense. The Roman Praetorian doesn't get any.

10% of 5 is .5, making the Jaguar (5.5) inferior to a Swordsman (6) on city attack. 25% of 5 is 1.25, making the Jaguar (6.25) just barely superior to a Swordsman (6) on jungle defense.

The only real advantage I can see is that the Jaguar doesn't require Iron at all. That's not an inconsiderable advantage, but if iron is available, I don't think it would be all that useful.

 

[Harrier]

What's the benefit of having that extra movement point, though? If it's useless, who cares if I have it for the whole game?

I believe you will find it more powerfull than you think. It can move further and start providing a terrain improvement on the same turn. So if it takes two points to enter a hill tile it still can start building an improvement that turn.

Over the course of a game that is equivalent to getting a lot of free workers.

We used a similar concept in DyP/R&R for workers built in the later era's.

As a terrain, mountains in Civ4 are not passable at all. But it still ignores other terrain movement points.

Can a worker move into a mountain and then build a road. So other units can then use the mountain pathways. (Like Haniball [Carthage vs Rome].

1. The new difficulty "Settler" has been added before Chieftain. Does this mean that Civ IV has an even more easy mode than Civ III had? Or does it mean that Chieftain is now tougher than it was in Civ III? (meaning that Civ IV's Settler is comparable with Civ III's Chieftain)
2. I noticed the error tooltip on one of the screenshots. A sound file could not be found. I hope this is not a bug or anything. I'm pretty curious about the wonderful music I've read (and heard a few samples) about.

1. I think a lot of players still play at Chieftain level. This gives those players a chance to drop down a level, so they can get familiar with the changes.

It is always a good idea to drop down a level you are comfortable with - in order to learn the changes in a new release of a game.

2. Do not know - but maybe he was trying to play one of his own sound tracks. I think you can do that with civ4.

BTW, interesting to see no one is mentioning anything regarding the no Civ limit rule, even on a Duel-sized map.

First - what is the Duel sized map? I guess it is a very small map for two players - intended for quick multi-player games.
Second - you can have all civs on this small map - similar to raging barbarians - but in this case actual AI players (not just an annoyance.)

 

[Harrier]

Well, I'll just have to wait and see. If doubling the movement can make the Musketeer worthwhile, maybe there are subtleties I'm not seeing with the Fast Worker. I still don't see how it's worth it - but if it's the normal cost, as least it's getting something for nothing.

My guess is that with two movement points it can either:

1. Move and attack on the same turn.
2. Attack and retreat instead of being killed.

Which is an advantage as far as I am concerned.


See my post above - about the fast worker.

 

[lost_civantares]

One thing that I thought was kind of neat (and never saw in any other article) was the multiple upgrade option. It makes a lot more historical sense. But one question I have is that will any experience bonuses remain with an upgrade?

 

[BattleOfTheBulg]

I think the loss of experience when upgrading to a better unit makes sense. Experience as a pikeman does not carry over well, though you may be skilled and adept with the pike, to the use of a say a musket or rifle. You can't have an automaticlly experienced unit with a firearm just because he won a few battles with a broad sword. IMO.

Really getting psyched for the new game now. I want to make a bumper sticker for my station wagon that says: MY OTHER CAR IS A PANZER

 

[Harrier]

One thing that I thought was kind of neat (and never saw in any other article) was the multiple upgrade option. It makes a lot more historical sense. But one question I have is that will any experience bonuses remain with an upgrade?

Yes - it has been mentioned elsewhere that promotions are kept when you upgrade units.

I think the loss of experience when upgrading to a better unit makes sense. Experience as a pikeman does not carry over well, though you may be skilled and adept with the pike, to the use of a say a musket or rifle. You can't have an automaticlly experienced unit with a firearm just because he won a few battles with a broad sword. IMO.

It does makes sense to keep the promotions - your existing troops have the battle experience, they just need to learn how to use the new equipment.

New recruits trained with the new equipment - but no battle experience will fare far worse. (Shell shock syndrome).

 

[drjones]

I have to say folks argueing playbalance for a game they have not played yet is milldly hilarious.

But yeah this is a great post, if only more game previews were this informative.
Thank you!
-drjones

 

[Lord_all_Mighty]

I have to say folks argueing playbalance for a game they have not played yet is milldly hilarious.

Alright, I have yet to play the game, but as an outside observer, if all that there is to the Jaguar Warrior has been presented, then I am considerably worried. Aside from a challenge, what is the point in playing the Aztecs? Their UU appears to be underpowered and their traits aren't all that appealing as well upon the surface.

I suppose I shall just have to wait and see.

 

[King Jason]

But are you saying the UU is the only point in playing a civ?

On that note; the Greeks are my favorite Civ, they're traits aren't my favored selection, and their UU isnt the greatest specially since it'll be outdated fairly quickly (it's a good UU though).

Yet, I still plan on always playing the greeks. Why? because I want to, I'd play them even if they had no traits and no UU and all the others did.

I'm sure the Jaguar warrior is viable or else it wouldn't be put in. But I don't think a civs UU is the only reason to play as said civ.

if all that there is to the Jaguar Warrior has been presented, then I am considerably worried. Aside from a challenge, what is the point in playing the Aztecs?

Oh and as a final edit: if you really want to play Aztecs and really feel at a disadvantage. Then simply disable UUs before you make the game. That way, you won't get your "crappy" unit, and the rest of the world won't get their good one.

 

[Lord_all_Mighty]

But are you saying the UU is the only point in playing a civ?

On that note; the Greeks are my favorite Civ, they're traits aren't my favored selection, and their UU isnt the greatest specially since it'll be outdated fairly quickly (it's a good UU though).

Yet, I still plan on always playing the greeks. Why? because I want to, I'd play them even if they had no traits and no UU and all the others did.

I'm sure the Jaguar warrior is viable or else it wouldn't be put in. But I don't think a civs UU is the only reason to play as said civ.

Yes, there are other reasons to play civs other than things like traits and UUs, but from a pure perspective of gameplay, the Aztecs don't appear to have much going for them.

Again, my opinion may change once I actually can play the game.

 

[Stefanskantine]

As a terrain, mountains in Civ4 are not passable at all. But it still ignores other terrain movement points.

Could someone confirm/explain if this is true? Are mountains completely impassable to ground units? If so this is big news I hadn't been aware of yet.

 

[King Jason]

Could someone confirm/explain if this is true? Are mountains completely impassable to ground units? If so this is big news I hadn't been aware of yet.

Yea, I'm definately gonna mod that out.