More info from an E3 demo

[Aussie_Lurker]

For the record, I think its probably dangerous to get hung-up on the Unique Buildings being variants of pre-existing buildings. This is how it was done in Civ4, but my understanding is that they want unique buildings & units to be *truly* unique.

Just a thought.

Aussie.

 

[Aramel]

While the first point is subjective (I definitely disagree there), your other two points are demonstrably wrong.




http://forums.civfanatics.com/showpost.php?p=8201224&postcount=104

Check out turns 103 through t117




http://www.dos486.com/civ4/index/bank.shtml




http://realmsbeyond.net/forums/showpost.php?p=77912&postcount=2282

Thank you, come again!

Forgive me for thinking I could skip a detailed analysis and speak generally and in hyperbole without attracting the ire of every civ4 apologist on the forum. But alas, the gauntlet is thrown, isn't it.

First of all, if these issues were really not a problem in Civ the correct response would not be to cite examples of specific games where this feature worked well. I can't say that jaguars are actually a great uu because there was this one game I played on chieftain difficulty on an Amazonia map where they totally dominated. Any such evidence would have to be based on broad and typical examples about Civ, not one random game where all the cards fell just right.

But even if we were to take your examples as typical of Civ IV as a whole, I don't see how they would make my (three) points "demonstrably wrong". For the banks, I admit I exaggerated: banks are not actually "pointless". However, as the article demonstrates, the only time you ever want to build them is if you can increase your research by doing so. And the fact that the slider is usually set at a lot more science than culture makes gold buildings much less effective for the cost than a similarly priced science building. I don't know about you, but I like to play games where I build banks so I can get more gold, not wring out some marginally beneficial research advantage.

As for culture, you will note from that link you provided that the players in question had 2 other great artist units they were saving to burn on golden ages. That in itself is a sign that there is something fundamentally wrong with the culture system when the best use for great artists is something that does not involve culture at all. But honestly, my main problem with the system is that culture only matters at borders; in interior cities all buildings that increase culture could just as well do nothing. It makes having a well-cultured capital deeply unrewarding. The fact that it's effective to rush culture in a bunch of newly conquered cities is a demonstration of that problem, not a rebuttal of it.

Finally, the battle results you linked to were so mind-numbingly boring I almost fell asleep at my computer. Perhaps there are people out there who have fun calculating win percentages in order to determine in what order their units should engage in to-the-death duels, but I am not one of them.

Honestly though, my point was never to get into some lengthy discussion about the merits of various civ4 systems. I was merely stating that the designers were fixing most of the things I had a problem with in Civ IV, and that I was happy about this. Whether those systems were good or not is honestly immaterial; I had a problem with them, and it affected my enjoyment of the game. To try and prove that I am wrong for asserting this is about as productive as to try and prove that I am wrong for saying I don't like how lima beans taste.

To everyone else; I know this is way tl;dr, sorry.

 

[Ahriman]

that would make sense or a fort to represent temporary landing/boarding area.

Voila.

This is is not a sufficient fix.
It requires:
a) That you have a worker unit with you. When you go out exploring new islands, you have to bring a worker with you to build a fort, just so that you can get back on the same ships you unloaded from?
b) That said worker can build fort improvements outside your culture
c) That is reasonable to force you to wait several turns building a fort on a coastal tile just so you can board a ship
d) That you can somehow get the AI to do all this too - randomly building forts out in neutral territory so that your explorers don't get stuck on an island.
e) It forces you to only be able to embark 1-3 units per turn.

The solution is much worse than the problem (what is so wrong with being able to embark anywhere?).

 

[KrikkitTwo]

This is is not a sufficient fix.
It requires:
a) That you have a worker unit with you. When you go out exploring new islands, you have to bring a worker with you to build a fort, just so that you can get back on the same ships you unloaded from?

Assuming worker units are required to build forts

b) That said worker can build fort improvements outside your culture

That would be necessary for that system to work

c) That is reasonable to force you to wait several turns building a fort on a coastal tile just so you can board a ship

If they want to slow it down sure

d) That you can somehow get the AI to do all this too - randomly building forts out in neutral territory so that your explorers don't get stuck on an island.

Easy enough if workers aren't required

e) It forces you to only be able to embark 1-3 units per turn.

I think that is reasonable, particularly if multiple forts could be built

The solution is much worse than the problem (what is so wrong with being able to embark anywhere?).

Well IF they decide you can't just embark anywhere, then
1. Forts should be usable for the process
2. Most Military units should be able to build forts
3. Forts should be buildable outside culture

 

[Ahriman]

If they want to slow it down sure

Why would we want to do this? What is the gameplay reason?

And why do we want to discourage naval raiding? Viking-style naval raids (land, burn/pillage, leave) were common military tactics that we have never been able to replicate in the Civ series. To protect the coast historically, you had to have a navy. Why would we want to make raiding impossible?

And logically speaking, what is the justification? It is no harder to load a ship than it is to unload.
If "transports" come with the equipment needed to make an amphibious assault under fire, how could they not have enough equipment to re-embark when at peace and not threatened by any unit?

I think that is reasonable, particularly if multiple forts could be built

Why should we have to build *multiple* forts, just to reload troops in the same place where we unloaded them?

Well IF they decide you can't just embark anywhere

No case has been made for this. I agree with your "THEN" given your "IF", but I disagree with the "IF".

If people are really worried about being too easily loading/unloading, then my preferred solution (no evidence they're doing this) would be to have something like HOMM, where some coast is "cliffs" where you cannot load or unload, and you can only do so at "beaches" or cities/forts.

This would also allow you to concentrate defenses near potential landing zones.

 

[need my speed]

Or, you give a unit the 'Load' command, and it would wait a turn (or more) and what's more important, be completely defenceless (or has reduced strength, whatever) that turn and unable to move, so you can't cancel that order if enemies do come.

 

[Schuesseled]

@ troop transports.

The idea makes perfect sense to me, after doing away with stacks and introducing 1UpT you cant rely back on stacking troops into a troop transport, instead all troops have the ability to cross seas by turning into a transport vessel, this is not unrealistic, in the old days before vast metal navy's were created if an army wanted to cross an expanse of water they would build the ships they needed to get across, even if said expanse was merely a river and thier transport make-shift rafts. Civ5 utilises this old method, the troop of soldiers spends the turn (entire turn or the rest of thier current movement points, either is fine by me) building thier transport mecanism and then get exausted after moving onto the water, next turn thier journey across the expanse will begin. This is not a new feature, in Civ4 it took a turn to move into a transport, you spent this turn in the ship but unable to do anymore, the ship however was not affected as it was a seperate unit. Again when you left a ship and landed you had another turn of waiting. Why all of a sudden are you asking that troops spend a turn waiting on the land not in the water when bording transports, really WHAT HAS CHANGED.

If some of you are concerned that armies will simply vanish off your land flank you via the water and then re-position themselfs in a new and threatening mannerism then yes this may well happen, but its nothing new, in Civ4 you could do the same. I suggest doing the clever thing, If you want control of the seas, build yourself a navy. Then if someone dares enter the ocean on your turn your vast armada of floating metal bethomoths will blast the defencless raft sitters to kingdom come. If you don't wish to build a navy, or your navy was not powerful enough and is already destroyed then you won't be controlling your sea's. Get over it.

 

[Ahriman]

Or, you give a unit the 'Load' command, and it would wait a turn (or more) and what's more important, be completely defenceless (or has reduced strength, whatever) that turn and unable to move, so you can't cancel that order if enemies do come.

Right, this is the right kind of solution if it did turn out there was a problem.

The options are:
i) Loading takes a full turn, unit stays stuck on land, at start of next turn unit becomes a transport and can move.
ii) Initiating a load turns the land unit into a transport, ends its turn. Next turn, transport can move.
iii) Loading takes a full turn, unit stays stuck on land, at start of next turn unit becomes a transport with zero movement, at start of turn after that transport can move as normal.

Much, much better than trying to build a requirement where you have to build forts out in the middle of nowhere.

My guess is that ii) is what we'll probably have.

 

[TheArsenal]

@ troop transports.

If some of you are concerned that armies will simply vanish off your land flank you via the water and then re-position themselfs in a new and threatening mannerism then yes this may well happen, but its nothing new, in Civ4 you could do the same. I suggest doing the clever thing, If you want control of the seas, build yourself a navy. Then if someone dares enter the ocean on your turn your vast armada of floating metal bethomoths will blast the defencless raft sitters to kingdom come. If you don't wish to build a navy, or your navy was not powerful enough and is already destroyed then you won't be controlling your sea's. Get over it.

You make good points. And personally, the ability of troops to set out to sea to flank your units, the need of a navy, and the other possibilities this new form of transport present all sounds very good. I’m actually excited by it. My specific concern … and again, it may not turn out to be a concern at all once I actually lay my hands on the game … is a large landlocked body of water inside my borders where I can not place a navy. I play on Huge maps. The ability of an enemy army to hop onto shore hop onto sea hop back onto shore without my being able to do anything about it within the confines of my own border sounds like a nuisance or potential exploit. May turn out to be nothing, but it’s got me thinking

 

[Dunkah]

It sounds like a puppet state is really a city you conquer that gives you its income, for whom you don't have to pay maintenance (or suffer unhappiness) but you don't get to choose what it builds.

Unclear if it becomes part of your civ in border terms or not.

If they choose to build defensive units who do those belong to? Sounds alot like a City State without all the benifits.

Also, what happens if you "Puppet" two bordering city's? Do they become a two city state?

 

[Ahriman]

is a large landlocked body of water inside my borders

This sounds like a pretty rare occurrence, no?

How common is it that there are landlocked seas of more than 5-tiles in every direction? (Smaller and you can hit them from shore with 2 range). They're in your territory so they will heal very slowly, if at all (units might not be able to heal while in transport mode) and will be very vulnerable to bombardment (transports will no doubt have very low health/strength).

f they choose to build defensive units who do those belong to? Sounds alot like a City State without all the benifits.

Also, what happens if you "Puppet" two bordering city's? Do they become a two city state?

We don't know enough to say.
Two ways it could work:
a) Puppet states are still basically your cities, but with a compulsory governor that you can't control. Their culture adds to your territory expansion, they produce units for you, they are your cities.
b) Puppet states are basically Civ4 vassals; they have their own borders and armies, but if they're attacked its the same as attacking you.

 

[TheArsenal]

This sounds like a pretty rare occurrence, no?

How common is it that there are landlocked seas of more than 5-tiles in every direction? (Smaller and you can hit them from shore with 2 range). They're in your territory so they will heal very slowly, if at all (units might not be able to heal while in transport mode) and will be very vulnerable to bombardment (transports will no doubt have very low health/strength).

Regular map? Close to never. The Lakes (or whatever it was called) map on Huge, or certain other Huge maps in general? Far more frequent. None of this keeps me up at night, I generally wait and see how games actually play out, but it is something that has me thinking.

 

[Ricci]

I know; it's like they specifically fixed everything that I hated about Civ 4.

Slider making banks pointless -- fixed

Culture not doing anything -- fixed

Maybe you were hating thing which simply weren't there!!

 

[Ricci]

Or, you give a unit the 'Load' command, and it would wait a turn (or more) and what's more important, be completely defenceless (or has reduced strength, whatever) that turn and unable to move, so you can't cancel that order if enemies do come.

This might be an actual palliative to the problem, not sure if it will be easily balanced or introducing other issues though.

 

[Krill]

Forgive me for thinking I could skip a detailed analysis and speak generally and in hyperbole without attracting the ire of every civ4 apologist on the forum. But alas, the gauntlet is thrown, isn't it.

First of all, if these issues were really not a problem in Civ the correct response would not be to cite examples of specific games where this feature worked well. I can't say that jaguars are actually a great uu because there was this one game I played on chieftain difficulty on an Amazonia map where they totally dominated. Any such evidence would have to be based on broad and typical examples about Civ, not one random game where all the cards fell just right.

But even if we were to take your examples as typical of Civ IV as a whole, I don't see how they would make my (three) points "demonstrably wrong". For the banks, I admit I exaggerated: banks are not actually "pointless". However, as the article demonstrates, the only time you ever want to build them is if you can increase your research by doing so. And the fact that the slider is usually set at a lot more science than culture makes gold buildings much less effective for the cost than a similarly priced science building. I don't know about you, but I like to play games where I build banks so I can get more gold, not wring out some marginally beneficial research advantage.

As for culture, you will note from that link you provided that the players in question had 2 other great artist units they were saving to burn on golden ages. That in itself is a sign that there is something fundamentally wrong with the culture system when the best use for great artists is something that does not involve culture at all. But honestly, my main problem with the system is that culture only matters at borders; in interior cities all buildings that increase culture could just as well do nothing. It makes having a well-cultured capital deeply unrewarding. The fact that it's effective to rush culture in a bunch of newly conquered cities is a demonstration of that problem, not a rebuttal of it.

Finally, the battle results you linked to were so mind-numbingly boring I almost fell asleep at my computer. Perhaps there are people out there who have fun calculating win percentages in order to determine in what order their units should engage in to-the-death duels, but I am not one of them.

Honestly though, my point was never to get into some lengthy discussion about the merits of various civ4 systems. I was merely stating that the designers were fixing most of the things I had a problem with in Civ IV, and that I was happy about this. Whether those systems were good or not is honestly immaterial; I had a problem with them, and it affected my enjoyment of the game. To try and prove that I am wrong for asserting this is about as productive as to try and prove that I am wrong for saying I don't like how lima beans taste.

To everyone else; I know this is way tl;dr, sorry.

Perhaps you missed the point. We don't have a clue how the majority of gamplay in CiV will work. We know of 1 unit per tile, UU/UBs, the way theAI is constructed etc, but nothing particularly solid allowing us to even consider strategies. Culture might be pointless due to some rule we don't know about. Combat might be broken out of the box. Building balance might be completely off.

So implying that the game will be perfect (in your opinion), that it removed "boring features" is fanboyism and incredibly short sighted. It could be another MoO3 for all we know.

(and off topic, but arguably every building in CIV helps increase research speed, some by rather convoluted methods, considering that is a critical component to the game. Whether CiV is different or not still remains to be seen).

 

[Schuesseled]

@TheArsenal
Why would you not have a navy in the water if it was a large inland sea (like in the inland sea map). If you want any control of these water tiles you need to build a navy, you just build a city on the coast (all be it an Inside coast o.0) and build your navy from that city, if the large body of water incompases or rather surrounds your territory, if you wanted to protect yourself from invasion from enemies across the sea then you would put a navy in it.
I see your point though, if it was a small lake/sea type thing that your large empire completely surrounded, in Civ4 your enemies would not have a city connected to the water so thier navy's would not be there so you would never need a navy of your own. I get that, but in Civ5 imagine all troops also carry around a boat with them, ridiclious though it may seem now these previously only land capable armies can enter water tiles and youll be forced to have a navy. Though if no enemy navy can enter your secluded water body, then you only need the 1 navy ship, and it will kill the defenceless raft sitters with no trouble.
I mean I recon someone would be able to walk up to a 1 tile lake in your territory and permentally sit a troop transport in it, basically acting as a permenant spy within your territory, till you kill it with ranged attacks perhaps. But yeah I guess it will simply be a new game mechanic and you will have to adjust your strategy to match like any good civ player. It won't be a tactic that you can't stop as I have said.

@Puppet.

From what I have read on the matter, I don't think it will be anything like a city state or a vassle from Civ4.
The way it works is that when you capture a city instead of capturing it or razing it you can let it govern itself but still belong to you. Basically it's like permentally automating a city, it will decide for itself what to produce and how to manage citizens.
So this clears up everything apart from troops.
The troops it may build under its own desires, what happens to them, well thanks to 1UpT they cant simply be defending in the city, so they must be taken out of the city and left to roam. But who controls these units.
1. When a unit is built by the Puppet Governement Controlled city the control of said unit is granted to you as the city has no interests outside its walls.
2. Much like a vassle of Civ4 it's units will be controlled by itself and go around attacking things.
Personally I think it will be 1. The reason is because the "Puppet State" unlike a vassle is merely a single city, it is not a civilisation in its own right like a vassle, it reports directly to you paying gold to your coffers like any other city. Because its not a civilisation it won't be able to conquer new cities to join its empire. Thus the need to have its own troops roaming the countryside is pointless. So either 1. The troops are given over to the Puppets masters once built, or thier is a third option, the city will simply never build troops as its only desires remain within its walls.

I believe I also saw at one point someone asking if the puppets would give you +1 to the UN vote, as I believe they will not act like Vassels merely automated cities you own the answer is no. They are not a vassel but a part of your civilisation directly and you only get 1 vote per civilisation. The city states are different, they count as civilisations in thier own right and don't pay anyone any taxes. Unlike a puppet state who cares for nothing outside its city walls, the city state is very much into global politics as we have been told.

@Krill

Actually even though we haven't played the game, so yes we can't be 100% certain on some things, we can make educated guesses on how things will work simply from the little we have been told about them.

 

[King Jason]

@TheArsenal
Why would you not have a navy in the water if it was a large inland sea (like in the inland sea map). If you want any control of these water tiles you need to build a navy, you just build a city on the coast (all be it an Inside coast o.0) and build your navy from that city

This would actually be ideal also, cause unless the enemy also took the effort to establish a port upon this great lake, you would theoretically only need a few ships to fend off an invasion, since transports are defenseless. An unawares opponent might think they're cleverly sneaking across a hole in your defenses only to have their army swiflty obliterated.

So to the above poster with the concerned... if it were me, I'd simply build one city on the shores of any particularly large body of water, and/or keep cannons on the shore, assuming they can fire at sea vessels.

 

[Aramel]

Perhaps you missed the point. We don't have a clue how the majority of gamplay in CiV will work. We know of 1 unit per tile, UU/UBs, the way theAI is constructed etc, but nothing particularly solid allowing us to even consider strategies. Culture might be pointless due to some rule we don't know about. Combat might be broken out of the box. Building balance might be completely off.

So implying that the game will be perfect (in your opinion), that it removed "boring features" is fanboyism and incredibly short sighted. It could be another MoO3 for all we know.

(and off topic, but arguably every building in CIV helps increase research speed, some by rather convoluted methods, considering that is a critical component to the game. Whether CiV is different or not still remains to be seen).

Eh, I never said the game would be perfect.

Maybe I'll eventually find some new things to hate, but it's looking good so far.

It could end up being bad, or not, we don't know. However, I do know they have changed a lot of the features I didn't like. I don't know how that's fanboyism. If they hadn't changed those things, I wouldn't be excited about it. And true, the new features could still end up being bad, but I think it's a lot better when the designers are trying to fix bad (from my perspective) systems than if they were keeping those systems in place. At least there is the possibility of them being better.

But, whatever. Whether being excited about a new game is more absurd than perniciously assuming the worse about it, we can agree to disagree on that.

 

[Trias]

You make good points. And personally, the ability of troops to set out to sea to flank your units, the need of a navy, and the other possibilities this new form of transport present all sounds very good. I’m actually excited by it. My specific concern … and again, it may not turn out to be a concern at all once I actually lay my hands on the game … is a large landlocked body of water inside my borders where I can not place a navy. I play on Huge maps. The ability of an enemy army to hop onto shore hop onto sea hop back onto shore without my being able to do anything about it within the confines of my own border sounds like a nuisance or potential exploit. May turn out to be nothing, but it’s got me thinking

Simple answer: archers.

Transports in a landlocked body of water are easy pickings for ranged units. This goes for an maneuver trying to avoid the enemy by turning your land units into a navy.

 

[need my speed]

What if they can't hit the transports? If the water body is just too large? ORr even if they can hit it, it would be way too much work to surround the whole water body with archers or things so that the boat can't escape out of range. I'm not sure if I like the automatic transport function.