More info from an E3 demo

[Ricci]

How it will be possible to defend your land properly with rival soldiers moving back and forth into the water???!!!
Quote:
Soldiers going through sea are defenseless?? At least galleys and galleons had a chance to defend an evade by themselves.

You realize these are contradictory concerns, right?

I realize they are not contradictory at all, one explicitly refers to land defense and the other explicitly refers to the sea.

As to answering:
a) Use a navy
b) Use a navy. [You can still stack a land unit in transport form with a naval unit, or you could just clear out their navy first - they can't hide it in ports anymore]

Don't be so simplistic man: "Use a navy"..UUUHHHHHH!! My point being there will be major issues with geography. Allowing land (now amphibious) units to move ridiculously (hopefully not), coming back and forth, exploiting geographical features while the new "only sea" vessels are moving from here to there trying to match up and defend, for instance.

So many new situations to deal with.
Which is good, no? We don't want Civ 4.1.

Actually, we had such an excellent civ4 in it's final stage, so polished and robust, that many of us were hoping for, lets say.. a Civ 4.9 if you like. Hence all the pre-release disappointment i believe.

 

[Ahriman]

I realize they are not contradictory at all, one explicitly refers to land defense and the other explicitly refers to the sea.

But the solution to both is the same. If rival soldiers go into the water, you kill them with a naval unit. If you want to invade the enemy, either use ships to protect them or clear out the enemy navy first with your own.

It doesn't make sense to both be worried that land units in the water are both too vulnerable ("Soldiers going through sea are defenseless??") and not vulnerable enough ("rival soldiers moving back and forth into the water???!!!").

My point being there will be major issues with geography. Allowing land (now amphibious) units to move ridiculously (hopefully not), coming back and forth, exploiting geographical features while the new "only sea" vessels are moving from here to there trying to match up and defend, for instance.

I have no idea what you're trying to say here.
But naval units have much longer movement ranges than land units. So I don't see how you could keep away from them, particularly when you have cities and siege and support units with bombardment attacks; if they're running around into the sea and back, just bombard them to death.

that many of us were hoping for, lets say.. a Civ 4.9 if you like.

I think if you are annoyed that there will be new mechanics and new situations to deal with, then you are in the minority. Civ4 will still work, if your preference is to play Civ4.

 

[TheArsenal]

I have no idea what you're trying to say here.
But naval units have much longer movement ranges than land units. So I don't see how you could keep away from them, particularly when you have cities and siege and support units with bombardment attacks; if they're running around into the sea and back, just bombard them to death.

This makes me think. It may not turn out to be a problem at all, or addressed elsewhere on the forums, but it will be interesting to see if certain exploits have been thought through before hand and worked out.

For example, what if there is a geographic feature such as a large land locked lake/sea not close enough to a city so a proper navy can be placed there? Will this be exploitable as units about to be destroyed simply head to sea and wait it out on the land locked water beyond bombard range, heal and return to fight, over and over again? Or will there be a map mechanism/game mechanism to prevent this? ZOC maybe? Can these units that become boats attack other similar units?

 

[Ricci]

Not Necessarily....There might be a Revolution possibility... a way to "Trade in" Social Policies to either make other ones cheaper or just cash them in for culture to spend on different ones. (at a steep discount of course... you spend 1000 to get monarchy you only get 500 back by chopping off their heads.)

I truly don't see this happening Krikki.
I've read all this thread thoroughly and agree with some of you guys in that there won't be a single game in which more than 60-70% of the social policies will be counting towards the same civ, and they will be slowly disclosed during the entire game, making for tough choices between long term planning and opportunity, etc etc. This will surely be the case and it is both fitting and game strategic/appealing.

Nevertheless, I believe the basic issue with this new social policies system has been overlooked so far. Ok, in previous civ versions we had technological development and social development concepts within the same system, tech tree/searching. And on the other hand we had government concept as a whole different system; the fact that government choices came out of tech searching was the link between both systems but irrelevant to them being independent systems. In civ 5 it appears that the social development concept has been rebuilt into a completely new system based on culture rather than beakers/tech, thus detaching the two concepts into two separated systems, hence government as we knew it from all the previous versions, as a concept but specially as a system has been completely removed from the game.

All the previous CIVs
--> Social development & tech development within tech tree (beakers)
--> Tech system and government system separated (reversible choices all along the game)

CIV V
--> Social development & tech development run within separated systems
-->Government system eliminated (no reversible choices)


I very much like and buy the separation between socials (culture) and tech (beakers), this is good for the game and even more realistic (maybe there should be some kind of long term link with tech though, one couldn't understand free commerce without the knowing of currency for instance). I'm not fond however with the removal for a choice of government. As it is we would be choosing our social development in a new fashionable way, but not our government!!

 

[treadwin]

I think the key issue here is that you may not be able to stack move than one land unit with a sea unit, so protectiing a sizable amphibious army will be problematic and then remember that you may only be able to land one unit each turn per hex of coast, so disembarked troops will be very vulnerable when they land.

Not only that, but we have the possibility of shore batteries (forts etc) and cities perhaps firing on troop ships. I wouldn't get carried away with your disappointment just yet.

 

[Schuesseled]

This makes me think. It may not turn out to be a problem at all, or addressed elsewhere on the forums, but it will be interesting to see if certain exploits have been thought through before hand and worked out.

For example, what if there is a geographic feature such as a large land locked lake/sea not close enough to a city so a proper navy can be placed there? Will this be exploitable as units about to be destroyed simply head to sea and wait it out on the land locked water beyond bombard range, heal and return to fight, over and over again? Or will there be a map mechanism/game mechanism to prevent this? ZOC maybe? Can these units that become boats attack other similar units?

Units in water transport mode have no defense, we've covered this so put archers/cataputls/trebuchets on the coast, and obliterate all thier units in one turn when they do enter range.

 

[largedarryl]

I don't really like the way you guys have described this social policy thing so far. I don't understand why they haven't tweaked the Europa Universalies III domestic policy sliders. All of the concepts in that game are great just a little confusing and overly complicated, but generally very solid ideologically.

I personally believe (possibly naivety based) that this system will be well thought out and will make much better sense (gameplay wise) when we get some more info.

 

[Dark_Jedi06]

Puppet cities...Vichy France anyone?

Sounds like a veritable barrel of monkeys.

 

[The_J]

I think the key issue here is that you may not be able to stack move than one land unit with a sea unit, so protectiing a sizable amphibious army will be problematic

No, you can stack.
Transporters are civil units, and civil units can be stacked together with military units.

 

[Alki]

So a Destroyer could lie offshore defending the landing force and softening up the defences. It sounds more like D-Day and realistic warfare every day around here. Civ5 is gonna rock.

 

[Provost Martin]

It will. There are so many new features I'm excited about. Many tedious and annoying things have been thrown out the window, warfare finally seems like a lot of fun and the social policies will add more depth.

 

[Aramel]

It will. There are so many new features I'm excited about. Many tedious and annoying things have been thrown out the window, warfare finally seems like a lot of fun and the social policies will add more depth.

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

Boring stack duels -- fixed

Slider making banks pointless -- fixed

Culture not doing anything -- fixed

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

 

[Krill]

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

Boring stack duels -- fixed

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

Check out turns 103 through t117

Slider making banks pointless -- fixed

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

Culture not doing anything -- fixed

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

Thank you, come again!

 

[Avatan]

Hi everyone, long-time lurker so excited by ciV that I finally joined. Here is my first contribution:

If the land units can only embark on water from a city, with say, a harbor, that would kind of resolve the whole 'ignoring the geography' thing, wouln't it?

 

[V. Soma]

Hi everyone, long-time lurker so excited by ciV that I finally joined. Here is my first contribution:

If the land units can only embark on water from a city, with say, a harbor, that would kind of resolve the whole 'ignoring the geography' thing, wouln't it?

I think, yes, and I would like this to be
- but we don't know yet, how this will turn out to be, do we?

 

[V. Soma]

Hi everyone, long-time lurker so excited by ciV that I finally joined. Here is my first contribution:

If the land units can only embark on water from a city, with say, a harbor, that would kind of resolve the whole 'ignoring the geography' thing, wouln't it?

Oh, and welcome here

 

[Alki]

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

 

[Ahriman]

If the land units can only embark on water from a city, with say, a harbor, that would kind of resolve the whole 'ignoring the geography' thing, wouln't it?

Hi Avantan, welcome to the forum.

This discussion has been had before.

The problem with this for example is; what if you land on an island with no cities? You can never leave?

 

[need my speed]

Yeah, that's a great idea and something they really should implent. That still doesn't remove the exploit TheArsenal talked about, but well.

 

[Alki]

Hi Avantan, welcome to the forum.

This discussion has been had before.

The problem with this for example is; what if you land on an island with no cities? You can never leave?

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

Voila.