Louis XXIV
Le Roi Soleil
So this is an early rush strategy?
MrGameTheory's breakdown of the Civ5 PDF manual.. :)
- Thread starter MrGameTheory
- Start date
TrailblazingScot
I was kittenOFchaos
I find MGT's 'analysis' very interesting and thought provoking and his fears do reflect mine in some regards.
I think many posters don't recognise that MGT is a very capable player of CivIV and also very inventive in terms of trying out new approaches and he does appreciate that a sound understanding of the rules is vital if you're going to succeed in a game.
Don't get me wrong, he is arrogant, often a bad sport, but he'll be a challenging opponent and he'll always be up to something.
In terms of my concerns about CivV, which no doubt will extend also to the multiplayer aspect, they center upon balance and essentially which civs aren't worth taking. If people play with random civs on, then getting a rubbish civ could making winning a far more difficult proposition.
My other concern is where the balance between the defense and offense lies. In Civ4 multiplayer, there were significant periods of the game where taking the offensive was nearly suicidal without a major disparity in offensive to defensive units due to collateral damage. Had the AI been programmed slightly differently, human players would have been howling about catapults. Instead, human players could roll up to AI cities and have their way with them. Not the case so much in multiplayer.
Are the civilizations balanced? Unique civilization traits.
Traits that give a significant advantage during part of the game, may be valuable, but those that last the whole game are likely to me vastly more significant.
The civilization that I fear may be pretty worthless, is Germany and the Ottomans. Both civilizations have unique abilities that depend very much on map settings. In multiplayer it is unlikely barbarians will figure much at all (and probably not at all in competitive multiplayer) and so neither civ will have in effect any trait.
By comparison with other traits, there can be no defence for just how poorly done by these civilizations are.
Rome. The ability to replicate the buildings of Rome at a significant discount throughout the game...which no doubt will amount to 1000s of production. How can that be compared to what the Ottomans and Germans get? Perhaps my fears are unfounded, but the Ottomans and Germans will need abit of luck to be in an area where barbarians can be a major fact and as the game goes on, surely both civilizations will get less and less benefit from their trait, particularly the Ottomans.
England is a more interesting case. I think sea-power could be a major asset in CivV. This is because I think taking the offensive will be difficult due to bombardment. Attacking will rely on forces the defender to be spread out and then driving through at a point of your choice where you don't get hammered too much by ranged attack followed up by mobile forces.
Embarked units are supposedly very slow, England's shouldn't be, especially if naval tradition and the great lighthouse can also affect embarked units. England may be able to quickly deploy units anywhere they like with far less fear of interception. England's fast ships will also make it very likely that no-one can easily invade her, her ships able to cover so much more ground. I think England could be a premier civilization on any map that allows naval combat. This may be bad for many typical competitive multiplayer maps however. We'll see.
One last point. Does anyone know if there is still a circumnavigation bonus...if so...it will probably fall to England so their advantage at sea should be even greater. I think England could be alot of fun
My other concern was the balance between offensive and defense.
In Civ4, it was clear they wanted it to be pretty easy to defend cities. Archers and Longbows were cheap and made cities extremely difficult to take unless the other side brought up catapults. Were your cities on hills, or had walls, then they'd definitely need catapults. But, by this time, you should likewise have catapults and could suicide them on incoming stacks making it possible to thrash the invader, especially if they had to cross open ground. I could expand on this, but anyone who played online, particularly 1vs1 would soon appreciate the difficult of taking the offensive.
In Civ5, my concern in as regards ranged combat. I fear that this may make taking the offensive nearly impossible against capable opposition. From what I read, ranged units don't take damage doing their ranged attack, so I can't have another ranged unit protect my forces moving forward - no SMAC artillery duels. So, you can weaken using cities and even basic archers the incoming forces and then mop up the damaged units using mobile forces which will be even more mobile using roads. There may be significant periods of the game where taking the offensive may be a forlone hope. Bring your units forward, soon they'll be damaged, then attacked and unless you've large reserves, you won't break through until later in the game when land unit speeds increase.
Edit: reading some more, my concerns extend further. As roads allow units to be moved up in response to an offensive faster, it is far easier to 'gang up' and get flanking bonuses on the invading forces than vice versa. A defender would more than likely have the opportunity to let the attacker enter his/her land and they are sat there, probably a tile or two away from the target city. Roads allow units to move up, and do their range attack, then let units filter through to gang up on offensive units. Then let the mobile units sweep the field. The units involved (hopefully most of them) will have enough remaining movement to get out of the way of any counter attack. Rinse and repeat.
We'll see. But, I do think the turtle concern is a valid one.
Not long to go now
I think many posters don't recognise that MGT is a very capable player of CivIV and also very inventive in terms of trying out new approaches and he does appreciate that a sound understanding of the rules is vital if you're going to succeed in a game.
Don't get me wrong, he is arrogant, often a bad sport, but he'll be a challenging opponent and he'll always be up to something.
In terms of my concerns about CivV, which no doubt will extend also to the multiplayer aspect, they center upon balance and essentially which civs aren't worth taking. If people play with random civs on, then getting a rubbish civ could making winning a far more difficult proposition.
My other concern is where the balance between the defense and offense lies. In Civ4 multiplayer, there were significant periods of the game where taking the offensive was nearly suicidal without a major disparity in offensive to defensive units due to collateral damage. Had the AI been programmed slightly differently, human players would have been howling about catapults. Instead, human players could roll up to AI cities and have their way with them. Not the case so much in multiplayer.
Are the civilizations balanced? Unique civilization traits.
Traits that give a significant advantage during part of the game, may be valuable, but those that last the whole game are likely to me vastly more significant.
The civilization that I fear may be pretty worthless, is Germany and the Ottomans. Both civilizations have unique abilities that depend very much on map settings. In multiplayer it is unlikely barbarians will figure much at all (and probably not at all in competitive multiplayer) and so neither civ will have in effect any trait.
By comparison with other traits, there can be no defence for just how poorly done by these civilizations are.
Rome. The ability to replicate the buildings of Rome at a significant discount throughout the game...which no doubt will amount to 1000s of production. How can that be compared to what the Ottomans and Germans get? Perhaps my fears are unfounded, but the Ottomans and Germans will need abit of luck to be in an area where barbarians can be a major fact and as the game goes on, surely both civilizations will get less and less benefit from their trait, particularly the Ottomans.
England is a more interesting case. I think sea-power could be a major asset in CivV. This is because I think taking the offensive will be difficult due to bombardment. Attacking will rely on forces the defender to be spread out and then driving through at a point of your choice where you don't get hammered too much by ranged attack followed up by mobile forces.
Embarked units are supposedly very slow, England's shouldn't be, especially if naval tradition and the great lighthouse can also affect embarked units. England may be able to quickly deploy units anywhere they like with far less fear of interception. England's fast ships will also make it very likely that no-one can easily invade her, her ships able to cover so much more ground. I think England could be a premier civilization on any map that allows naval combat. This may be bad for many typical competitive multiplayer maps however. We'll see.
One last point. Does anyone know if there is still a circumnavigation bonus...if so...it will probably fall to England so their advantage at sea should be even greater. I think England could be alot of fun
My other concern was the balance between offensive and defense.
In Civ4, it was clear they wanted it to be pretty easy to defend cities. Archers and Longbows were cheap and made cities extremely difficult to take unless the other side brought up catapults. Were your cities on hills, or had walls, then they'd definitely need catapults. But, by this time, you should likewise have catapults and could suicide them on incoming stacks making it possible to thrash the invader, especially if they had to cross open ground. I could expand on this, but anyone who played online, particularly 1vs1 would soon appreciate the difficult of taking the offensive.
In Civ5, my concern in as regards ranged combat. I fear that this may make taking the offensive nearly impossible against capable opposition. From what I read, ranged units don't take damage doing their ranged attack, so I can't have another ranged unit protect my forces moving forward - no SMAC artillery duels. So, you can weaken using cities and even basic archers the incoming forces and then mop up the damaged units using mobile forces which will be even more mobile using roads. There may be significant periods of the game where taking the offensive may be a forlone hope. Bring your units forward, soon they'll be damaged, then attacked and unless you've large reserves, you won't break through until later in the game when land unit speeds increase.
Edit: reading some more, my concerns extend further. As roads allow units to be moved up in response to an offensive faster, it is far easier to 'gang up' and get flanking bonuses on the invading forces than vice versa. A defender would more than likely have the opportunity to let the attacker enter his/her land and they are sat there, probably a tile or two away from the target city. Roads allow units to move up, and do their range attack, then let units filter through to gang up on offensive units. Then let the mobile units sweep the field. The units involved (hopefully most of them) will have enough remaining movement to get out of the way of any counter attack. Rinse and repeat.
We'll see. But, I do think the turtle concern is a valid one.
Not long to go now
Louis XXIV
Le Roi Soleil
kittenOFchaos, I think you make good points, but a couple things to keep in mind.
One, the combat advantage is to the attacker overall (-33% penalty for the defender in flat terrain). Archers help offset this, true, but I think it'll even out (plus, you can use Archers on the offensive if you plan it right).
Second, you have to take Civilizations as a whole, not their ability. I personally feel the Ottoman's ability will be useless on most maps, but, if you get to the Renaissance, you can wipe the floor with your enemies. Is that not worthwhile?
Overall, I agree that his strategies are good to read (even trying to refute them, people learn more about the game and think of their own strategies), but I don't think scouts have enough punch to be effective even everything else considered.
One, the combat advantage is to the attacker overall (-33% penalty for the defender in flat terrain). Archers help offset this, true, but I think it'll even out (plus, you can use Archers on the offensive if you plan it right).
Second, you have to take Civilizations as a whole, not their ability. I personally feel the Ottoman's ability will be useless on most maps, but, if you get to the Renaissance, you can wipe the floor with your enemies. Is that not worthwhile?
Overall, I agree that his strategies are good to read (even trying to refute them, people learn more about the game and think of their own strategies), but I don't think scouts have enough punch to be effective even everything else considered.
TrailblazingScot
I was kittenOFchaos
Hi, I didn't talk about his scout strategy, as I think that is probably not cost effective. May as well use real units. I think he was just impressed by the flanking bonus.
The first point you make as regarding the defensive penalty in the open, makes units on the offensive more vulnerable to counter-attack. The counter-attack is the defensive scenario I'm describing as hard to counter. Of course, if you can attack straight into a vital city, then it is going to be very hard to defend it. But, I suspect that more of the time, units on the offensive will sit for at least one turn outside the city (as they can reach it immediately) and will be annihilated there unless the other side have left them a forest to hide in. Forests may be more useful to keep in Civ5 than Civ4, but I'm sure I'll be chopping them down all the same
Your other point was regarding the Ottomans, which appears to be that their unique units mitigate a weak unique trait. This may be the case for the Ottomans and likewise the Germans with the panzer which seems very tasty. Maybe in that regard I've been too simplistic comparing the unique abilities against unique abilities. However, one of the best unique traits belongs to Rome and her unique units are also very powerful.
I'd prefer a simpler approach. Try to balance all traits - but make them interesting. India's is VERY interesting and it will be fascinating to see how that plays out. After traits are balanced, then try to balance unique units. Those that come earlier, will probably have a more disproportionate effect on the game, so if some civ just gets a relatively late game unique unit, it better be good
MrGameTheory
Chieftain
- Joined
- Oct 8, 2007
- Messages
- 53
"Units receive a “flanking” attack bonus of 15% for each unit adjacent to the target unit." - Strategy guide.
I don't see any evidence that supports ranged units do not get a flanking bonus and if someone can show me support that says otherwise I will gladly make modifications based on the evidence presented. The strategy guide appears to reflect what is going to be in the game and not what was sacked in testing and present in early demo versions. The strategy guide does not differentiate between range and non range units when it could have easily done so. Instead it simply says the general blanket term of "Units" as in all units.
* If you can't build courthouses in normal cities then you will need to build (Circus/Colosseum) and factor in the social policy (Meritocracy/Military Caste). India will also be slightly better than average and England will also be slightly better than bad.
I don't see any evidence that supports ranged units do not get a flanking bonus and if someone can show me support that says otherwise I will gladly make modifications based on the evidence presented. The strategy guide appears to reflect what is going to be in the game and not what was sacked in testing and present in early demo versions. The strategy guide does not differentiate between range and non range units when it could have easily done so. Instead it simply says the general blanket term of "Units" as in all units.
* If you can't build courthouses in normal cities then you will need to build (Circus/Colosseum) and factor in the social policy (Meritocracy/Military Caste). India will also be slightly better than average and England will also be slightly better than bad.
According to the manual, the scout has 0 combat strength, while the Warrior (being the earliest military unit) has 6. Then there's no reason to add bonuses into the picture, because 25% of 0, isn't any better. Therefore, the scout will lose to a warrior in any scenario, and is not able to siege a city. It'll just be suicide for sure.
I read this on page 45 of the digital manual, with the headline: Combat Strength.
I don't know if I'm being completely wrong here, but the manual seemed pretty clear on the subject.
TrailblazingScot
I was kittenOFchaos
Edit: Welcome to Civfanatics Gerurun...a forum, almost as addictive as civ.
I'll be more than happy to show you how this isn't the case when the game comes out.
The counter-offensive will have 'extra' movement due to roads if it works similar to previous games. In previous games, if you still have a fraction of a move from a road, it counted as a full move, basically meaning units using roads in friendly/neutral territory move very quickly. It should give the ability to use ranged attack on the incoming forces, pull the range forces away so faster units can sweep the field of damaged units and pull out.
If I felt the need to 'teach' this, I'd probably draw a diagram.
The only thing that may make the offensive pratical is the fact many cavalry units are so mobile. They may be able to strike deep and clear the way sufficiently. But, their mobility also makes it possible for the defender to bring all cavalry units throughout an empire to the threatened portion.
SeptimusOctopus
Warlord
They're talking about settlers on page 45, not scouts. See page 143, scouts have strength 4.
MrGameTheory
Chieftain
- Joined
- Oct 8, 2007
- Messages
- 53
Unless you are planning on using your worker as a scout you are incorrect
Take another glance at the strategy guide
Not a problem as long as you don't attack along roads. Not only do roads cost upkeep but artillery has ranged bombardment.
Louis XXIV
Le Roi Soleil
Hi, I didn't talk about his scout strategy, as I think that is probably not cost effective. May as well use real units. I think he was just impressed by the flanking bonus.
The first point you make as regarding the defensive penalty in the open, makes units on the offensive more vulnerable to counter-attack. The counter-attack is the defensive scenario I'm describing as hard to counter. Of course, if you can attack straight into a vital city, then it is going to be very hard to defend it. But, I suspect that more of the time, units on the offensive will sit for at least one turn outside the city (as they can reach it immediately) and will be annihilated there unless the other side have left them a forest to hide in. Forests may be more useful to keep in Civ5 than Civ4, but I'm sure I'll be chopping them down all the same
Actually, I agree with your points. I'm trying to think of ways to overcome the counter-attack and I'm not sure. There is a slight attack advantage in that you can seize the initiative and move to take the better ground, but this advantage diminishes greatly over more turns. The best strategy at the moment is to get the opponent to meet in neutral territory and fight there. Only when you've defeated them there can you try and crack cities. I'm sure they've tested this out and found out that offense is indeed possible, but it does seem that, with initial impressions, it could very well be harder.
TrailblazingScot
I was kittenOFchaos
The roads only need to be a jump off point for the defender.
Roads do cost upkeep, but I'm sure there will be more than sufficient rewards to ensure cities are linked up and so providing the jumping off and on point the defender needs.
Since the attacker can't as easily benefit from roads (until he takes over the land), then it'd be worth extending roads to the frontier.
Exterminas
Warlord
- Joined
- Sep 13, 2010
- Messages
- 121
Duh. May be I am misreading this, but doesn't it work the exact same way in Civ4?
You built a city. City grows bigger, works more cottages, earns more money. You built an army, army costs money. Your army consumes all your money, you set back the science slider, to have more money.
Now in civ5: Big city makes big breakers and big money, when money is gone, breakers go.
So all that is gone are the sliders, the consequences are exactly the same. More Units mean less money and less research. Oh, and your production-focused cities are going to contribute to research as well, but... does that make any difference at all?
Strategy guides are not always accurate, and they're usually wrapped up and sent off to print a month before release. I'm confirming based off my play sessions with the preview build that ranged do not get flanking bonuses. It doesn't matter if they're surrounded by friendlies in every direction, it does not apply.
With that said, friendly ranged units do calculate into the bonus that melee gets, so if you have an enemy unit that is next to archers and you move your melee in to attack then the melee will get the bonus for those archers, but the archers will not get the bonus if they attack.
Scouts are 4 strength, and I've even seen them fall after one single archer volley. One garrisoned archer pushes back most stuff very well, and like I said if melee attacks a city the city gets an attack against the unit first. The one game I mentioned where I tried to use a scout to finish off a city that had all it's hps drained by ranged died while attacking because the city got the first shot.
Buildings tied to happiness come with upkeep costs of course, and they tend to be very draining on your economy especially early to mid game.
Louis XXIV
Le Roi Soleil
The only difference is the science is directly from pop, not gold, so they can work food tiles instead. Minor detail, though. Plus, if he wants to go with a large enough population to offset the science cost, he'll end up with low production (just farm) tiles, negating that aforementioned military.
haphazard1
Dancing Bear
kittenOFchaos and others, thanks for the interesting thoughts and scenarios.
One issue I am wondering about which may affect these ideas: can a unit make a ranged attack and then move? My reading of the (questionable) manual is that they can not. You can move and then attack, but not attack and then move. Most mounted units are an exception, but they are melee and not ranged. The chariot archer notably does not have the "can move after attacking" ability in the description.
The exception appears to be the Arabian Camel Archer, which the manual specifically lists as having both ranged attack and move after attacking. If true, some very interesting tactics will be possible for Arabia that other civs just can not match.
One issue I am wondering about which may affect these ideas: can a unit make a ranged attack and then move? My reading of the (questionable) manual is that they can not. You can move and then attack, but not attack and then move. Most mounted units are an exception, but they are melee and not ranged. The chariot archer notably does not have the "can move after attacking" ability in the description.
The exception appears to be the Arabian Camel Archer, which the manual specifically lists as having both ranged attack and move after attacking. If true, some very interesting tactics will be possible for Arabia that other civs just can not match.
Given the fact that the attacker can choose where the battle takes place against a purely defensive opponent and fast units can pillage improvements ahead of your forces, I don't think it'll be a big issue.
Louis XXIV
Le Roi Soleil
I think the special feature of the Camel Archer is indicative that other units can't do the same.
