new gamespot article
- Thread starter Sub
- Start date
Brain
Lost in thought
Looks like we had exactly the same idea at the same time (see my previous post). Unfortunatly, this tactic doesn't really allow you to build anything faster in the way that Civ3 "pre-builds" do. It just saves you maintenance for whatever you build until you decide to finalize. In a way it's not much different than cash-rushing your entire army in one turn.joethreeblah said:
joethreeblah
King
Brain said:
I had it 12 minutes earlier!
This will forever be the JoeThreeBlah Tactic!
Brain
Lost in thought
You posted 12 minutes eariler. It took me longer to type my message.joethreeblah said:
joethreeblah
King
Ex Mudder said:
On the build menu I see a Galley, Harbor, Worker(8), and some other things. I think the top button says "Previous City"? And the text at the bottom seems to define what a Worker is... the cursor is over worker.
I guess we know it takes 8 turns to build a worker sometimes
Commander Bello
Say No 2 Net Validations
I'm quite concerned about the more evenly distributed key ressources 
This only would make sense if they would become quantative resources. Otherwise, if - as in Civ3 - one resource of a certain kind still is enough for your whole empire you could as well have no resources as well.
Where would be the point to require resources, if anybody has at least one of them?
In previous interviews it was stated that "gunpowder units" now longer are requiring saltpeter
. I mean, come on! 
If you don't require some resources for the more developed units, then why have resources at all?
Here we should get more information soon, as otherwise I don't understand the whole conception anymore.
This only would make sense if they would become quantative resources. Otherwise, if - as in Civ3 - one resource of a certain kind still is enough for your whole empire you could as well have no resources as well.
Where would be the point to require resources, if anybody has at least one of them?
In previous interviews it was stated that "gunpowder units" now longer are requiring saltpeter
. I mean, come on! If you don't require some resources for the more developed units, then why have resources at all?
Here we should get more information soon, as otherwise I don't understand the whole conception anymore.
Right. Explaining it the way you did has the benefit that it describes it as one rule for all types of production, rather than one rule for wonders and one rule for everything else. I find the consistency pleasing.joethreeblah said:
I'm holding it because I don't see how that's an exploit. You don't get any benefit from those partly constructed buildings, so what's the big deal?joethreeblah said:
I don't see it as being a major hack to pre-build 99% of an enormous army. You're expending production that you could have spent on something else. The longer you delay, the more likely it is that the unit you're building will be obsolete. Besides, this ability will be available to all players, so it could be used against you as well, which has a pretty good balancing effect.
Maybe there should be a decay component for stalled construction. Every turn that the construction is delayed, you lose some part of the accumulated production... Wait too long and you're back at zero.
I have given some thought to being able to use partly constructed city improvements, however. You'd have to pay partial maintenance as well (or even full). Then there's allowing buildings to be damaged but still functional, which would be equivalent to partially constructed buildings. Partially constructed units might be interesting also. Maybe if it's 20% constructed, it has 1 HP, 40% has 2 HP, etc. Maybe you could thus devote production to upgrading existing units from conscripts to regulars as well. But that's getting pretty far off-topic.
joethreeblah said:
I hope so.
Commander Bello
Say No 2 Net Validations
apatheist said:
The big deal seems to be that now you can really fine-tune all your production to the exact turn you start to need that improvement / unit.
In turn, this would mean that you are required to do so to get the best out of your empire, directly leading into a new session of micro-management. In all multiplayer or tournament-style games, you would have to do this because otherwise you would just be left behind....
So, visit all cities every turn, calculate for each improvement or unit when you will need it for the first time, change production, re-adjust it and better don't forget about any town where you would have to switch back to a pre-produced item....
That's a good point. I don't think it will be quite as bad as you fear, though. Unless you're playing on a really high level, in which case you deserve what you get ;-).
It seems like the next logical step would be a degree of automation that says "I want a Settler to be produced exactly when the population hits 3; otherwise work on a Spearman and then a Temple." It's not giving control over to the governor, exactly, but it's giving specific instructions as to what you want without having to do it yourself.
Another way to reduce this is to change the effects of an improvement. In the Civ3 world, let's say you have a city that will become unhappy in 15 turns. If you build a Temple anytime before then, you could view that as a waste of production (time/value) and money (maintenance) because you don't realize the benefits until you have unhappy citizens to make content. That's not quite true, though, because you start collecting culture earlier. That's especially valuable in the early game, where getting a Temple 5 turns (250 years) earlier makes a big difference with doubling. So it's not a complete waste. Other possible ways to keep it from being a complete waste:
1) Happy people are more productive than content or unhappy people. Building a temple might not be strictly necessary in the sense of preventing rioting (or city shutdown in civ4), but it could boost your production.
2) Happy people are healthier than unhappy people
3) The culture generated by an improvement should double every 1000 years instead of just doubling once, so a 2000-year old temple generates 8 culture instead of 4. Getting it done 5 turns earlier in the early game is 250 years, which makes a difference between 8 and 16 culture points in 1750 between a Temple constructed in 1000 BC and one constructed in 1250 BC. Perhaps doubling is too powerful; maybe it should go 2, 4, 6, 8, or something like that, but that's the idea.
4) Extend the culture doubling effect to things that are not culture. For example, maybe a University that is 1000 years old gives a 100% boost to science instead of the 50% that a 0-day University gives.
5) Allow excess hammers to carry over. If you build a Spearman in a city with 6 hammers, after 4 turns you have a Spearman and 4 hammers to spill over into your next project.
6) Postponed projects should decay over time.
It seems like the next logical step would be a degree of automation that says "I want a Settler to be produced exactly when the population hits 3; otherwise work on a Spearman and then a Temple." It's not giving control over to the governor, exactly, but it's giving specific instructions as to what you want without having to do it yourself.
Another way to reduce this is to change the effects of an improvement. In the Civ3 world, let's say you have a city that will become unhappy in 15 turns. If you build a Temple anytime before then, you could view that as a waste of production (time/value) and money (maintenance) because you don't realize the benefits until you have unhappy citizens to make content. That's not quite true, though, because you start collecting culture earlier. That's especially valuable in the early game, where getting a Temple 5 turns (250 years) earlier makes a big difference with doubling. So it's not a complete waste. Other possible ways to keep it from being a complete waste:
1) Happy people are more productive than content or unhappy people. Building a temple might not be strictly necessary in the sense of preventing rioting (or city shutdown in civ4), but it could boost your production.
2) Happy people are healthier than unhappy people
3) The culture generated by an improvement should double every 1000 years instead of just doubling once, so a 2000-year old temple generates 8 culture instead of 4. Getting it done 5 turns earlier in the early game is 250 years, which makes a difference between 8 and 16 culture points in 1750 between a Temple constructed in 1000 BC and one constructed in 1250 BC. Perhaps doubling is too powerful; maybe it should go 2, 4, 6, 8, or something like that, but that's the idea.
4) Extend the culture doubling effect to things that are not culture. For example, maybe a University that is 1000 years old gives a 100% boost to science instead of the 50% that a 0-day University gives.
5) Allow excess hammers to carry over. If you build a Spearman in a city with 6 hammers, after 4 turns you have a Spearman and 4 hammers to spill over into your next project.
6) Postponed projects should decay over time.
Aussie_Lurker
Deity
I think people are worrying, overmuch, about the whole expansion issue. At no point do they ever say that you can never expand to a vast size. They simply imply that this will no longer be a sure road to victory anymore. The other implication is that as cities will cost money, then building more cities before your existing ones are self-sufficient/profitable may simply become too costly.
I see this whole thing from 2 angles.
1) Focusing on half a dozen key cities will allow you to get their population up to a point where you can truly specialise. By specialising you increase your chance of getting Great People which, in turn, grants you a number of short and long-term boosts to your productivity-boosts which can put you ahead of a much larger nation.
2) Rampant expansions will put a drain on your treasury, due to the cost of cities. However, we know that building certain improvements, as well as certain leader traits and civics options, will reduce these costs over time (not to mention possible tech level-based reductions). What this means is that expansion will still be possible, but it will need to be more 'Punctuated' if you don't want to break the bank. This is-of course-a much better solution to the ICS problem than the old corruption model, IMO.
Oh, on the resources issue. Though I don't know for certain, I get the strong sense that this talk of 'fairer distribution' is just about ensuring that a player doesn't end up with no resources at the start of a game. i.e. the way I see it is that a player is fairly certain to have at least 1 bonus, 1 luxury and 1 strategic resource somewhere within his neighbourhood. The question is 'which ones?' After all, you might have uranium, but no iron. Cattle, but no corn. Incense but no furs. That said, though, I would love to see a semi-quantitative resource system where the productivity of your cities is in some way connected to the number-and quantity-of the resources you posses, and where the size of your nation determines how likely your resources are to disappear.
Yours,
Aussie_Lurker.
I see this whole thing from 2 angles.
1) Focusing on half a dozen key cities will allow you to get their population up to a point where you can truly specialise. By specialising you increase your chance of getting Great People which, in turn, grants you a number of short and long-term boosts to your productivity-boosts which can put you ahead of a much larger nation.
2) Rampant expansions will put a drain on your treasury, due to the cost of cities. However, we know that building certain improvements, as well as certain leader traits and civics options, will reduce these costs over time (not to mention possible tech level-based reductions). What this means is that expansion will still be possible, but it will need to be more 'Punctuated' if you don't want to break the bank. This is-of course-a much better solution to the ICS problem than the old corruption model, IMO.
Oh, on the resources issue. Though I don't know for certain, I get the strong sense that this talk of 'fairer distribution' is just about ensuring that a player doesn't end up with no resources at the start of a game. i.e. the way I see it is that a player is fairly certain to have at least 1 bonus, 1 luxury and 1 strategic resource somewhere within his neighbourhood. The question is 'which ones?' After all, you might have uranium, but no iron. Cattle, but no corn. Incense but no furs. That said, though, I would love to see a semi-quantitative resource system where the productivity of your cities is in some way connected to the number-and quantity-of the resources you posses, and where the size of your nation determines how likely your resources are to disappear.
Yours,
Aussie_Lurker.
HourlyDaily
Man-o-Mercy
If it is possible to switch between leaders on the trade screen, maybe you could broker 3-way-deals. Useful say in a WW2 scenario, someone gets a city, someone gets cash. We potentially could set it up so Mutual Protection pacts can't be broken without both parties agreeing to it.
Also the hammer cost relating to partially built units may be something to consider to replace conscript units. Untrained human units, or quickly/shoddily built tanks such as the Red Army were churning out of Leningrad.
Also It does not seem that every civ could have easy access to most resources unless the territory type varied wildly and stupidly. Certain resources will still be tied to certain terrain types I expect. Aussie - I think you are on track with your expectations.
Also the hammer cost relating to partially built units may be something to consider to replace conscript units. Untrained human units, or quickly/shoddily built tanks such as the Red Army were churning out of Leningrad.
Also It does not seem that every civ could have easy access to most resources unless the territory type varied wildly and stupidly. Certain resources will still be tied to certain terrain types I expect. Aussie - I think you are on track with your expectations.
Polietileno
Sleep Is For The Weak
Symphony D. said:
Looks like. And that takes me the idea if they dcide to put 2 leader on the Incas.
Portuguese
Vassalising Spain
Now the EXPLOIT is this: Prebuilt your archers till it lacks 1 turn in all your cities, but only complete them when you enter a war, to save huge ammount of gold!!! You can do that for each type of military unit in each city.That way when you enter a war, you can each turn rise a different army in each city.
Man, it will seem like you are rising the army of the dead to save your Civilization!!!
grumbler
Prince
Ex Mudder said:
Here are the help overlays:
No surprise here ...
That's a little more interesting:
- harbors increase trade
- this trade increase is conditional on an open border agreement
- harbors give access to certain resources and improve city health
joethreeblah said:
I think we all thought of it Joe. But it just won't be such a big deal If you finish 10 archers in one turn. You'd need to do that in 20 cities to make some difference. How are you going to stop 4 SoD's heading your way ?
@Portuguese: JoeThreeBlah and Brain already pointed that out.
The system of strategic resources for unit building should remain scarce as was implemented in C3C in comparison to PTW and Civ vanilla.
It is much more interesting having to trade and fight for resources than start a game knowing that everyone has everything already, how boring and unrealistic.
Keep resources scarce !
Aussie_Lurker
Deity
@Portugeuse. The thing, though, is that we don't know how building units affects your cities growth rates, or how holding off production will impact on your economy. Therefore, this may be one of those exploits which ends up doing you more harm than good!
@Grumbler. Thanks for the screenies, you are DA MAN! That stuff about the harbour seems to be pointing towards trade being a lot more important to your economy than it was in Civ3 (though I would still like to hear more about trade and diplomacy before I make a final judgement.)
Yours,
Aussie_Lurker.
@Grumbler. Thanks for the screenies, you are DA MAN
! That stuff about the harbour seems to be pointing towards trade being a lot more important to your economy than it was in Civ3 (though I would still like to hear more about trade and diplomacy before I make a final judgement.)Yours,
Aussie_Lurker.
eaglefox
Chhatrapati
i am going to have to see many improvements before i buy this game. there's no way i am gonna buy it just based on graphics and silly improvements that add flavour. i wanna see better ai, better trade, better diplomacy, and now better resource distribution - and that means they shouldn't be equally distributed, and if they are, they should be quantitative. now those are real improvements. i personally don't have a problem with civ 3 graphics. moreover, the battle scenes are way better in rome-total war (if you guys haven't played that, you don't know what you have missed). i doubt they'll be bringing that into this anytime soon. so i think i am gonna have to wait until the expansions start coming out.
Similar threads
