new gamespot article

[Aussie_Lurker]

Eaglefox, just a couple of things. Though I 100% agree with you that resources should be-at least -semi quantitative, I think people are misunderstanding what is meant by the 'fair distribution' of resources.
As I said, the way I read it is that, from a gameplay perspective, it can be seriously unfun if you start the game with no resources whatsoever . I think what they are trying to do is ensure that each player has access to at least a single resource-be it luxury, strategic or bonus. That does not mean every player will get access to iron, or access to wheat or access to uranium. It is much more likely that one player might get iron, wheras another player ends up close to coal-but rarely both . If anything, this will make trade an even more vital component of the game, as it will probably be difficult for a player to secure every resource he/she wants via land acquisition alone. Even moreso given that REXing is going to be more difficult. Making it difficult-if not impossible-for a nation to survive off a single deposit of a resource will make trade even more vital to the game-and I hope and pray they have adopted that approach.
As for the AI, I get the sense from interviews that Soren is currently working on this as his highest priority-which definitely puts my mind somewhat at rest. Whether an AI will ever be truly non-exploitable, though, is open to debate, but so long as its difficult to exploit, then I will be happy.

Yours,
Aussie_Lurker.

 

[Novaya Havoc]

Mansa Musa looks hardcore. ;P

 

[Brain]

People, you need to stop freaking out and read carefully!

I keep repeating that this so-called "exploit" that several people are talking about is exactly equivalent to cash rushing and it will NOT force anyone to micromanage anymore than necessary. Let me explain.

When you interrupt the building of something your hammers get converted to cash. Hence, when you go back to building the same thing it only makes sense that you have to pay the same amount of cash to get hammers back, or otherwise it leaves the door open for a very obvious exploit, which I doubt Firaxis is going to be stupid enough to leave in the game. Therefore, you need to pay some cash to use the "exploit" of pre-building units, or settlers as someone else mentioned. This is exactly the same as cash rushing.

So far I haven't seen anyone produce wealth until population grows and then cash rush settlers. I don't think that it's going to be a big micro-management issue, or that it's going to be a viable tactic at all for that matter.

 

[ComradeDavo]

In the article they mentoned the game will ship with a number of prebuilt scenarios, anyone care to speculate what they will be? World war 2 is mentioned.

 

[wotan321]

I'm sure someone has mentioned this already, but one big problem with pre-building 20 archers up to 99% and then sitting on them, waiting to finish them.... is that technology may leave those archers behind. So here come the cavalry, and here I am with 20 archers.... ouch...

 

[searcheagle]

I'm sure someone has mentioned this already, but one big problem with pre-building 20 archers up to 99% and then sitting on them, waiting to finish them.... is that technology may leave those archers behind. So here come the cavalry, and here I am with 20 archers.... ouch...

I'm sure there is some limit to the number of items you can 99% build. I'd imagine the limit would be somewhere around 4 projects.

"Sir, We are running out of room to store partially done projects. We can either sell one of them for parts or complete one. Which would you like to do?

 

[apatheist]

When you interrupt the building of something your hammers get converted to cash. Hence, when you go back to building the same thing it only makes sense that you have to pay the same amount of cash to get hammers back, or otherwise it leaves the door open for a very obvious exploit, which I doubt Firaxis is going to be stupid enough to leave in the game. Therefore, you need to pay some cash to use the "exploit" of pre-building units, or settlers as someone else mentioned. This is exactly the same as cash rushing.

I remember reading that in the article as well, but I also remember it said that you can pick up where you left off. Is the article wrong about one (or both) of those? Or is it the player's option?

 

[Brain]

I remember reading that in the article as well, but I also remember it said that you can pick up where you left off. Is the article wrong about one (or both) of those? Or is it the player's option?

Well, so far we can only speculate about this, but what I'm suggesting reconciles both of these options. Let me give an example:

1. Start building an archer.
2. Switch to temple. Hammers converted to X gold.
3. After some time switch back to archer. Pay X gold to continue where you left off.

It has to be done this way. Otherwise, if you don't pay X gold to get your hammers back you can easily exploit the system by switching production back and forth to get free gold.

 

[Louis XXIV]

I think Free gold is just for wonders. For everything else, it just stores it where you left off.

I don't think it gives an advantage. I mean, you could not build an Archer to save maintanence on the Archer. But, when the time comes to finish production because you need the Archer, you only have 1 Archer. You can't save the production on 3 Archers. You can save production on 1 Archer and 1 Spear while working on a temple, but you still need to have spent the shields on much of the Archer and Spear anyway, and the temple won't be as nearly completed.

I don't think its an exploit, just a different tactic for a different game (you can't think in Civ3 terms).

 

[apatheist]

Well, so far we can only speculate about this, but what I'm suggesting reconciles both of these options. Let me give an example:

1. Start building an archer.
2. Switch to temple. Hammers converted to X gold.
3. After some time switch back to archer. Pay X gold to continue where you left off.

It has to be done this way. Otherwise, if you don't pay X gold to get your hammers back you can easily exploit the system by switching production back and forth to get free gold.

That would mean that the value of Wealth produced is substantially greater than in Civ3. As I recall, you got something like 1 gpt for every 2 or 4 shields when producing Wealth. In order to rush a build, you had to pay something like 4 gold per shield remaining. For (hopefully) obvious reasons, the gold produced by Wealth production should not be less than the gold produced by aborting a build. The implied symmetry of gold <-> hammers conversions also implies that rush building will be cheaper, unless they've fiddled with other things.

I think Free gold is just for wonders. For everything else, it just stores it where you left off.

Or Louis XXIV could be right and all the above is moot. That sounds much more sensible. It postpones anything that can be postponed and gives gold otherwise. That implies that you can postpone Wonders as long as they haven't been constructed elsewhere. I don't see that as being a common tactic, but every now and then, you might be desperate.

 

[Louis XXIV]

It would make sense to be able to postpone wonders. And, to be honest, it would be great to have.

 

[Double Stack]

No more prebuild is sad.

But if that's the price to pay to NEVER, EVER again have this wonder which ONLY my civilization was workign on nabbed from me by a frelling wonder cascade, I'm all right with it.

Wonder cascade won't happen now that you don't keep the production point in that project. So choosing a wonder and being the only one working on it has it advantage now.

 

[apatheist]

You know what would be awesome? If you could ask/demand that a civ cease (or begin?!?) production of a particular Wonder in diplomacy. Maybe I could offer Iron to the Egyptians in exchange for them not building the Pyramids. Or I could threaten to invade the Romans if they continued to build the Great Wall. Or I could forego the Hoover Dam if they yielded on Women's Suffrage.

 

[Aussie_Lurker]

Ummm, people are also possibly forgetting about shared Wonder effects for Allied nations (or was that just locked alliances???) still, it may mean that losing out on a Wonder may not be as big a deal if you can snuggle up to the builder and form an alliance.

Yours,
Aussie_Lurker.

 

[Commander Bello]

I think Free gold is just for wonders. For everything else, it just stores it where you left off.

I don't think it gives an advantage. I mean, you could not build an Archer to save maintanence on the Archer. But, when the time comes to finish production because you need the Archer, you only have 1 Archer. You can't save the production on 3 Archers. You can save production on 1 Archer and 1 Spear while working on a temple, but you still need to have spent the shields on much of the Archer and Spear anyway, and the temple won't be as nearly completed.

I don't think its an exploit, just a different tactic for a different game (you can't think in Civ3 terms).

Yes, but you have this 1 archer in 1 city. If you did the same at 2 cities, you would have 2 archers on demand. And so on....

If so, this for sure would open the door for exploits.

The only way to avoid such a possible exploit would be to transfer production into gold in case of switching to another kind of production:
a) Great Wonder
b) small Wonder
c) improvement
d) unit

That way, you would have to produce other units to save the 99% unit you kept in store.

 

[Aussie_Lurker]

Actually, Commander Bello, that sounds like exactly how it will work-based on the interview. You only store up your build if you swap from a unit to a unit, or an improvement to an improvement, that kind of thing!

Yours,
Aussie_Lurker.

 

[ThERat]

postponing production sounds great. imagine you build a library and suddenly the game gets ugly and you need a spear NOW, just swap and resume the library later on, that is a truely great improvement on gameplay.
I just wonder what happens, if you build let's say a sword and then postpone it and meanwhile discover feudalism (or whichever tech is required for MDI). What would happen to the hammers invested to that sword that is obsolete now? In my opinion it would be great, if the hammers then can be used for the MDI, but maybe they did not think of this?

 

[Commander Bello]

Actually, Commander Bello, that sounds like exactly how it will work-based on the interview. You only store up your build if you swap from a unit to a unit, or an improvement to an improvement, that kind of thing!

Yours,
Aussie_Lurker.

To be honest, to me it just didn't sound like that but I would be glad if it were like that.

What I wonder about, btw, if this could be adressed to the city governor? "Produce the following unit/improvement/SW/GW up to the one but last turn of production!"
Well, that would be nice!

 

[vbraun]

What if this production saving thing only lasted for some amount of turns?

 

[Louis XXIV]

Yes, but you have this 1 archer in 1 city. If you did the same at 2 cities, you would have 2 archers on demand. And so on....

If so, this for sure would open the door for exploits.

As opposed to the other person, who built units during this time and has more units. You can only get a few units per city at once. And what happens if you run out of improvements. You'd have to build the unit you've been saving.

I'm thinking it wouldn't be a bad idea to have you loose a shield per turn, or something like that just in case it is a too powerful strategy, but I'm not sure it would be.