New Info

[Ahriman]

India and China Were technological leaders until a few hundred years ago (and Eurasia technologically lead Africa which technologically led the Americas

China, until ~1400, sure.
India, not really.

But my objection is; more peasants on farms doesn't mean more scientific progress.

And sub-saharan Africa led the Americas? When? Aztecs/Mayas/Incas were far ahead of anything in SSA.

This is Civ, the player is the only one with power or making decisions

The gameplay decisions, sure, but not the power within the society.

Many European "democracies" are also "monarchies"..

No there aren't. A monarchy is a form of government where power rests in a hereditary ruler.

They are a dictatorship which trades off ability of ruler for stability over time.

Constitutional monarchy is a democracy; the monarch is a ceremonial figurehead. They have no significant power (don't determine taxes, expenditure, war, etc.)

You could abolish the monarchy with no significant impact on society.

You've heard of the "Imperial Presidency" I assume.

Has nothing to do with imperial. Its a metaphor for a president with slightly more centralized power. They're still an elected politician who leaves office when they are voted out (or their term expires).

I'm horrified at the idea that we might be losing actual forms of government.

 

[GeoModder]

.

Historically, ancient galley/trireme warfare was primarily about ships trying to ram each other, and/or close for boarding actions where marines fought in melee combat.

Yes, you can install a ranged weapon, but that's not how they primarily fought in battle.

Thats like saying that rifles primarily fought in melee because you could fix a bayonet to them.

Ramming and boarding won't do you much good if you have to torn down some fortified tower in an enemy harbor or somesuch.
Besides, the topic on hand was bombarding, not ship-to-ship fighting.

 

[Nicolas10]

Ramming and boarding won't do you much good if you have to torn down some fortified tower in an enemy harbor or somesuch.
Besides, the topic on hand was bombarding, not ship-to-ship fighting.

Yeah, but the logistics of installing and firing a large catapault/ballista on a small wooden ship are enormous. The Romans could pull it off, but only on very large cargo ships, i.e. the ones that carried marble and food around the mediterrean.

Any ship that's quick and goes about the world, in the ancient era, would never sport a siege weapon. What you're arguing for is some sort of ancient era battleship.

 

[GeoModder]

What I was arguing for is that it wouldn't be unheard of to consider classical era ships capable of bombarding in CiV.

But that's distracting from the topic here, which is 'new info', which brings me to the attached screenshot.
I'm starting to wonder if CiV will have 'negative' strategic resources. In the screenshot I see green numbers for horses and some other resource, and two red numbers after those.

 

[Ahriman]

I think there can and SHOULD be a bit mystery when dealing with other great and powerful leaders. I mean if you KNOW for 100% sure that some leader likes you, as you were his brother, how can he ever attack you? Or if he would attack you, how does the game explain why he attacked you? I mean mystery is kind of good thing here.

When you add some transparency, you take away some imagination.

I don't want to relitigate this, I made my point in previous threads.
But I want the kind of feedback we have in Civ4.
I never know with 100% chance when another player is going to attack me.
But I get at least *some* kind of feedback on the existence and relative value of various modifiers. So I can know how important it is if I refuse tribute, or join a war, or declare war on a friend. Otherwise I'm just groping in the dark, not knowing what the impacts of the decisions I make are. That's not fun.

See for example these thread for previous discussion on this.
http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=357435&highlight=diplomacy+transparency&page=3
http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=362931

 

[Ahriman]

Ramming and boarding won't do you much good if you have to torn down some fortified tower in an enemy harbor or somesuch.
Besides, the topic on hand was bombarding, not ship-to-ship fighting.

But this is just the problem; if all ships can bombard, and all naval combat becomes ranged even in the ancient era, then these warships are fighting ahistorically.

If warships can bombard then you can be they're going to do that even for ship to ship fighting.

However, it does appear from screenshots like units have separate "strength" and "bombardment" attributes.

So hopefully a galley will have a very low bombardment rating, and a moderate strength, so you're still encourage to use them more in melee.

 

[GeoModder]

But this is just the problem; if all ships can bombard, and all naval combat becomes ranged even in the ancient era, then these warships are fighting ahistorically.

That's true. But it seems a bit hard to make a convincing ingame animation of two galleys/triremes trying to ram one another repeatedly.

If warships can bombard then you can be(t?) they're going to do that even for ship to ship fighting.

In the GameSpot movie, and on screenshots, I've seen frigates, destroyers, and battleships bombard one another across 2 tiles.

However, it does appear from screenshots like units have separate "strength" and "bombardment" attributes.

So hopefully a galley will have a very low bombardment rating, and a moderate strength, so you're still encourage to use them more in melee.

Didn't notice those two attributes you mention, but I'll take your word for it.

 

[mattcrwi]

I don't want to relitigate this, I made my point in previous threads.
But I want the kind of feedback we have in Civ4.
I never know with 100% chance when another player is going to attack me.
But I get at least *some* kind of feedback on the existence and relative value of various modifiers. So I can know how important it is if I refuse tribute, or join a war, or declare war on a friend. Otherwise I'm just groping in the dark, not knowing what the impacts of the decisions I make are. That's not fun.

See for example these thread for previous discussion on this.
http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=357435&highlight=diplomacy+transparency&page=3
http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=362931

I agree with you %110

 

[Stile]

What I was arguing for is that it wouldn't be unheard of to consider classical era ships capable of bombarding in CiV.

But that's distracting from the topic here, which is 'new info', which brings me to the attached screenshot.
I'm starting to wonder if CiV will have 'negative' strategic resources. In the screenshot I see green numbers for horses and some other resource, and two red numbers after those.

Looks like aluminum or oil could be one of the negatives. This could be a product of adding a bunch of tanks through an editor to make a cool screenshot.

 

[The_J]

But that's distracting from the topic here, which is 'new info', which brings me to the attached screenshot.
I'm starting to wonder if CiV will have 'negative' strategic resources. In the screenshot I see green numbers for horses and some other resource, and two red numbers after those.

I guess this just say something like "12 horses left, but 4 iron over the limit", so that you easily see how many strategic resources you have.

 

[Riot_Starter]

What I was arguing for is that it wouldn't be unheard of to consider classical era ships capable of bombarding in CiV.

But that's distracting from the topic here, which is 'new info', which brings me to the attached screenshot.
I'm starting to wonder if CiV will have 'negative' strategic resources. In the screenshot I see green numbers for horses and some other resource, and two red numbers after those.

My first impression was that the player had lost control of strategic resources after creating units, so had effectively negative "left over".

But harmful resources is also a good guess and much more interesting. Sort of like pollution, toxins, and the like. Could lower the global happiness or something, especially with the (speculative) idea of "finite" luxury resources, so multiples mean something. For example, every source of dye = 3 global happiness. These would hurt you for each source you have.

 

[Ahriman]

Didn't notice those two attributes you mention, but I'll take your word for it.

See: http://www.gamespot.com/pc/strategy...2010/162/reviews/938528_20100612_embed003.jpg

Look under cannon on the bottom left: movement 1/2, strength 10, ranged attack 26.

My first impression was that the player had lost control of strategic resources after creating units, so had effectively negative "left over".

Agreed.

Another thing to note (obvious in retrospect) it looks like we were right about hit points.

Strength that always stays the same, hit points that decline and then unit dies when hit points reach zero.

 

[aziantuntija]

I don't want to relitigate this, I made my point in previous threads.
But I want the kind of feedback we have in Civ4.
I never know with 100% chance when another player is going to attack me.
But I get at least *some* kind of feedback on the existence and relative value of various modifiers. So I can know how important it is if I refuse tribute, or join a war, or declare war on a friend. Otherwise I'm just groping in the dark, not knowing what the impacts of the decisions I make are. That's not fun.

See for example these thread for previous discussion on this.
http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=357435&highlight=diplomacy+transparency&page=3
http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=362931

Im sure they are going to give the player somekind of hint about what the other leaders are thinking about the player, or at least what the leaders WANT you to think that they are thinking about the player. Now thats almost confusing

The point is that if in the diplomacy or in a combat you dont have any accurate information what is going to happen next, youll learn it trough experience and with gut feeling. If you have too accurate % (or whatever) information about everything whats going to happen in a game, then its not a game anymore, then it would just be all about playing right with those given percentages, and that wouldnt be a fun at all.

It seems like im having a bad english day I hope you still understand what im trying to say here

 

[Ahriman]

youll learn it trough experience and with gut feeling

This is just a terrible way to design a game.

By this logic, the display of the terrain modifiers and unit strengths should be removed, so that if you want to know the outcome of a combat between two units, you should have to rely on learning it through experience and gut feeling. After all, if you understand what the likely outcomes of combat are, then it won't be a game anymore.

Games have to be transparent in order to allow players to design meaningful strategies.

 

[GeoModder]

Look under cannon on the bottom left: movement 1/2, strength 10, ranged attack 26.

Saw it, thanks.

 

[bestrfcplayer]

Well, at least there's some NEW info right? Can't wait for the game to come out though.

 

[aziantuntija]

This is just a terrible way to design a game.

By this logic, the display of the terrain modifiers and unit strengths should be removed, so that if you want to know the outcome of a combat between two units, you should have to rely on learning it through experience and gut feeling. After all, if you understand what the likely outcomes of combat are, then it won't be a game anymore.

Games have to be transparent in order to allow players to design meaningful strategies.

I see that you really dont understand what im saying here. Ive allready said this very clearly before.

But i will say it again.

Here it comes:

IMO, the new way of displaying combat odds in Civ5 IS BETTER than the presice % in Civ4

EDIT: I also said:

"If you have too accurate % (or whatever) information about everything whats going to happen in a game, then its not a game anymore, then it would just be all about playing right with those given percentages, and that wouldnt be a fun at all."

 

[Dark_Jedi06]

I must say that Social Policies sounds like a great alternative to Civics, mainly because it greatly increases the importance of culture. Now if you neglect producing culture your empire will become backwards in governance, commerce, society, etc...this also adds additional importance to wonders, those who wonder-whore will be the farthest ahead with how their society is run.

 

[Ahriman]

IMO, the new way of displaying combat odds in Civ5 IS BETTER than the presice % in Civ4

That's nice. I strongly disagree. I don't understand why anyone playing a strategy game would prefer not to know how the game actually works.

Imagine if libraries and universities just said "boosts science output", or if farms just said "provides food" or if merchant specialists just said "increases gold".
You'd be totally unable to make meaningful strategic decisions because you couldn't compare the actual tradeoffs.

 

[Riot_Starter]

I must say that Social Policies sounds like a great alternative to Civics, mainly because it greatly increases the importance of culture. Now if you neglect producing culture your empire will become backwards in governance, commerce, society, etc...this also adds additional importance to wonders, those who wonder-whore will be the farthest ahead with how their society is run.

I agree that social policies sound cool (and we get to hear more tomorrow!!) and love that they are tied to culture. I might invest in some culture this time around.

But on the wonder whoring thing, you may be wrong. See this pic:
http://www.gamespot.com/pc/strategy...?rgroup=e32010_story&tag=thumbs_below;thumb;2

Rome is only making 7 culture. It has:

2 wonders:
Sistine Chapel
Pyramids

Buildings:
Theater
Colosseum (assuming culture)
Circus (same assumption)
Temple (another assumption)

This to me feels like a lot of stuff that could give culture, especially the wonders. The wonders may not give culture anymore, especially since the culture felt tacked on to wonders in Civ4. With culture's new importance in buying civ-wide upgrades, I have a feeling we won't be seeing wonders give culture anymore (unless that is their focus, of course).