New Preview up @ Apolyton
- Thread starter Enkidu Warrior
- Start date
Stilgar08
Emperor
THX!!! 
I will check it out immediately!
I will check it out immediately!
Stilgar08
Emperor
Solver said:So, took you 17 minutes to put a thread about it up, I was curious as to this.
C'mon!!! 17mins is not bad at all, I would say! Very good read, I say! (haven't finished yet, though!)
Will you stay around a bit longer so we can ask you "holes in your stomach", as we say in Germany??
Thanx for writing that down for us!! Every info helps to ease the pain of waiting for the game after all!
Lucky The Fox
Prince
So the religious line of sight is back again.
Can't wait for monday!
Can't wait for monday!
Actually, I meant exactly that, that 17 minutes is a pretty good time 
.
EDIT: For the most part, the question answering and discussion is done at Apolyton. http://apolyton.net/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=139758
.EDIT: For the most part, the question answering and discussion is done at Apolyton
. http://apolyton.net/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=139758One thing is clear: Combat will be a different animal. We have have to break some habits quickly. For example: Defending with archers. With no att/def values it actually may be a GOOD idea to attack that unit with the pikemen depending on the situation. It seems like it will be more tactical. There wil be a lot of attacking specific units with specific units. and stacking different types of units together on multiple squares. As well as efforts to Kill City Raiders before they reach the cities etc.
It's not only combat that is a different animal, really. Civ4 is a different game. Some people (as always) won't like the change, but it's a different game, and combat isn't the only area where you'll have to forget your old habits.
Stilgar08
Emperor
Solver said:
I know that you meant that
Great read!!!
And so many great news! I want to play it now now now!!!
I'll definitely gonna check out the discussion at Apolyton (tomorrow - have to work in a few hours), thanks for the link! I envy you for being able to play civ4 already for a couple of months!
You lifted my moods! Merci!
P.S.: Phew: 32 years old and reaching the smiley-limit@CFC for the first time ever out of excitement from reading a preview of my most anticipated game! ......Feels good! *grin*
Good night, then!
Very very interesting.
I don't think that the settler production is as different as Solver says it is, unless there's something I'm missing. Civ3: cities grow while training settlers, but the population drops again when they're done. Civ4: cities don't grow while training settlers, but there is also no population loss upon completion. Isn't that very nearly the same thing? The city maintenance costs are fundamentally different, though.
What exactly *is* line-of-sight as it applies to religion?
I very much like what I'm hearing about the increase of strategic and tactical complexity in the game. Sounds very good, mostly.
I don't think that the settler production is as different as Solver says it is, unless there's something I'm missing. Civ3: cities grow while training settlers, but the population drops again when they're done. Civ4: cities don't grow while training settlers, but there is also no population loss upon completion. Isn't that very nearly the same thing? The city maintenance costs are fundamentally different, though.
What exactly *is* line-of-sight as it applies to religion?
I very much like what I'm hearing about the increase of strategic and tactical complexity in the game. Sounds very good, mostly.
vbraun
Raytracing
This sounds really really good.
I just did, and I think I still agree with Sir Ralph, unless settlers are crazy expensive in terms of number of hammers. An average Civ3 city building nothing but settlers would crash in population, not maintain population.
Thanks for the explanation on line of sight.
One possible quibble on the game play: I'm not sure yet whether I'll like the 'collateral damage' concept. Civ2's need to spread units all over the map to avoid getting them taken out wholesale by a single loss drove me batty, and I much preferred Civ3's stacks of doom. So I'll have to wait and see on this one, I guess.
Thanks for the explanation on line of sight.
One possible quibble on the game play: I'm not sure yet whether I'll like the 'collateral damage' concept. Civ2's need to spread units all over the map to avoid getting them taken out wholesale by a single loss drove me batty, and I much preferred Civ3's stacks of doom. So I'll have to wait and see on this one, I guess.
Collateral damage is what it says - collateral DAMAGE, not death. You lose some health there, not your unit.
I didn't like the Civ3 stacks of doom because it was a no-brainer - take all your units, pile into one square, go!
I didn't like the Civ3 stacks of doom because it was a no-brainer - take all your units, pile into one square, go!
jameson
Emperor
Renata said:
I had to think about that for a bit too but the main difference is I think in the trade and shields you lose from the extra pops not working extra tiles. The trick of gaining two extra shields from the governor working a forest upon growth would also be gone.
One difference between the old and new settler systems is that it's no longer so much of a disadvantage to have large cities build settlers. In CivIII, the higher the population rose, the more food would be necessary to generate a new population point, so a city with two population and two extra food/turn would grow more quickly than a city with ten population and the same extra food. Clearly, it would be more effective to build settlers in small cities, where the population lost would return much more quickly.
This also means that city populations are much more stable, which helps eliminate some micromanagement issues.
(edit) I think this change also makes it possible for a stable-population city to produce settlers. In the previous game, if you had the bad luck of starting in a food-poor region, you could produce settlers and workers only with great difficulty.
This also means that city populations are much more stable, which helps eliminate some micromanagement issues.
(edit) I think this change also makes it possible for a stable-population city to produce settlers. In the previous game, if you had the bad luck of starting in a food-poor region, you could produce settlers and workers only with great difficulty.
tcjsavannah
Wow, it's been a while...
I'm not sure I like the whole, "build up one city for a while before you go get your second one started" thing. Especially since expansion was SUCH an early strategy for almost all of the AI. We were so ingrained that if you didn't branch out early, you were going to get overwhelmed. Is the AI not so expansion-conscious?
Roland Johansen
Deity
Okay, if I understand artillery correctly:
1) land artillery can attack and risk losing but damage multiple enemy units in a stack
2) land artillery can reduce the defence bonus from cities from a distance without risking loss of the unit (how about reducing forts defence bonus, hill defence bonus?)
3) ship artillery can only reduce the defence bonus from cities
4) bombers can do collateral damage and only lose to some units that intercept them (fighters, sam capable units)
5) bombers can reduce the city defence bonus like artillery while risking loss to some units that intercept them (fighters, sam capable units)
Correct???
1) land artillery can attack and risk losing but damage multiple enemy units in a stack
2) land artillery can reduce the defence bonus from cities from a distance without risking loss of the unit (how about reducing forts defence bonus, hill defence bonus?)
3) ship artillery can only reduce the defence bonus from cities
4) bombers can do collateral damage and only lose to some units that intercept them (fighters, sam capable units)
5) bombers can reduce the city defence bonus like artillery while risking loss to some units that intercept them (fighters, sam capable units)
Correct???
Similar threads
