Oct 10/11 - PAX Australia Dev Panel and new leader reveal Discussion thread

[Lonecat Nekophrodite]

Yes, but with caveats. Firstly "ideal situations" rarely happen, glancing shots (especially as armour is always curved to maximise the odds of that happening) are common and lots of things of reduce the effectiveness of a firearm. Secondly, armour responded by simply being thicker, and made of better steel, in the chest plate. Making plates that thick articulated would, however, be both very difficult to do and too heavy to be practical to wear. So the extremities of the armour were discarded and the central portions strengthened as a compromise: better to use the same mass of metal to stop the vast majority of shot to the chest than to fail to protect a thigh. The end result is a Napoleonic Cuirassier with just a breastplate and helmet (although by that time, musket calibres had started falling so the cuirass was not insanely thick).

But the thickest cuirass of the 17th century could stop cannon shot! Not reliably, and not in well enough to keep the man behind it fighting, but armour could and did resist lesser fire from pistols, muskets and arquebuses regularly. Some Hussar accounts (their thickest plates approached 1cm):

View attachment 706164

and these were examples that cannonballs that rushed out of gunbarrel (pre-1700s maybe) did not always turn knights and cuirassiers into donuts.

 

[Boris Gudenuf]

Couched lance is a whole other debate (arguably it goes back to antiquity) but the first medieval "knights" to do that were not wearing full plate armour. The first knights is a whole confusing thing, because there's both the military side of shock heavy cavalry, and the feudal side of a hereditary, land owning aristocracy, and the two are linked but not identical. As for armour 1300 is really the transitional period, the "heavy" shining knight of popular imagination is really 1400 and onwards (with emphasis on the onwards). Which is also roughly when lance arrêtes were developed which is essentially a way of super-couching a lance.

All that to say military development is complicated and I don't expect Civ to get it even vaguely right. But the two melee infantry showing something early-middle-ages-ish (he could be a viking if not for the shape of the shield) and one which is late medieval / renaissance is better historical accuracy then I'd ever hope for. Still curious if they're different units, or if one is the "mastered" version of the other.

This.
First, the term 'knight' is misleading, because it meant different things at different times, and because the concept is associated with the wrong things in popular imagination.

Second, far more important than any equipment, armor or weapons a unit or group is equipped with is how good their morale is and how well trained they are, both as individuals and as a Unit. Since Morale can change from moment to moment, it is the level of Unit Training that becomes the real measure of a Unit's effectiveness.

By that measure, 'knights' got better and better throughout the period 900 - 1600 CE. The original mounted retainers/feudal host had exceptionally high morale generally, a high level of individual weapons training, but no Unit training at all, because they had no units to speak of. A Medieval Phalanx or battle array consisted of Whoever Showed Up divided into 'Lances' of a half-dozen men each with virtually no chain of command between them and the Army Commander: maneuvering any part of the armed host was simply impossible since there was no way to subdivide it on the field.

So very quickly the feudal host was found to be both militarily and economically grossly inefficient. The men could only be kept in the field for a short time, because they had to also run their fiefs, and so had to go home to ensure that they were producing enough to afford their horses, arms and equipment and could pay whatever levy was required by the Kingdom. Keep them away too long, and they could no longer afford to be 'knights'.

It was far more efficient for the feudal retainer to retain someone else to go to war in his place: a mercenary 'knight' who could be kept in the field for as long as the money was available while the retainer stayed home and made sure the money was available. Here comes the term 'Sergeant', from the old French word for 'Servant' - a man with a Knight's weapons and armor who is Not a feudal retainer, not of noble birth - a hired soldier replacing the feudal retainer for pay.

By no coincidence, mercenary 'companies' appear at nearly the same time, composed of professionals that could be hired as a group and who were trained at both individual and Unit level. Also appearing were the Lances - small groups of men who served together and who could be grouped into Companies and larger Units - giving the army as a whole much more cohesion and the potential for actual Maneuver and Tactics on the battlefield beyond a simple "Hi-Ho, Here We Go!"

 

[Haig]

Boris Gudenof were you in Vietnam in 1967 if I may ask?

 

[Lonecat Nekophrodite]

Boris Gudenof were you in Vietnam in 1967 if I may ask?

I don't know if he ever know anythinga bout Pattaya and local 'comfort women' who served G.I. Joes throughout the tenure of the war?

 

[bite]

Moderator Action: A warning to get back on topic

 

[bite]

 

[FXS_Sar]

On top of it as usual Bite. I appreciate you

** Audio should be a bit better in this version. Encourage you all to check it out!

 

[RedCourtJester]

I posted in our main leader/civ speculation thread, but with respect to units, I see three broad categories of coloration:

1. Default coloration (which we likely have been seeing in some antiquity video reveals). These I would describe as the "Roman," "Asian," and "North American" units (possibly "African" and "Middle Eastern") in the lineup, as well as some of the European units in the antiquity/exploration/modern trifectas. I think default and associated military units all have some red in them to identify them as "military victory" units (we see some workers with some yellow in them in the Confucius reveal trailer).

2. Independent power coloration. I'm not 100% clear on how this will sort out, whether it will be inherent or determined by your diplomatic interactions, but it seems "city-state type" is returning to some extent. We have seen white-and-black and white-and-green units for what could be expansionist and diplomatic IPs (Slavs, Magyars and Funan; and Ghana and Mixtec, respectively), and we can see a "white on blue" unit in the above lineup (scientific). In a subsequent slide, we can see blue again, as well as red and yellow (military and economic respectively, with cultural's purple being the only color we haven't seen). I am speculating that "expansionism" has been a rough consolidation, not just of IPs but civs, between "Maritime" and "Religious" (both of which are different aspects of "expansion" in a way); no idea of "Industrial" is returning yet, I don't think it's necessary when it can be split into Science/Economic in later eras. What I find curious is that the backgrounds of these little diplomatic units suggest that the background is what "defines" the civ, while the colors might determine something else. Unclear how that logic will all sort out.

Also unclear, is to what extent these IP "diplo figures" are, effectively, two-colors and what that might mean. I have hypotheses but nothing super locked down.

3. Finally, we know that units are colored with civ's own two colors (not just white-and-color), and that those colors are defined by leaders, who are generally (but not always, in the case of Confucius and Amina) using the same colors as civs in VI did (Hatshepsut uses teal-on-sand, Augustus uses yellow-on-purple, Ashoka uses cyan-on-violet). and there is a single color combination we have not seen in the game yet, pointing toward an unrevealed leader: red-on-blue (which we can see in the above images as well). Also note that the designs on the shields may or may not point toward something HRE/Carolingian (although we see Gaulish boar on generic units in antiquity too so take that with a huge grain of salt):

When I noticed this, I went back and looked through the twitter reveals, and while a good deal of units we see are using their default palette, the unique unit promo videos reveal units which seem to be using the colors of prior Maya and Mongolian leaders:

So, based on new information we saw in this panel, I think it quite reasonable to speculate that a Mayan (maybe Babylonian) and Mongolian leader are planned, as well as a red-on-blue leader (which would track with Norway, but as pointed out elsewhere could be Norman).

 

[Dale]

On top of it as usual Bite. I appreciate you

** Audio should be a bit better in this version. Encourage you all to check it out!

Hey Sarah, I'll get you an Old World shirt, if you can get me one of those CIV-VII shirts!

 

[bite]

On top of it as usual Bite. I appreciate you

** Audio should be a bit better in this version. Encourage you all to check it out!

Also, for closure, I can confirm that the Devs now know what TimTams are

 

[Evolena]

View attachment 706467

Again, I'm not sure. What do you make of the image i've left while citing you, and this?

In the 5 screenshots I have of an IP with its miniature and banner, I can see:
* Ava, Scientific age 1 mini in the Antiquity Age (the "befriend Independant" action cost is hidden in the screenshot but I've seen it, it's 130), Science icon on white banner
* Soninke, Scientific age 1 mini in the Exploration Age, hidden icon on green banner
* Mixtec, Scientific age 2 mini in the Exploration Age, hidden icon on green banner
* Magyar, Militaristic age 1 mini in the Exploration Age, (star) icon on white banner
* Slav, Cultural? age 1? mini in the Antiquity Age, music note icon on white banner

Spoiler The 5 screenshots in question :

 

[RedCourtJester]

Again, I'm not sure. What do you make of the image i've left while citing you, and this?

In the 5 screenshots I have of an IP with its miniature and banner, I can see:
* Ava, Scientific age 1 mini in the Antiquity Age (the "befriend Independant" action cost is hidden in the screenshot but I've seen it, it's 130), Science icon on white banner
* Soninke, Scientific age 1 mini in the Exploration Age, hidden icon on green banner
* Mixtec, Scientific age 2 mini in the Exploration Age, hidden icon on green banner
* Magyar, Militaristic age 1 mini in the Exploration Age, (star) icon on white banner
* Slav, Cultural? age 1? mini in the Antiquity Age, music note icon on white banner

Spoiler The 5 screenshots in question :

View attachment 706481View attachment 706485View attachment 706483
View attachment 706482View attachment 706484

Let me address these in order from "most plausible" to "least plausible," roughly:

* Mixtec (Tilantogo) - very clearly "green and white" or "green and blank." Her sleeves match the green in the shields. This IP is likely "diplomatic," maybe "expansionist" if we are applying the new six leader/civ types (and assuming yellow/blue/purple/red are already taken by the old assignments of economic, scientific, cultural, and militaristic, respectively.
* Ghana (Kumbi Saleh) - very clearly also "green and white" or "green and blank." His hat matches the color in the shields, also likely "diplomatic" (or "expansionist"). What I find curious is his hat is very similar to the "yellow scientific" guy from the Pax Panel, and that guy suggests that maybe his "Kente cloth" could also change color. Therefore, this leads me to believe that possibly, both his "Kente cloth" and her "dress" are currently their "default/blank" colors that could feasibly change color as well.
* Slavs (Carantania) - seems totally white based on his clothing and the white fabric of the IP map assets. So likely "blank" map assets, and either "blank" or "default" for his costume.
* Asian female model - also seems totally white based on white fabric of the IP map assets. More evidence that "white" and "blank" may be one and the same, since she has more natural colors in her costume beyond his white toga.
* Magyars (Etelkoz) - could either be "totally white" or "white and black." Not sure if black is a second "default/blank" color for IPs, or if "black" = "expansionist." Would be easier to tell if there were black in the Slavic guy's default wear, since I would speculate both could be "expansionist." Absent more information, leaning on this also just being "default/blank."

 

[Evolena]

* Mixtec (Tilantogo) - very clearly "green and white" or "green and blank." Her sleeves match the green in the shields. This IP is likely "diplomatic," maybe "expansionist" if we are applying the new six leader/civ types (and assuming yellow/blue/purple/red are already taken by the old assignments of economic, scientific, cultural, and militaristic, respectively.

It marvels me how you can deem them Diplomatic or Expansionist with a mini background/display/objects around them matching the "Science" IP type of the PAX Panel and a very obvious scientific icon on their banner?

 

[RedCourtJester]

It marvels me how you can deem them Diplomatic or Expansionist with a mini background/display/objects around them matching the "Science" IP type of the PAX Panel and a very obvious scientific icon on their banner?

Like I said, I'm not totally sure exactly why the colors aren't matching the "types." Maybe the colors define the sort of relationship agreements you have with them (in which case it would be "the diplomatic" arrangement" or "the scientific arrangement.") We really don't have enough information to go off of other than the fact that colors are suggesting that the define some basic categorization about each IP.

Looking at those, I am inclined to agree that the "models" define the "type" while the "colors" define which relationship options you choose. That would track most across all the images, I think.

 

[Lonecat Nekophrodite]

I posted in our main leader/civ speculation thread, but with respect to units, I see three broad categories of coloration:

1. Default coloration (which we likely have been seeing in some antiquity video reveals). These I would describe as the "Roman," "Asian," and "North American" units (possibly "African" and "Middle Eastern") in the lineup, as well as some of the European units in the antiquity/exploration/modern trifectas. I think default and associated military units all have some red in them to identify them as "military victory" units (we see some workers with some yellow in them in the Confucius reveal trailer).

View attachment 706466

No 'Southeast Asian' and 'Maori' variants ?
and in every variants everyont seems to copy Old Roma. i'm not sure if Asian Swordsmen did indeed wear this style of armor. based on Sanguo era army uniforms.

 

[RedCourtJester]

No 'Southeast Asian' and 'Maori' variants ?
and in every variants everyont seems to copy Old Roma. i'm not sure if Asian Swordsmen did indeed wear this style of armor. based on Sanguo era army uniforms.

I agree it seems to be an incomplete list, since we already know there are Polynesian units to some degree in the game.

 

[Evolena]

Like I said, I'm not totally sure exactly why the colors aren't matching the "types." Maybe the colors define the sort of relationship agreements you have with them (in which case it would be "the diplomatic" arrangement" or "the scientific arrangement.") We really don't have enough information to go off of other than the fact that colors are suggesting that the define some basic categorization about each IP.

Looking at those, I am inclined to agree that the "models" define the "type" while the "colors" define which relationship options you choose. That would track most across all the images, I think.

I don't know the reason of the green IP either. But we've seen several ones, even without the mini, that were all white (on minimap, on trading screen.... except one which was a City State and was yellowish), so I think by default all IP are white, except when they are not ^^

 

[AriochIV]

I don't know the reason of the green IP either. But we've seen several ones, even without the mini, that were all white (on minimap, on trading screen.... except one which was a City State and was yellowish), so I think by default all IP are white, except when they are not ^^

My guess is that the color indicates some kind of status. Such as green when they're friendly or your vassal.

 

[RedCourtJester]

My guess is that the color indicates some kind of status. Such as green when they're friendly or your vassal.

I do find it curious that the Pax slide of "military, economic, and scientific" uses specifically the three colors associated with those types of city-states in V/VI, just mixed and matched.

 

[Disgustipated]

Not sure where to ask it, so I'll do it here. Is there a stream this week? And if not, does anyone know when the next one is?