Discussion in 'Civ4 - General Discussions' started by Stuie, Nov 16, 2005.
Then don't install it. Wait for feedback from other folks.
Rad for you, don't install it.
Oh, and btw, if you have taken any time to read any of this lengthy thread, you will realize that the 'useless' patch adresses known game play bugs, graphics glitches, exploits and out of balance play features too....
Have a great day!
Yes, this is true and I won't deny it. Spearmen kill chariots (or even Horse Archers) dead. That's the risk of the early rush.
The problem is that I will know that I have Horses from the first turn and will beeline towards AH to exploit it and you won't know that you have Bronze till at least (assuming you start with mining) your first Tech that you research. In addition, it is much less likely that your Copper is under your city tile, so you will need to build a mine and road before you can start using it. By this time an aggresive player is sending out his first Chariots to pillage.
Like I said earlier, this is a real problem in the MP ladder. It is very skewed towards horse rushers right now.
Those of you doubters, try an early chariot rush against a neighbor.
What's your point? The argument is that the player knows the horse resource gives him something, therefore it must be hidden until he has the tech to use it so he does not tailor his strategy towards something he shouldn't know yet. The player knows stone is useful for something other than +1 hammer. Seeing it on the map could alter his strategy. You cannot chose to apply this logic in one place and then not in another.
My argument is essentially this: People say knowing they have a resource advantage in advance is too big of an advantage for them. I say having a resource advantage is an advantage regardless. Knowing you are at a resource disadvantage is the only defense. Knowing you don't have something ahead of time is a bigger advantage than knowing you do have it. Thus showing the resources helps to even the playing field, not unbalance it more as people are arguing.
Who among us in Civ 3 never built a city out in the middle of a bunch of hills/mountains on spec that iron might show up there? With expansion more limited now you really can't do that anymore. But you are forced to research all the techs that reveal the resources first or you are screwed. What is the point of making me go through the same motions at the start of every game? They wanted to speed up the game, and people are complaining parts go too fast now. I say this early resource revealing stuff is an area that can be eliminated leaving more time for when you actually have units and cities to do something with. The early techs are really more about killing time while you explore and your capital builds up. Other than going for an early religion does it really make any difference whatsoever what order you research the early techs in? You can't trade them, and you need all of them.
Anyway it's a brilliant move by Firaxis. Everyone was complaining about the crashes. They put out a patch to fix the crashes and throw in this little nugget about horses. Now everyone is complaining about horses instead of crashes. By the time we get sick of this the patch will be out and the crashes will be fixed. Just brilliant.
What you are referring to are dragoons, a sub-class of cavalry. Cavalry brigades in the American civil war were basically all dragoon units (mounted to be flexible, but fighting primarily not from horseback, but dismounted).
There were other sub-classes, however: cuirassiers (armored riders with heavy swords), hussars (light cavalry with sabres) and lancers. The famous "charge of the light brigade" at Balaclava (Krim) 1848 was a frontal charge of a sword-swinging cavalry brigade on enemy artillery - no rifles were used by the riders (that attack got famous, however, because it was one of the most horrendous tactical stupidities ever).
It is not true that cavalry was "side-lined to recon, delay, and routing support by this time". This had ALWAYS been the role of the LIGHT cavalry. Some subclasses (hussars e.g.) had been established expressively for that purpose: To recon and to wipe up fleeing forces. The "heavies", however, were drilled for massive shock attack, which could have a devastating effect on infantry with low morale. Whether cavalry was superior to infantry depended heavily on the discipline of the latter. It was also at Balaclava where the famous "thin red line" (a company of highlander riflemen) stopped a hill-down cavalry charge by pure cold-bloodedness. The same was true for the square formations Wellington put to use against Napoleon's elite cuirassiers at Waterloo 1815. However, these are famous examples because the rule was true until the end of the 19th century that only the most disciplined and courageous infantry could withstand the sheer impetus of the charge of 500 or more horses.
Not to be nittpicking here - just an interesting tidbit of information:
Neanderthals were actually a different species than homo sapiens sapiens (what we are) - at the current level of understanding neanderthals and homo sapiens sapiens were results of a split in the evolution line around 400.000 years ago. There is evidence of homo sapiens sapiens and neanderthals living in the same general region in western asia around 40.000 years ago. What caused the neanderthals to die out is still a mystery...
40,000 years? When way too many people in America think the world is just 5000 years old?
Is homo sapien sapiens an alternative to Chro-magnon (sp?) man? Neanderthals were homo sapiens as well.
The THEORY of evolution is still a theory not fact yet.
Also, from what I understand, there is no connection to Chro-magnon man and the Neandertals even as far as evolution goes. They are not sure how 2 races of man so different came about.
This is what my studies on evolution have uncovered.
The only one here for certain is evolution is far from fact still. As many people in the research of evolution are detractors of it as there are supporters.
LOL, really hard to figure this one out :->
Here is something else along those lines: I was just reading an article the other day in scientific American that said the yeti was another offshoot of man and that they only died out about a few thousand years ago meaning they existed well into the modern age, which of course is why you have all those myths about them. (And no I'm not joking, almost all myths and legends have bases in fact.)
Troll alert Troll alert
YES... you took my post material from me. With the advent of quality, ranged longarms, cavalry gradually ceased to be a shock unit for melee, and evolved to become a highly mobile group. The power of the cavalry left the charge, and moved into the ability to move into position quickly, flank, exploit, etc. You still would find the occassional cavalry skirmish on horseback, but usually when riding down light units out of formation, or covering distance to exploit the enemy rear...
Regarding your point about units becoming obsolete because the 'the techtree moves past them too fast', have you ever tried playing on the preferred Epic game speed ?
And what's useless about a jungle defense bonus ?
Well, considering most of my games end up with virtually no jungle or forest, it's pretty useless by the end game...
With Environmentalism it can become a big part of the game. Dont forget; forests re-grow on their own (I am not sure if there are other factors in it too; but I have seen many forests and jungles grow. Most of my games end up with land being about 35% forest/jungle), so if you have a reason to have forests it's not hard to get them.
According to the Civilopedia you need both The Wheel and Horses to build a Chariot. Horses arent available as a strategic resource until a Pasture is built. But The Wheel gives you roads on which to pull the carts you build. (People pull the carts.)
I like your last paragraph. It is an interesting thought. I havent read the strategy or game balance threads yet. I was guessing that people were complaining about seeing horses before they had any use (besides planning city location).
My point is that the only benefit to knowing where horses are before you have a use for them only helps in planning city location. Stone on the other hand has a benefit from the beginning and should play a role in choosing city location.
A lot of resources provide some benefit before being developed. These would influence the location of early cities. When the extra usefulness is discovered it is nice that the resource is near. Location of resources that have no known use at all should not influence decisions of city location until a use is discovered for them. (Thus we have a division of resources as ones currently of some use and those that are only of later use.)
This adds an interesting element to the game. One strategy is to research techs you know that you can use now, without some resource you dont know the location of. An example is Mysticism. An alternate is to research a tech to be able to see it and then race to secure it before someone else knows its location. An example of this is Mining and then Bronze Working. Do you go for the sure thing, Obelisk and Stonehenge, or the gamble, copper?
With the horses starting hidden, you now need to decide your research path on whether you want horses or iron first, and then race to control it. Without the change, your research choice is decided not on the strategy you want but whether you see horses or not.
I dont know how much of a play balance issue this is since I havent played all possible civs and options yet. But as a game concept I see it as a consistency issue. You can only know about something that you can currently see some value in. I prefer to see concept consistency except when it threatens play balance. Realism is a close second to consistency but only when it doesnt interfere with play balance. IMO I feel that the game simulates a lot of what has happened in our history. It sacrifices realism only when necessary, and then in what seems a reasonable way.
I would like to see a game with subclasses like you mentioned. But unfortunately the game was simplified by generalizing many of the classes. And how do you pick the attributes for the class? You pick examples that are common and representative, or ones that exist for any subclass and work for game balance.
So, in essence, both you and Colonel Kraken have valid points that can be used for game design. But Colonel Kraken makes a good point in that the Cavalry in the game can realistically have the attributes specified in the game.
Sure, but it's not likely you will still be using jaguars near the end of the game anyway. That UU is only useful in the early game, when there are still plenty of trees around.
No - stayed at over 400k at last check despite advancing turns, and kept going up every time (by about 30k) every time I opened a diplomacy window.
Honestly, it seems that quite a few "representations" are based on what the average US-american customer deems likely. "Cavalry"? Oh, yes, those guys in blue, whohelped conquer the wild west *g* It's even cuter with "West Point", which might be a big thing in the US army of today, but IF there was something like a "wonder" with those consequences, then it would more likely be the german general staff of WW1 - which was viewed as so powerful and dangerous that the Allies forbade it's existence in Versailles ;O)
Back to the game: CIV4 tries to mimick the extremely well-balanced counter-unit concept of the Age of Empires series - with less success, I must say. In AoE, it worked. And for every rule, you had an exception (mostly unique units). However, CIV4 is quite simple and outright boring in that respect: You always know what chain of units your enemies will have, there's hardly any variance in it. Most armies are very similar.
Ceterum censeo: Firaxis, give us the unit editor functions of SMAC! Let us not get "horse archers" from "horseback riding", but instead give us the ability to design mounted archers from then on,equipped with whatever armor we have researched and are willing to pay for. It worked in SMAC, it could even better work in CIV4. Hell, it worked in Warzone2100 in full 3D many years ago!
Yes, but then it's not "cavalry", but a very special class of cavalry, more correctly called "dragoons". It's basically very simple: Firaxis wanted a unit strong vs. artillery and weak vs. pikemen, so that's "cavalry", don't think about it any more. I don't really have a problem with that (although I'd LOVE to see more diversity... I wonder why it's possible in RTS games and not in a CIV game?) - compared with my gripes about what I call "the artillery perversion", that's a harmless matter ;O)
Separate names with a comma.