PAX-E VideoInterview with Dennis Shirk

[V. Soma]

A can't believe they would go soblatantly wrong with land units becoming water units that they make water tiles behave like land tiles - this is nonsense.

I believe that to swap to water from land you need sg. to make it happen, again:
- a dock / port / seashore city tile
- some movement cost to make the change

landing is a different story, this would and could depend on lots of things,
but generally a unit should be able to land weherever it wants, again:
- you need certain movement cost, maybe start the turn next to land to make it.
- you may be able to land but not attack on the land in the same turn

these are just ideas...

but I am sure they test theirs at Firaxis...

 

[King Kalmah]

In a RTS game like Rise of Nations it makes sense... because there are lots of things happening at the same time and you couldn't manage everything if certain aspetcs wouldn't be streamlined.
But this is a TBS game... a whole different story.

Exactly in a TBS you have way more time...also to all those people who hate galleys/galleons....

how would the Spanish have found the Americas?

how would the Mongols invade Japan?

Sure these will all work with Civ5,but expect the AI to navally invade you alot more then ever before....

 

[Shurdus]

One thing that I disliked about Civ IV was that you needed to spam units in order to get some warring going. On land this was acceptable still since the ton of units could still be managed as one unit, but on water it was so unfuriatingly annoying. It served little purpose besides to satisfy logics. You need a unit to cross water, right? Right. But why should I be bothered with details? I want to oversee the big picture, I could care less about the exact number of transports to get from A to B. If you liked that then more power to you, but it annoyed me to no end.

So everything that takes away this mirco sounds good to me. Maybe there still will be limits like you needing enough wood to do it, or maybe you will need enough steel later on to get iron transports, etc. We know very little still so it may all turn out to be well thought out and nice. Whatever gets the game flowing more is an improvement imo.

Whatever drags the game down is a nuissance. Boats were nothing more than a nuissance in Civ IV imo. As long as careful measures were are taken so that water does not simply becomes 'land with reduced movement' then it will be decent enough. There are tons of things in this game that require a different playing style. This boat issue will just be different, we have no idea if it will be for better or worse. I hope to see possibilities for earlier intercontinental warfare going since there were quite some of those wars in the classical days.

 

[Tomice]

We can safely assume that they do some testing on things, although pessimist fans usually won't believe that. So please wait a bit before you assume out of nothing that it's going to be crap!

Permanent On/Off switches from water to land just cry for unrealistic abuse, so it probably won't be that easy. It WILL have some restrictions IMO, everything else would just be stupid.

 

[hclass]

Not really. Rise of Nations used a similar concept and it worked really well. It takes away a useless unit (transport/galleon) and minimizes micromanagement.

Difficult to comment on transformers feature cause there is too little info about it.
But in CIV4 I find destroying a transport or galleon full of enemy units cruelly fun.

 

[King Kalmah]

Difficult to comment on transformers feature cause there is too little info about it.
But in CIV4 I find destroying a transport or galleon full of enemy units cruelly fun.

I know I'm gonna miss ambushing a bunch of transports with my fleet of battleships

 

[bonafide11]

At first I was unsure about the land units becoming transports thing, but after playing Civ IV again, I think this is a great idea. In Civ IV, I conquer everyone on my continent, but am too lazy to go through the hassle of trying to build galleys and galleons to chase civilizations on islands near me, and it takes me so long to build a large enough navy to navigate to the other continent. I never bother settling on islands because of how much of a hassle it is to do, but now I can just walk a settler over there, and walk workers over there when I want to. This will make islands much more valuable and useful. You'll still need to build a navy to protect your units, but this will make people use the sea much more than they did in Civ IV, which is a great thing in my opinion. Traveling over the sea should be fun and convenient, not a huge pain in the ass.

 

[burleigh]

I know I'm gonna miss ambushing a bunch of transports with my fleet of battleships

Yes, but from an earlier post, I suspect you'll like ambushing "units (that) become defenseless transports to cross water". PG had a similar thing, & it was sadistically pleasurable destroying the German invasion force before it hit Britain- not so much fun once they landed & converted back into tanks etc & were knocking the crap out of you!

Good feature- I look forward to playing with it!

 

[bonafide11]

I know I'm gonna miss ambushing a bunch of transports with my fleet of battleships

You'll still be able to. If the other player's transports are protected by an inferior naval unit, you'll destroy it and all the transports he's protecting.

 

[Ahriman]

I have no problem at all with land-units becoming transports, they're just removing the micromanagement of having to manage separate transport units.

Certainly though becoming a ship (loading) should take up all movement points, so that the enemy gets at least 1 turn to try to destroy them with their navy.

Unloading would also take up all remaining movement points (so you can't start in the ocean and end up moving 2 tiles inland).

So for the English channel example:
Turn 1, I move a unit from land into a coastal tile in the channel. Ends all movement. Its a sitting duck unless protected by a warship. The Royal Navy can come and destroy it.
Turn 2, cross the channel, and unload onto the other side. I have to land in unoccupied tile, or face a huge amphbious landing penalty. Ends all movement. Ground units in Britain can counterattack, and damage or destroy the newly unloaded invasion force (and prevent them from moving further inland, which is needed in order to land any further units, because of limited space from 1upt).

Also note; the enemy can no longer hide their fleets in their cities. 1Upt. So, if you want to have a navy to support your amphibious landing, then you have to make that navy vulnerable to benig destroyed by my navy.

This as opposed to Civ4, where you can move your entire army across the channel from the safety of Le Havre or Brest and unload, without the Royal Navy ever getting a chance to attack a single naval unit until the land army has already been unloaded (because they just hide in the city, invulnerable, the whole time).
***

Loading only from a city would be problematic. Imagine that I have an island with a single city on it, non-coastal. If I can only load from a port, then I can't move any land units off that island once I land them onto it (worse; an island with no cities on it).
Whereas in any previous version of Civ I can just sail the transport unit up to the coast, and load them on.

 

[Newcomer24]

they're just removing the micromanagement of having to manage separate transport units.

Transports actually are a separate, different, unit type... that's because you used to manage them separately.

We could do this then... make only 1 unit type called "generic military unit" and then at the start of each turn if you want/need you can transform it in transports... war ships... aircrafts or whatever else you want... this way we will remove the micromanagement of having to manage separate units types! What a great idea!

 

[Ahriman]

Transports actually are a separate, different, unit type... that's because you used to manage them separately.

Managing military units is fun. Managing transport units isn't.

Its just annoying busywork, having to get the transports where you need them when you need them.

Your reductio ad absurdum is fail.

 

[boredatwork]

Just do what PG did and have a "pool" of transports available (this would also cut down on the abuse that is "airlifting").

Instead of manufacturing actual transports you simply manufacture transport "points". On turns when your not transporting anything the "ships" can be assumed to be engaged in trade giving you bonus gold. When you do require transport 1 point = 1 unit that could be transported. It's a reasonable assumption that that over the course of a 5 or 10 year turn you'll have had the foresight to order transports collected at an appropriate location. Scouts and explorers and early warriors could be assumed to embark from anywhere. Heavier troops will require a friendly port to embark.

 

[luchofeio]

So for the English channel example:
Turn 1, I move a unit from land into a coastal tile in the channel. Ends all movement. Its a sitting duck unless protected by a warship. The Royal Navy can come and destroy it.
Turn 2, cross the channel, and unload onto the other side. I have to land in unoccupied tile, or face a huge amphbious landing penalty. Ends all movement. Ground units in Britain can counterattack, and damage or destroy the newly unloaded invasion force (and prevent them from moving further inland, which is needed in order to land any further units, because of limited space from 1upt).

this
and lets not forget that with 1 unit/hex and considering the size of England in all civ games you can cover the south coast with 5-7 units real easy...so it wont be easy to land, for all coast hex will be guarded by 1 unit

i like this new idea...but i hope it costs money to do it

 

[Newcomer24]

Managing military units is fun. Managing transport units isn't.
Its just annoying busywork, having to get the transports where you need them when you need them.

Maybe it's not fun for you... but others could disagree.

It's not busywork, not more than managing workers (would you remove workers too?).
Having transports when and where you need them requires planning and strategy, removing them removes a layer of complexity. I can live without them... but don't tell me they are gone for any reason that isn't to make the game more accessible to the average Joe.

 

[The Cosmic Kid]

Transports actually are a separate, different, unit type... that's because you used to manage them separately.

We could do this then... make only 1 unit type called "generic military unit" and then at the start of each turn if you want/need you can transform it in transports... war ships... aircrafts or whatever else you want... this way we will remove the micromanagement of having to manage separate units types! What a great idea!

I don't think this sort of wild hyperbole is at all productive. You're not going to find anyone who disagrees with you that "generic military units" would be unfun. Accordingly, Civ5 will not have such a feature. But this says nothing about the feasibility of abstracting the transport system in particular, since both the developers and players are perfectly capable of recognizing the distinction between one particular unit type and every unit type. Address the actual issue, not your own strawman.

 

[AlphaShard]

That depends on how it is implemented. I surely hope units cannot simply walk onto a water tile and become a boat. This should require the presence of either a port or at the very least the presence of another naval vessel. This would represent the effort to build a transport for the units.

More importantly, in a 1upt scenario what are the alternatives? Building a transport for every unit you want to transport? That sounds like an mm nightmare! Especially since you will probably need to beeld an escort for each transport as well.

This may be why they implemented the "units transform into boats".

 

[Ahriman]

Maybe it's not fun for you... but others could disagree.

Sure they could. That's their right.

It's not busywork, not more than managing workers (would you remove workers too?).

Did you enjoy having workers removing pollution in Civ3? That was busywork. They removed it.

Workers can also be automated, for players who don't care about optimizing improvements. (I'm not one of them, I like building improvements).
There's no way to effectively automate transports though.

but don't tell me they are gone for any reason that isn't to make the game more accessible to the average Joe.

They are gone for reasons that aren't to make the game more accessible to the average Joe; they are gone to make the game more fun for a large portion of serious Civ players like myself, who find transport management boring.

And since when is accessibility a bad thing?

Chess is accessible, the rules are simple.

 

[Wolle68]

I'm torn on this issue. On the one hand, it seems that the rules Ahriman is suggesting could make the gameplay work. On the other, it just seems wrong to drive my tank over a cliff, and suddenly it's in a boat. Maybe we can get used to it. It doesn't seem to bother anyone that units move faster along railroads even in the absence of trains.

Having to build a transport also represents the added cost of having to move your troops across the ocean. It's not just added vulnerability there are also hammers to be considered.

 

[Asylumer]

Units being able to move across water without a transport destroys water's primary function as a barrier. A blockade becomes nearly useless when land units can launch a naval invasion from any location on their own.

Some here have ventured to suggest Port-Only transformations, but as has been pointed out, units could become stuck on small islands if there is no port, since there is no way to send another transport ship that way.

I wish they would just allow multiple land units onto a transport and then restrict the number of land attacks that could be made from a ship. This would prevent ships from becoming miniature Stacks of Doom and still work with 1uPH if the unloading unit needed a free hex to get off.