- Joined
- Aug 12, 2010
- Messages
- 18,949
Dive Bomber
It's hard to tell at this zoom, but I think it's a SBD Dauntless
Confirmation that Bridges (era-specific ones, no less) are buildings, not improvements
I was under the impression that that’s the “tile improvement” for tiles that aren’t normally built on. Could’ve sworn I saw a worked natural wonder that had that label on it at some point around the Exploration stream.View attachment 712558
I'm guessing the Expedition Base on this mountain tile (which you can work in the Modern Age) is something to do with Explorers and Artifacts
Based on the unit "profile picture" I had thought that it might be a P-47, but I think you're right it's modeled after the Dauntless. And of course the fighter is the P-51.View attachment 712559
Dive Bomber
It's hard to tell at this zoom, but I think it's a SBD Dauntless
View attachment 712561
Confirmation that Bridges (era-specific ones, no less) are buildings, not improvements
My guess is that either that screenshot is just using placeholder graphics, or else it's from an earlier build in which the Marine was a generic unit. It doesn't make sense otherwise.View attachment 712556
We have some evidence that some unit appearances may be ideologically dependant. In the image above, two America's are fighting (both use the unique Marine unit in the top left). One uses a T-34 and the other a more fitting Sherman.
With confirmation of ideology returning and the gameplay of Ben Franklin (Democratic) using Shermans against Xerxes' (Communist) T-34s, I think it can be safely assumed that (at least tank) appearances are ideology dependant.
The wing shape doesn't match the P-47's beautiful semi-elliptical wings, and it also has a stretched two or three place cockpit. If it's not the Dauntless, then perhaps a less iconic naval dive bomber like the Devestator or Vindicator.Based on the unit "profile picture" I had thought that it might be a P-47, but I think you're right it's modeled after the Dauntless. And of course the fighter is the P-51.
I think it's most likely meant to be the Dauntless, based on the beefy nose and wing and the narrow triangular tail.The wing shape doesn't match the P-47's beautiful semi-elliptical wings, and it also has a stretched two or three place cockpit. If it's not the Dauntless, then perhaps a less iconic naval dive bomber like the Devestator or Vindicator.
Yep.View attachment 712563
Seems to be a City Park
The building in the lower right corner with the vaulted roof is a Stock Exchange
Yeah, the Field Cannon is being towed by horses, too. The unit artists have been doing some serious work.View attachment 712574
Here's a neat detail. This artillery piece is being towed by a WW1 era Holt (or similar brand) tractor as part of the Army Commander's stack.
Last one is the Military Academy.Yep.
Ironworks
View attachment 712564
Factory
View attachment 712565
Cannery
View attachment 712566
Museum
View attachment 712567
Opera House
View attachment 712568
Laboratory
View attachment 712570
Tenement
View attachment 712571
Schoolhouse
View attachment 712572
I'm not sure what this is; by process of elimination it may be an Inn.
View attachment 712573
O Thankyou. Now two bombers are divided into two groups. Tactical and Strategic.View attachment 712559
Dive Bomber
It's hard to tell at this zoom, but I think it's a SBD Dauntless
View attachment 712561
Confirmation that Bridges (era-specific ones, no less) are buildings, not improvements
Here is the rollover with the unit name: "Chang Beun".View attachment 712577
Here are those gun elephants. They are in the Siamese civ.
I should think that Bridges would be a building in the same way a Wall is. Like something you could build that wouldn’t take up one of your two building slots. Seems unthinkable that it would kneecap your district in such a significant way for such a relatively minor benefit.View attachment 712559
Dive Bomber
It's hard to tell at this zoom, but I think it's a SBD Dauntless
View attachment 712561
Confirmation that Bridges (era-specific ones, no less) are buildings, not improvements
It's kind of weird. If you want to expand on the other side of a river, you could easily build a Fishing Quay or a Bath to hit the other side. So, the Bridge mostly just seems like flavor. And it's not like you're obliged to place another building in the district with it. Just leave the other slot empty. A warehouse building could complete it though without interfering with any kind of Adjacency Bonus stacking.I should think that Bridges would be a building in the same way a Wall is. Like something you could build that wouldn’t take up one of your two building slots. Seems unthinkable that it would kneecap your district in such a significant way for such a relatively minor benefit.
I expect that penalty could be mitigated by specific policies/ideologies/leader abilities/etc. punishing by default but able to be played around. Maybe.View attachment 712583
The penalty for razing is hardcore. Any opponent in any future war will have 1 free war support for every city you razed.
There's good reason why Siamese use Field Cannons that way. There ain't enough flatlands here until Isaan region is annexed. And before 80s-90s, highways to support wheeled vehicles of any kind did not really exists, or not really good.
I'm not sure we should even call it a 4X game anymore at this point with how strongly the game really wants you to know that doing all 4Xs makes you a bad person, lol.View attachment 712583
The penalty for razing is hardcore. Any opponent in any future war will have 1 free war support for every city you razed.