So you want to see gameplay, huh?

[Polobo]

Greg said, that it's pretty much predictable which tile the AI chooses next for our city expansion. Mostly it will be a tile with a resource. But what about the following situation:

Lets say the adjactent tiles to the existing city radius do not contain any resources. However there is a resource three tiles away from the city. Will the AI be smart enough to "beeline" to this resource? Or will it expand to other directions, perhaps because it worships a grassland tile more than a plain tile which would lead to the resource-tile...?

It isn't like what you describe is going to be rare situation. My main concern would be how the AI chooses between non-resource tiles? Governor can be used to influence whether is tries for food or production and I would guess pretty much all riverside tiles will be selected be non-riverside tiles (though after resources).

 

[Schalke 04]

So I guess it may be up to the player to purchase a "not so sexy tile" to make the third-ring resource tile to be the next for the City-AI to choose. Finally we found a small portion of MM left for the player...

 

[Ahriman]

So, do you see my point about the difference between actions that are reversible and those that are irreversible?

Examples of reversible actions in civ4 were: Sleep, Fortify, Sentry, Sea Patrol, Air Intercept Mission
All of those actions had something in common - they did not have an immediate effect on the current turn - the action could be reversed.

Examples of irreversible actions in civ4: Movement, Attacking, Build a tile improvement, Bombard, Pillage.
All of these had an immediate effect during the player's turn, one that could not be reversed.

This makes sense to me, but I think the point about an instant bonus is also reasonable.
Should you have to spend an entire turn to get fortified, or should spending a movement point let you get (at least partial) bonus?

Even if it lets you get an instant bonus the bonus still has no meaning until the end of my turn (it only helps when I am attacked) so there's still no real irreversibility. But I guess I can see consuming the movement point when the order is given is slightly cleaner from a UI perspective.

This didn't really come up in previous versions of civ because infantry only had one movement point, and units with multiple movement points mostly couldn't fortify.

 

[Schuesseled]

Well im pretty sure that units were only healing and stuff inbetween turns in the civ 5 stream, so not being able to wake it and change your mind seems silly.

 

[2K Greg]

Guys, I am pretty sure I did not lose my second attack because I fortified. Fortifying doesn't use a movement point so that wouldn't make sense. I assume it was because I had deselected the unit. The "two attacks" promotion was new to me so I didn't know exactly how it works. I am pretty sure you must make them both at the same time; you can't go and move another unit in between the attacks, and that's what I tried to do.

 

[Polobo]

I thought is was because "setting up" a trebuchet requires 1 movement point. Did you setup the trebuchet on the previous turn? If not then one of the movement points required to fire would be taken up by setting up and then you could only fire once.

 

[Schuesseled]

Guys, I am pretty sure I did not lose my second attack because I fortified. Fortifying doesn't use a movement point so that wouldn't make sense. I assume it was because I had deselected the unit. The "two attacks" promotion was new to me so I didn't know exactly how it works. I am pretty sure you must make them both at the same time; you can't go and move another unit in between the attacks, and that's what I tried to do.

That might be what happened, I would suggest when you play that game again to try and defeat Napoleon, that you experiment with that logistics ability when you get it again.

 

[2K Greg]

I thought is was because "setting up" a trebuchet requires 1 movement point. Did you setup the trebuchet on the previous turn? If not then one of the movement points required to fire would be taken up by setting up and then you could only fire once.

That is a very likely scenario! I had totally not considered the fact that that could be the case. I am so used to being able to set up and fire on the same turn (if I don't move) and I forgot to consider that each attack probably uses up one movement point.

 

[Schuesseled]

Yeah might be that too. I've put some thought into that ability recently, it could probably get confusing at times, "wait, i should have two attacks"

 

[snipperrabbit!!]

Is it possible to see the same thing but multiplayer 1 vs 1 ? Please !

 

[rogerdude]

@2K_Greg
After the game is released, could you post the game save with the war between France and Japan? I bet a lot of was would like to try it.

 

[Schuesseled]

Make it a scenario. lol

 

[Warl0rd]

Remain calm, you can always force things by buying tiles. The mechanic kinda makes sense because people tend to spread where they want to. It's not like a leader can always control exactly where his people or culture spread at all times.

Haha, your answer or 'argument' is complete nonsense - of course I could buy the tiles I want but still the one the AI had chosen would always be wasted. In the game the player should always be in control of his cities, units and stuff. I want to win or loose because of MY decisions NOT because of the AI had choosen instead of me.

Or to speak in your own words/signature:
'Civ is a game - not a simulation of reality. '

and so it has to be fun - for me taking away the control of MY cityexpansion is NOT fun - if you don't care - I do

For me this mechanic makes no sense at all.

btw, of course I only write the things I don't like - should be obvious

 

[Schuesseled]

Well ask someone to make you a mod, so you can pick the tiles (or you do it) and then you'll have no more problems.

 

[rastak]

Haha, your answer or 'argument' is complete nonsense - of course I could buy the tiles I want but still the one the AI had chosen would always be wasted. In the game the player should always be in control of his cities, units and stuff. I want to win or loose because of MY decisions NOT because of the AI had choosen instead of me.

Or to speak in your own words/signature:
'Civ is a game - not a simulation of reality. '

and so it has to be fun - for me taking away the control of MY cityexpansion is NOT fun - if you don't care - I do

For me this mechanic makes no sense at all.

btw, of course I only write the things I don't like - should be obvious

You had no control in Civ IV either.

 

[Schuesseled]

yes but in civ 4, it expanded in all directions in stages, which is much simpler than this system, and therefore needed no direct control.

I'm happy with the AI doing it, but thats just me.

 

[invasmani]

First off, thanks for having this lengthy stream, and I really appreciate the work put into it. Thanks for staying up late to get the save game and all that.

I think the gameplay looks terrific. Many of the changes made with Civ5 addressed a lot of my criticisms with previous Civ games. The game looks beautiful and I'm glad I preordered it. Overall, I'm really looking forward to it and the game looks like a lot of fun.

However, I'm concerned with the performance and overall stability of the game as shown. It was repeatedly stated that the computer you're running it on is extremely high end. I'm guessing that means a core i7, tons of ram, probably something like a 5870/5970. When you were concluding your turns, specifically in part 2, the game was freezing (you could actually see "Not responding" in your window at times) and generally seemed sluggish in between turns. When you were actually playing, the performance seemed great. However, in between turns, it wasn't uncommon to see you wait around 30 to 45 seconds while the system chugged. For instance, in part 2, you ended a turn at 29:25 and it wasn't until 30:05 until you could actually play again. That's 40 seconds, and that seems like a long time to wait on a computer that is supposedly "very high end." To put it in perspective, if you're waiting 30 seconds every turn for 20 turns, that's 10 minutes of doing nothing but waiting. I understand that you were quite possibly running additional software that may be consuming system resources.

Is this a valid concern to have?

Thanks again for the stream.

 

[Boris Godunov]

Ooh, I do have a question:

Is it possible to turn off the year display (and disable the year notification that comes up with each new turn) and just have it display the turn number? I ask, because one of the things that jars me in the Civ experience is seeing that the world is way behind or way ahead of what the actual technology level was at that time (i.e., I have mech infantry running around but it's only 1800). So I've always wanted to just turn off the year display entirely--especially since different cultures have different year notations, and the whole "BC/AD" system doesn't make sense without the Earth-specific religious reasons behind it.

 

[Schuesseled]

i doubt it, but thats what mods are for.

 

[Polobo]

Ooh, I do have a question:

Is it possible to turn off the year display (and disable the year notification that comes up with each new turn) and just have it display the turn number? I ask, because one of the things that jars me in the Civ experience is seeing that the world is way behind or way ahead of what the actual technology level was at that time (i.e., I have mech infantry running around but it's only 1800). So I've always wanted to just turn off the year display entirely--especially since different cultures have different year notations, and the whole "BC/AD" system doesn't make sense without the Earth-specific religious reasons behind it.

My first thought on seeing the "new turn notification" was - that is going to get old by the year 0; but I figure there has to be an option somewhere to disable it.

Not sure about the turn/year permanent indicator but likely that will have a toggle as well (though it is somewhat easier to ignore).

I should start a poll to see how many people actually think the ancient Egyptain calendars showed them as living in the year 1000BC (or -1000 if you are so inclined)....