Special abilities

[Tyrael]

Upon defeating a Barbarian unit inside an encampment, there is a 50% chance you earn 25 gold and they join your side.

The barbarian unit is the topic of the sentence, so "they join your side" (meaning the people that the unit represents) means the unit joins your side. The encampment is where the unit (the topic of the sentence) happens to be (a detail about the topic of the sentence).

There is no reason to think that the word "they" would imply "encampment" more than "unit", since both are singular, so we can assume it's just an accidental change in tense that still applies to the topic of the sentence like it would if "they" was correctly written as "it".

If the encampment was to join your side, the sentence would begin "Upon capturing a barbarian encampment with a unit in it..."

 

[Thyrwyn]

That was my interpretation as well.

 

[Tregon]

The barbarian unit is the topic of the sentence, so "they join your side" (meaning the people that the unit represents) means the unit joins your side. The encampment is where the unit (the topic of the sentence) happens to be (a detail about the topic of the sentence).

There is no reason to think that the word "they" would imply "encampment" more than "unit", since both are singular, so we can assume it's just an accidental change in tense that still applies to the topic of the sentence like it would if "they" was correctly written as "it".

If the encampment was to join your side, the sentence would begin "Upon capturing a barbarian encampment with a unit in it..."

However, special ability does say that unit must be inside barbarian encampment for this ability to kick in. Thus, the existence of encampment becomes essential part of the ability.

It can be also interpreted that you conquer barbarian village and it becomes yours, becoming tiny city.

If this was about flipping barbarian warriors into your own, why make the encampment so essential part of the ability? To nerf it (50% conversion rate at defeated barbarian units is way op) just drop the chance of flipping barbarian and leave encampment out of it.

 

[12agnar0k]

Duh because otherwise you would just sit your german units near the encampment, let it spawn units and take 50% of them as your own, massive bug.

We already know, all barbarian encampments will have a permanent defender in them, and when you defeat the warrior defending the tile (and not the encampment itself) you destroy the encampment. The camp is not like a city, it doesn't defend iteself, it cant bombard, it doesnt have health, it is basically a forticiation on a tile that contains within a defending "chief" barbarian if you will that is summoning forth warriors and sending them out.

It can be interpreted as "I get the encampment" but this doesn't even imply it would become a city, that is just random assumption, if your going to assume you take control of the encampment and not the barbarian defender, then all you will end up with is owning a useless fort in the middle of nowhere. Congrats. An Encampment is not a city, barbarians don't build cities in Civ5 like they did in Civ4, moving a few military troops into a camp would not turn it into a city. -_-.

 

[PieceOfMind]

I don't care much about the literal translation, or even the most likely interpretation. I think the intention is for the encampment to join your empire as a new small city. Just my take on it... 2 if you will...

 

[Tregon]

Duh because otherwise you would just sit your german units near the encampment, let it spawn units and take 50% of them as your own, massive bug.

Which is why I said that percentage of convers could be changed. Drop it to 5% and it becomes less inviting to camp and spawn.

It can be interpreted as "I get the encampment" but this doesn't even imply it would become a city, that is just random assumption, if your going to assume you take control of the encampment and not the barbarian defender, then all you will end up with is owning a useless fort in the middle of nowhere. Congrats. An Encampment is not a city, barbarians don't build cities in Civ5 like they did in Civ4, moving a few military troops into a camp would not turn it into a city. -_-.

But bunch of guys walking with sticks suddenly become a city.
Settlers are not city either, but can become one.

And, if encampment were to be turned into a city, you could not farm the same area in hopes of new camp because it no longer is unknown territory. (Capture camp, get or no get warrior, retreat, wait for camp to appear in the area left for farming, repeat)


Quite the same for me overall, but I can see how it can be city as well.

 

[Jimdigriz]

I don't care much about the literal translation, or even the most likely interpretation. I think the intention is for the encampment to join your empire as a new small city. Just my take on it... 2 if you will...

Isnt it more likely that capturing the encampment will actually mean that you gain a settler unit and a warrior unit?

Or have I forgotten something?

 

[Aramel]

It is clearly the unit that joins your side, not the encampment. "They" never refers to a singular noun in English unless its a person. I really don't see how you can argue anything else.

Anyway, I think the fact they had to add in the 50% part suggests the ability might have been overpowered at 100%, even without the gold bonus. So the ability might not actually be as bad as we think it is. There will still probably be some abilities that are weaker than others, just like there were some traits that were weaker than others, but we'll need to actually play the game to know for sure what they are.

 

[The Leviathan]

I don't understand the confusion... I makes much more sense that the Germans are able to take camps over and the units defending them have a chance of giving them gold and a military unit.

Also with the social policy that alerts you when encampments spawn and gives you +25% against barbs, it makes Germany's ability look that much more inviting. Though honestly they should just make it a 25% chance and make it when you kill ANY barb. Though that could be overpowering in the early game

 

[12agnar0k]

Which is why I said that percentage of convers could be changed. Drop it to 5% and it becomes less inviting to camp and spawn.

That wouldnt change the fact your encouraging players to sit back and let barbarians attack you, its designed so that you are meant to go and kill thier base. The german ability just empahsises thier benefit for doing so.

 

[Matjillam]

It is clearly the unit that joins your side, not the encampment. "They" never refers to a singular noun in English unless its a person. I really don't see how you can argue anything else.

Well, the barbarians that live inside the encampment are people aren't they? It's not like a ghost city without people in it.

Otherwise it should say 'it' because 'it' refers to the unit. It is ONE unit guarding the encampment, not several.


I'm very confused actually.

To me right now I think it's like 40% chance of being given the unit, 40 % chance of being given a settler from encampment and 20 % chance for a city.

BUt that's just my silly numbers

 

[D712]

I like the ailities. Especially "Sun never sets". It really speaks to the maritime power of England.

But I would really like to know what "Siberian Riches" does for Russia? In my head I imagine that every city built 10 tiles away from capital gets +%25 population growth.

 

[The Leviathan]

I like the ailities. Especially "Sun never sets". It really speaks to the maritime power of England.

But I would really like to know what "Siberian Riches" does for Russia? In my head I imagine that every city built 10 tiles away from capital gets +%25 population growth.

I really hope they change the ability back to "Mother Russia" and have the ability deal with defending/fighting within your own borders. That would be sweet and make Russia feel more like Russia.

 

[PieceOfMind]

I think giving a settler would actually be more beneficial than giving a city, so I believe that to be less likely.

 

[The Leviathan]

Siberian riches could just be the opposite of the indian special ability.

I never thought about that but that would be amazing, so much better than what I had in mind for their special ability.

 

[Aramel]

Well, the barbarians that live inside the encampment are people aren't they? It's not like a ghost city without people in it.

Otherwise it should say 'it' because 'it' refers to the unit. It is ONE unit guarding the encampment, not several.


I'm very confused actually.

To me right now I think it's like 40% chance of being given the unit, 40 % chance of being given a settler from encampment and 20 % chance for a city.

BUt that's just my silly numbers

An encampment is not a person. Trust me, "they" refers to the unit, not the encampment. There is no way it could give you a settler either; if it did, it would say so.

 

[killmeplease]

as written here http://www.civfanatics.com/civ5/civilizations, on the first announce russian ability was a faster terrain grab. maybe it will be exactly this but under another name. "siberian riches" suit such an ability better than "mother russia" i think although quite degrading (sounds like geographical determinism).

 

[PieceOfMind]

An encampment is not a person. Trust me, "they" refers to the unit, not the encampment. There is no way it could give you a settler either; if it did, it would say so.

We can believe you have a solid handle on the grammar or the literal interpretation, but we don't have 100% confidence that the person who wrote the description has the same.

Consider all the problems with the documentation in civ4. For example, there are lots of entries that say "production speed double with access to ...". All of those are technically wrong as well if you look at the actual effect in game.

 

[Wolle68]

Well, the barbarians that live inside the encampment are people aren't they? It's not like a ghost city without people in it.

Otherwise it should say 'it' because 'it' refers to the unit. It is ONE unit guarding the encampment, not several.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but are we trying to deduce the intricacies of the German unique ability based on the grammatical details of an English sentence that is a paraphrase of something from a German article none of us has seen?

I think this method leaves some room for errors.

 

[Matjillam]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but are we trying to deduce the intricacies of the German unique ability based on the grammatical details of an English sentence that is a paraphrase of something from a German article none of us has seen?

I think this method leaves some room for errors.

Think you are quite right I would like to see it written in german so I could see what it said exactly