Special abilities

[Windsor]

It can be decisive factor if we have two equally strong human players competing.
I don't want to just stay in competition, I want to compete for top spot. And if abilities become handicaps it just gets that much more difficult.

Well, if you play competitive like that, then pick someone who fits the map your going to play.

Nerfing game experience for the overwhelming majority just to make the game slighty better for multiplayer-competition? No thanks.

This is Civilization, not Counter-Strike.

 

[Louis XXIV]

BTW, everyone needs to keep in mind that they're balanced overall, not by ability.

For example, Germany seems to have an ability that is good in the ancient age only. But his UUs are Medieval and Modern. England has a naval ability and a naval UU that works with it, but she also has a land-based UU that will help it do fairly well in the Middle Ages.

Honestly, I'd rather that than the Iroquois. It's an ability that lasts throughout, but a building and unit that seem to be for the ancient age. The overall ability is one that's more militaristic, so the end result will probably be that the ability will synergize with the unit and leave them only for strength in the ancient age (to be surpassed later).

 

[craig123]

And like it has been mentioned, Elizabeth deciding not to go for shipbuilding in Kyrgystan does not change fact that she has been totally, absolutely gimped. Her only benefit above rest of civs was faster ships. No ships, no ability. One of her unique units is ship. Again it falls out.

Liz will use her Longbowmen to fight her way the coast, take over a coastal city, and then launch an Armada and crush her foes! MWAHAHAHA!!! Or is that just me?

 

[CHEESE!]

Honestly, I'd rather that than the Iroquois. It's an ability that lasts throughout, but a building and unit that seem to be for the ancient age. The overall ability is one that's more militaristic, so the end result will probably be that the ability will synergize with the unit and leave them only for strength in the ancient age (to be surpassed later).

We don't know. The Mohawk could conceivable be a Musket or Rifleman (unlikely though), and the Longhouse is a toss-up. It might be a Courthouse or a Barracks, both of which are very useful lategame.

 

[Ddude97]

Now you may ask "what happens if I go unhappy in total" well I'm not sure, I would need to look closer at some footage, but from what I think is confirmed is that by going into global unhappiness all tiles produce 1 less of everything, 1 less food, 1 less hammers, 1 less gold. Sort of like a reverse golden age, and it lasts till happiness is increased or unhappiness decreased. Something I would like to know is if I have a HUGE unhappiness is this deficit of tile produce increased or can I indefinitely increase unhappiness at this point with no further fall in productivity.

From Confirmed Features:
"There are two stages of Unhappiness, each with there own set of negative effects on your empire.

The first level of unhappiness is when you slip into the negative (more unhappiness than happiness). This will be shown by a icon and will result in a dramatically slowed population growth rate
The second level of unhappiness is when you let this progress further and your people become 'very unhappy'. This will be shown with an icon and will result in zero population growth, you cannot build any Settlers, and your military units get a negative combat penaltyYou do not want an unhappy empire but not matter how "pissed off" your people are you can salvage it by adding some of the bonuses listed in the previous section. - 2K Greg "
Bold by me

 

[Stalker0]

I'm curious how the Iroquois ability interacts with teh zone of control ability. Normally, ZOC limits your movement to one square. However, if the iroquois ability negates that with forests, you may be able to completely negate an opponent's ZOC in a wooded area.

 

[duckofspades]

I'm curious how the Iroquois ability interacts with teh zone of control ability. Normally, ZOC limits your movement to one square. However, if the iroquois ability negates that with forests, you may be able to completely negate an opponent's ZOC in a wooded area.

That would be alot of fun.

 

[ShaqFu]

I wonder if furious cities will yield easier once a conquering army rolls in. If so, and there are SPs/units/wonders that can induce unhappiness in a foreign civ, it might be prudent to bombard your opponent with propaganda before rolling in your cannon. If you wanted to be extra Machiavellian, you could possibly gift Gandhi a few 1-pop cities, drive his metropolises into riots, and take them without the headache of dealing with a massive hostile population.

I'm curious, though, if the military penalty for angry cities only affect the garrison, or any units stationed near it.

Honestly, I'd rather that than the Iroquois. It's an ability that lasts throughout, but a building and unit that seem to be for the ancient age. The overall ability is one that's more militaristic, so the end result will probably be that the ability will synergize with the unit and leave them only for strength in the ancient age (to be surpassed later).

Ancient advantages snowball into Modern advantages. If an Iroquois player Great Warpaths his way through a neighboring civ or two by 2000 BCE, they'll have a huge immediate advantage that, with effective leveraging, can win the game. It sounds like city assimilation is harder than in Civ4, so by taking care of that early, the Iroquois can get a huge lead on everyone else that'll last until 2050 CE. The advantages from abilities are only as good as the player makes them - a non-rushing Iroquois, is about as useful as a REX/smallpoxing Gandhi, is as useful as Rashid with closed borders, is as useful as Liz in a desert.

Just don't forget that more Mohawk-captured cities now means more Tanks later.

 

[Calouste]

I wonder if furious cities will yield easier once a conquering army rolls in. If so, and there are SPs/units/wonders that can induce unhappiness in a foreign civ, it might be prudent to bombard your opponent with propaganda before rolling in your cannon. If you wanted to be extra Machiavellian, you could possibly gift Gandhi a few 1-pop cities, drive his metropolises into riots, and take them without the headache of dealing with a massive hostile population.

I'm curious, though, if the military penalty for angry cities only affect the garrison, or any units stationed near it.



Ancient advantages snowball into Modern advantages. If an Iroquois player Great Warpaths his way through a neighboring civ or two by 2000 BCE, they'll have a huge immediate advantage that, with effective leveraging, can win the game. It sounds like city assimilation is harder than in Civ4, so by taking care of that early, the Iroquois can get a huge lead on everyone else that'll last until 2050 CE. The advantages from abilities are only as good as the player makes them - a non-rushing Iroquois, is about as useful as a REX/smallpoxing Gandhi, is as useful as Rashid with closed borders, is as useful as Liz in a desert.

Just don't forget that more Mohawk-captured cities now means more Tanks later.

I don't think you'll see Liz in the desert much, if at all, just as you most likely won't see maritime city states in the desert. Most likely the map algorithm will always put her on the coast.

 

[Crazy George]

At first blush, The Great Warpath (Iroquois: only 1 move point traveling into forest tile) just doesn't seem like that great of an ability to me. In Civ 4, I'd gotten pretty adept at moving my Scouts in such a way that they didn't land on a forest, hill, or jungle until their second move. And long as I'm mentioning hills and jungles, it would appear the Iroquois still suffer the same movement penalties as everyone else when entering these tiles. So, I'm thinking outside of a (minimal?) combat advantage, what the Iroquois are getting can be thought of as a 10% early game movement bonus, which drops to 0-5% late game. Or if one prefers, the Iroquois are getting something like double movement when traversing heavily forested areas.

And like I said, when I first looked at it, this seemed like such a weeny ability (to me) that I figured there must be some sort of synergy or alternate way of thinking about it that I was missing. And what I came up with was that a 10% early game movement bonus (or double movement over 10% of the map) will translate directly into the Iroquois discovering roughly 10% more of the map than anyone else, yielding 10% more goody huts (if they still exist), discovery of 10% more natural wonders (and the bonus said discovery is rumored to confer), and perhaps most importantly, a 10% greater chance (whatever that means) of settling the more preferred secondary city sites.

In Civ 4, both me and the AI seemed to clear cut the forest around our cities, so I'm not really convinced of the long term combat advantage of this ability, especially when on the offensive. But if one assumes that 5x5 or 10x10 grids of forest will exist (or that the Iroquois will be able to plant them), the Iroquois will get a tremendous advantage in these areas, using archers to harass their enemies from a distance, while using their movement bonus to remain safely out of reach. If the Iroquois could keep their territory forested, it could make reaching their cities with an army still intact extremely difficult.

 

[Calouste]

At first blush, The Great Warpath (Iroquois: only 1 move point traveling into forest tile) just doesn't seem like that great of an ability to me. In Civ 4, I'd gotten pretty adept at moving my Scouts in such a way that they didn't land on a forest, hill, or jungle until their second move. And long as I'm mentioning hills and jungles, it would appear the Iroquois still suffer the same movement penalties as everyone else when entering these tiles. So, I'm thinking outside of a (minimal?) combat advantage, what the Iroquois are getting can be thought of as a 10% early game movement bonus, which drops to 0-5% late game. Or if one prefers, the Iroquois are getting something like double movement when traversing heavily forested areas.

And like I said, when I first looked at it, this seemed like such a weeny ability (to me) that I figured there must be some sort of synergy or alternate way of thinking about it that I was missing. And what I came up with was that a 10% early game movement bonus (or double movement over 10% of the map) will translate directly into the Iroquois discovering roughly 10% more of the map than anyone else, yielding 10% more goody huts (if they still exist), discovery of 10% more natural wonders (and the bonus said discovery is rumored to confer), and perhaps most importantly, a 10% greater chance (whatever that means) of settling the more preferred secondary city sites.

In Civ 4, both me and the AI seemed to clear cut the forest around our cities, so I'm not really convinced of the long term combat advantage of this ability, especially when on the offensive. But if one assumes that 5x5 or 10x10 grids of forest will exist (or that the Iroquois will be able to plant them), the Iroquois will get a tremendous advantage in these areas, using archers to harass their enemies from a distance, while using their movement bonus to remain safely out of reach. If the Iroquois could keep their territory forested, it could make reaching their cities with an army still intact extremely difficult.

I don't think you will see as much forest clear cutting in Civ5 as in Civ4. It will be harder to acquire land (in Civ4 your capital had 21 tiles in 5 turns, that might take until well into the ADs in Civ5), and forest is probably more expansive to purchase.

One thing that would make this ability really good is if units can't move to a hex until they have all the movement point needed to move to it (like it worked in Panzer General), unlike the way it worked in Civ4 where a unit could move into any hex as long as it had any movement points left. But from what I have seen so far that won't be the case.

 

[AriochIV]

It's a good thing there's no "rules lawyering" in computer games, because these ability descriptions are really poorly worded.

 

[Calouste]

It's a good thing there's no "rules lawyering" in computer games, because these ability descriptions are really poorly worded.

Might not be the definite version yet. The game version we have this information from was at least 75-80 days before release. The German ability specially looks like one that could be the subject of tweaking up until the release.

 

[ShaqFu]

At first blush, The Great Warpath (Iroquois: only 1 move point traveling into forest tile) just doesn't seem like that great of an ability to me. In Civ 4, I'd gotten pretty adept at moving my Scouts in such a way that they didn't land on a forest, hill, or jungle until their second move. And long as I'm mentioning hills and jungles, it would appear the Iroquois still suffer the same movement penalties as everyone else when entering these tiles. So, I'm thinking outside of a (minimal?) combat advantage, what the Iroquois are getting can be thought of as a 10% early game movement bonus, which drops to 0-5% late game. Or if one prefers, the Iroquois are getting something like double movement when traversing heavily forested areas.

It won't be as easy to skirt around/through forest, as units get less options to move (8 adjacent tiles v. 6 adjacent hexes), and you don't get the 40% move bonus when moving along diagonals, so forests are harder to get through.

As for combat: keep in mind that Civ5 combat will take place in the field, so any major clashes will occur along fronts where the defenders intercept the attackers. Since the Iroquois can use forest as if it were clear land, they can push their line through a large forest. This has three obvious advantages:

1) The defender's line will be out of position, since no attacker would normally go through forest at half speed. The line would have to swing back and hope to catch Hiawatha's front before it reached deep into their territory.

1a) Hiawatha could mind game the defender by attacking over clear land. The defending civ has to decide between keeping their defenders in place, moving them to a forest, or splitting them in two. By sending a small advance force from one direction, the Iroquois player could attack from the clear other side and trick the defender.

2) The defender, instead of establishing a fortified line (e.g., the Roman frontier), he might use a mobile force of units to meet and tear apart an attacking line in the field (e.g., Greek phalanges at Marathon). Since forested units get a defensive advantage*, the latter form of defense won't be effective, as Hiawatha's army will have the edge when under attack. On top of that, the defenders will have to slog through any number of forest hexes, bringing the front dangerously deep.

*This is one thing I can't imagine them changing - it's a staple of just about every game that even remotely simulates war

One thing that would make this ability really good is if units can't move to a hex until they have all the movement point needed to move to it (like it worked in Panzer General), unlike the way it worked in Civ4 where a unit could move into any hex as long as it had any movement points left. But from what I have seen so far that won't be the case.

That would be gamebreaking, since a 2-move Iroquois unit would move at triple speed (3/turn vs. 1/turn) through forest.

 

[Calouste]

That would be gamebreaking, since a 2-move Iroquois unit would move at triple speed (3/turn vs. 1/turn) through forest.

2-move Iroquois would still only move 2 hexes per turn through forest. For 3-move units it would only be a problem if you had a large patch of forest. Say you have 2 forest hexes with flat land around it. An Iroquois 3-move unit would go through that with 6 hexes in 2 turns. A non-Iroquois 3-move unit could the first turn move onto the flat land around the forest, then into the forest hex. In the second turn, it would move into the second forest hex and then onto the flat land for 4 hexes in 2 turns. And if they can't do that, maybe it's better to go around the forest

 

[ShaqFu]

2-move Iroquois would still only move 2 hexes per turn through forest. For 3-move units it would only be a problem if you had a large patch of forest. Say you have 2 forest hexes with flat land around it. An Iroquois 3-move unit would go through that with 6 hexes in 2 turns. A non-Iroquois 3-move unit could the first turn move onto the flat land around the forest, then into the forest hex. In the second turn, it would move into the second forest hex and then onto the flat land for 4 hexes in 2 turns. And if they can't do that, maybe it's better to go around the forest

My mistake; I was thinking "default+1" and put down 2 instead of 3. Guess I'm not thinking with hexes quite yet!

I know this is open to change, but reading the ability again, it seems like it just checks for forest and adds a bonus if you're on it (instead of removing the penalty). If so, God help you if Hiawatha roads your forests.

 

[mjs0]

I remember reading somewhere that units can hide in forests to heal and yet this benefit of rapid forest movement for the Iroquois hasn't been mentioned.

A guerrilla campaign using the ability to strike quickly and then literally disappear deep in the forest to heal before appearing a few turns later on another edge of the forest might be a fun tactic to try.

 

[Schuesseled]

you jsut read my mind, and i also argues for forests being present throughout the game (why make an interesting terrain effect like that if all forests got the chop by the middle ages.)

 

[whats a navy]

Glancing at the Roman ability I thought it looked great but in the early game when you need to pump out workers and settlers you'll want to build loads of buildings so your developing cities will get those bonuses and later you may find your cap building every building you can when you are at war or need a wonder.

 

[King Jason]

I wonder if furious cities will yield easier once a conquering army rolls in. If so, and there are SPs/units/wonders that can induce unhappiness in a foreign civ, it might be prudent to bombard your opponent with propaganda before rolling in your cannon. If you wanted to be extra Machiavellian, you could possibly gift Gandhi a few 1-pop cities, drive his metropolises into riots, and take them without the headache of dealing with a massive hostile population.

I'm curious, though, if the military penalty for angry cities only affect the garrison, or any units stationed near it.

Happiness isn't city specific. It's empire-wide. So when you reach "Very Unhappy" ~ None of your cities grow, none of them can build settlers, and all of your military units are weakened.