Sunday's PAX talk (with summary of the info)

[Louis XXIV]

Maybe I just have a bad internet connection since it's not loading.

 

[nokmirt]

Why you have to steal my thunder D: but I do admit the black dot on next to the green does suggest a CS

We'll have to wait and see, nothing wrong with a little bit of fun eh?

He could be right! Still I would like to know for sure.

Maybe I just have a bad internet connection since it's not loading.

Not sure whats up with that site.

 

[Rob (R8XFT)]

Maybe I just have a bad internet connection since it's not loading.

I couldn't get it to load either from the link you were given - but have managed to get it from the link in the op .

 

[nokmirt]

I couldn't get it to load either from the link you were given - but have managed to get it from the link in the op .

The link I posted I just went to it loaded fine. It must be location or something. Yeah the OP link to the video loads too. If its black it must be a city state, lime green surrounding it or not.

 

[fat_tonle]

While that doesn't encessiarly confirm Zulus.. how on earth could he get accurate color schemes? I don't remember anybody saying "Oh, I wonder what color scheme the X will get".

I think that increases the chance of Zulus.

Besides, Zulus are an iconic civ of Civ, and while everybody dislikes them.. for some reason, you know they gotta be in there once.


You can notice a light green color in the bottom of the seen map.

Colors were completely inaccurate until updated post PAX this weekend. He was wrong about everything else.

 

[Louis XXIV]

I just checked the history of the wikipedia page. On March 22, Austria was blue and purple with Charles V as the leader. Carthage had my suggestions (Numidian Cavalry as the unit, Mercenary Armies as the ability). Ethiopia was not listed. Maya had the Holkan as the UU. Zulu were exactly the same as now only their colors were purple.

It seems that whoever is editing the page is diligent but not necessary in possession of any more knowledge than us.

 

[fat_tonle]

Well, no one knew about Ethiopia until the weekend. They were a pretty likely civ from the get go but if maybe he didn't get confirmation until later.

When did he post that there would be 9 civs in the expansion? No one could possibly know that unless they had inside information. If that was posted back in February, and he locked down 7 or 8 of those civs, how could you bet against him?

 

[seasnake]

Well, I guessed for the remaining 4:

Khazars,
Sioux,
Ethiopia,
Zulu.

I'd like to have Zulu, and be right 2/4, but we'll see.

 

[nokmirt]

I just checked the history of the wikipedia page. On March 22, Austria was blue and purple with Charles V as the leader. Carthage had my suggestions (Numidian Cavalry as the unit, Mercenary Armies as the ability). Ethiopia was not listed. Maya had the Holkan as the UU. Zulu were exactly the same as now only their colors were purple.

It seems that whoever is editing the page is diligent but not necessary in possession of any more knowledge than us.

Apparently not. Well that means we are still in the dark. Hopefully the new interviews coming up will give a clue who the new civ could be. In the meantime I want to play a CiV a bit more.

In CiV I have to learn to stop agreeing to Declaration of Friendships, Russia and Germany backstabbed me in the Renaissance. Both have been my friends since ancient times. Its crazy fighting a war on two fronts. At least I have a mountain range to the north, to hold off the Germans, while I take out Russia. Who is the most direct threat to my cities in the south. My keshiks will raise havoc on them. I don't know why, but just had to talk about that. My first game on Emperor has been fun thus far.

 

[durian]

Spoiler :

New diplomatic option is 'Adopt Embassy'.

That picture looks more like "accept embassy" to me.

Edit: Found the picture

 

[Eagle Pursuit]

ADOPT
ACCEPT

Yes, it does look like their might be a sixth letter in there.

 

[Buccaneer]

I do not like defining a "more powerful" civ solely by the number of cities. That's almost irrelevant in Civ5. One can have 4 cities and towards the bottom in population and be dominating in a game. Since it applies to combat, it should be solely based on the Soldiers rating.

 

[apocalypse105]

I do not like defining a "more powerful" civ solely by the number of cities. That's almost irrelevant in Civ5. One can have 4 cities and towards the bottom in population and be dominating in a game. Since it applies to combat, it should be solely based on the Soldiers rating.

True but I thinx they want it to be a defencive bonus only .

SO if you are conquering a civ and taking cities you will lose the bonus...

Instead at higher difficulties you could take cities and still have lower soldiers.


Proparly thats why thehy did it.

 

[Keejus]

I do not like defining a "more powerful" civ solely by the number of cities. That's almost irrelevant in Civ5. One can have 4 cities and towards the bottom in population and be dominating in a game. Since it applies to combat, it should be solely based on the Soldiers rating.

Soldiers would be too fluid. Imagine fighting a two-front war, where your eastern front manages to repel a large attack. Suddenly, your western border troops lose morale when they realize the enemy forces were weakened, but when one of your weakened units die, the rest then pick up the slack again. It makes more sense for your troops to redouble their efforts if you lose a major city, and become less aggressive if you retake your cities or start taking enemy cities.

 

[TheMarshmallowBear]

True but I thinx they want it to be a defencive bonus only .

SO if you are conquering a civ and taking cities you will lose the bonus...

Instead at higher difficulties you could take cities and still have lower soldiers.


Proparly thats why thehy did it.

You kinda are missing a big piece of thing

I agree, the rating should be on soldiers and maybe cities, but mostly soldiers. I never heard of a civ conquering with Swordsmen against Musketmen, who are more powerful.

If you are going for domination obviously you gonna need a powerful army.

 

[Gucumatz]

Soldiers would be too fluid. Imagine fighting a two-front war, where your eastern front manages to repel a large attack. Suddenly, your western border troops lose morale when they realize the enemy forces were weakened, but when one of your weakened units die, the rest then pick up the slack again. It makes more sense for your troops to redouble their efforts if you lose a major city, and become less aggressive if you retake your cities or start taking enemy cities.

Yep I like the way they have it now based on cities.

 

[Gucumatz]

Just a question, did they mention if the bonus also works outside of one's own land?

So could someone have one city, focus on making an early rush army and then attack a nearby capital as soon as they used liberty for a free Settler and made a 2nd city? Could be a new multiplayer strategy.

 

[D712]

So, how many beliefs can a civ that founds a religion get? And how many can a civ that isn't a founder get?

(just for clarification)

 

[durian]

CN Tower Confirmed!

Spoiler :

This is from the Escapist, LINK.

EDIT: Forgot to include picture...

 

[snipperrabbit!!]

non founder civs cannot get the bonus from the founder belief (unless they capture the holy city)
they can get the follower beliefs if they meet the requirement on a city basis.