venturebeat article - 17 / 5 / 13

[Kerfuffle]

http://venturebeat.com/2013/05/17/c...n-feels-like-a-culture-club-hands-on-preview/

A new article from venturebeat.com
There are some new screens (as far as I'm aware, forgive me if they've been seen already :L)

Certain World Wonders can give additional delegates:

Spoiler :

But my Civ was on another continent, making open warfare a challenge. So the Zulus decided to use a new weapon against me: the World Congress. Shaka and his gang started proposing resolutions against my interests, culminating in an embargo against me. With delegates the Zulus gained from their allied City States (one per ally) and World Wonders — and my allies committing delegates to other resolutions — Shaka was able to get a trade embargo passed against my Civ. This embargo is worldwide; no Civ would accept a trade caravan from me. I countered with my own embargo proposal, and in ensuing sessions, I mustered votes against anything that would help the Zulus and sponsored resolutions that would hurt Shaka.

screens:

Spoiler :

Spoiler :

Spoiler :

 

[Arachnofiend]

I think the information that you can get Congress delegates from World Wonders is new but other than that there isn't anything we don't already know. It is nice to get an example of the AI effectively using the World Congress to screw over a runaway player. It's not going to be a mechanic you can just ignore.

 

[Kerfuffle]

I think the information that you can get Congress delegates from World Wonders is new but other than that there isn't anything we don't already know. It is nice to get an example of the AI effectively using the World Congress to screw over a runaway player. It's not going to be a mechanic you can just ignore.

Oh right, I should be add that to the post.

 

[kingchris20]

I hadn't yet seen that article. No matter what type of victory you're going for, you cant ignore CSs at all (I tend to do that now - not caring about relationships with CSs). If you let your enemy take ally with all the CSs, its going to be difficult to hold traction through the WC and UN.

I like it!

 

[Veneke]

In the first screenshot it looks like there's a tile improvement that gives +3 culture +3 gold, it looks like a landmark. I think that's new.

With one vote at the World Congress, a council of the world’s Civs, the Zulus had brought enough support from city states on their continent to pass an embargo on Morocco, shutting down my trade caravans with every other Civ and sending me into an apoplectic fit as my balance sheet at once dipped deep into the red.

I don't know whether to be concerned or excited about this. Same with the sudden drop from Friendly to Hostile by the Zulus after 1 resolution was passed against them. Are all Civs going to be like that?

 

[Kerfuffle]

In the first screenshot it looks like there's a tile improvement that gives +3 culture +3 gold, it looks like a landmark. I think that's new.

That'd be the Holy Site: The Great Prophet's tile improvement. They probably finished the Piety tree which gives holy sites +3 culture and +3 gold.

 

[Veneke]

That'd be the Holy Site: The Great Prophet's tile improvement. They probably finished the Piety tree which gives holy sites +3 culture and +3 gold.

Ah, so it is.

 

[Aussie_Lurker]

In the first screenshot it looks like there's a tile improvement that gives +3 culture +3 gold, it looks like a landmark. I think that's new.



I don't know whether to be concerned or excited about this. Same with the sudden drop from Friendly to Hostile by the Zulus after 1 resolution was passed against them. Are all Civs going to be like that?

I don't think this means that all civs and/or CS's become hostile to you, just that they won't trade with you in trade routes.

 

[BlueGoop]

With that last picture, there seems to be both culture from the holy site (possibly still a piety thing) and science beakers on trading posts (a rationalism perk). Maybe both rationalism and piety can be active in Brave New World?

 

[AriochIV]

I don't know whether to be concerned or excited about this. Same with the sudden drop from Friendly to Hostile by the Zulus after 1 resolution was passed against them. Are all Civs going to be like that?

I suspect that the fact that they have different ideologies may have something to do with it, but that's more or less how things work now: if you're friendly, negative modifiers are often hidden, and then suddenly they're denouncing you and listing things you did 1000 years ago. The AI likes to nurture resentment over the centuries and build up reasons to eventually dislike you.

I seriously doubt that the basic psychotic nature of the AI will change at all.

 

[Veneke]

I don't think this means that all civs and/or CS's become hostile to you, just that they won't trade with you in trade routes.

No, I mean are all Civs going to take a single resolution that hurts their interests as badly as Shaka did? That could create some real touchy diplomacy.

So, Civ A, B and C are all in the WC. A is friendly with B and B with A while C is neutral to both. C proposes a resolution that A doesn't like while B is bought off by C. If everyone shifts as much as Shaka appears to do then we can expect A to hate C & B while C & B become new best buds. Then, the situation becomes all but irreversible as A denounces C and B. On the one hand, that's good diplomacy. On the other hand, I very much doubt that the AI can match a human with that type of play.

I suspect that the fact that they have different ideologies may have something to do with it, but that's more or less how things work now: if you're friendly, negative modifiers are often hidden, and then suddenly they're denouncing you and listing things you did 1000 years ago. The AI likes to nurture resentment over the centuries and build up reasons to eventually dislike you.

I seriously doubt that the basic psychotic nature of the AI will change at all.

Possibly but the article implies that the ideology differences happened after the Zulu reaction to the Pearl banning resolution. It says 'Our feud started modestly during the first session of the World Congress...', which would put it sometime in the mid-late Renaissance/early industrial; before anyone picked an ideology.

 

[lrdscorpio]

No, I mean are all Civs going to take a single resolution that hurts their interests as badly as Shaka did? That could create some real touchy diplomacy.

I can't answer for sure but I imagine the Zulu are super aggressive any ways and we also don't know the history of the game to this point between the two civs.

 

[Kerfuffle]

I don't think the Zulus were immediately hostile. The article said that it went from friendly, to guarded, then to hostile. It may have just happened over time rather than immediately though.

 

[Aussie_Lurker]

I suspect that the fact that they have different ideologies may have something to do with it, but that's more or less how things work now: if you're friendly, negative modifiers are often hidden, and then suddenly they're denouncing you and listing things you did 1000 years ago. The AI likes to nurture resentment over the centuries and build up reasons to eventually dislike you.

I seriously doubt that the basic psychotic nature of the AI will change at all.

I have 2 points to make, Arioch. First, welcome to the real world, where century old resentments keep flaring up all the time. 2nd, I've not noticed this "psychotic" AI in my last lot of games. In my current game, the frequent denunciations from Austria all make perfect sense, based on all the red modifiers that I can see (I did declare war on them, & helped wipe out their ally, England after all), & my relationships with other civs have been entirely consistent with how I've treated them.

Aussie.

 

[Veneke]

I don't think the Zulus were immediately hostile. The article said that it went from friendly, to guarded, then to hostile. It may have just happened over time rather than immediately though.

Aye, that could be it. On initial reading it sounded like it happened pretty quickly but if it was a slow burn that ramped up with the ideology difference then that might make it more reasonable.

Or, alternatively, Shaka could just be nuts.

 

[Cyanfunk]

Shaka's Attila on crack, so I would imagine that any perceived minor slight would set him out for blood.

 

[GhostSalsa]

No, I mean are all Civs going to take a single resolution that hurts their interests as badly as Shaka did? That could create some real touchy diplomacy.

I expect any votes for a luxury ban will be regarded as an extremely negative modifier on par with denouncing. Banning the Zulu's luxury is a hostile act—why wouldn't they be hostile in return? I take your point about AI bickering gettig out of hand though.

This and the kotaku article are very promising, anyway, in terms of BNW delivering on late-game dynamism. I know a lot of people don't like having their plans upset but I look forward to it.

I hope those turn-count/date matchups aren't a new normal for standard speed, though. I assume all these press playthroughs have been on a sped up game clock?

 

[nunor]

I guess no-one checks this thread
http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=496110

 

[stealth_nsk]

Shaka's Attila on crack, so I would imagine that any perceived minor slight would set him out for blood.

Attila is focused on early conquest. So he should declare war as fast as possible. I expect Shaka to be more reasonable.

 

[alpha2117]

What are those two civs in the top of the mini map on the other side of the world from Morocco? Nether looks familiar to me.