|
Post by Onan on Nov 11, 2005 14:46:53 GMT -5
I stand corrected, and I stand supported. ;D
Regarding the worker first...there are times when I don't do it, and there are times when I do. And there are times when getting that guy out first (if it's gonna take 20 turns, forget it, 10 max, sometimes 7 if you fiddle with stuff) can really give you a huge early lead in terms of production or food growth. You just have to make sure you research the tech for the improvement you want the worker to build right off the bat...and you have to be able to get away with it (not be under pressure early).
|
|
|
Post by ghost on Nov 11, 2005 16:03:48 GMT -5
when u build your worker off the bat make sure u r going to be able to use that worker(mines, or farm techs). and don't send that warrior u start with out to far cause u never know when u will need it. with most starts it takes at most 10 turns to finish worker. in them 10 turns u can discover 2 techs. depending on land ofcorse. but getting that worker 5 to 10 turns early then the others makes up a get for the risk u r taking.
|
|
|
Post by Magzi on Nov 11, 2005 16:07:05 GMT -5
That is what I like about this game...there often isn't a single correct answer....it depends... is the nearest one. It's a look and see and adapt....Will I ever learn?
|
|
|
Post by yilar on Nov 12, 2005 10:06:18 GMT -5
Ok, this might not be quick question but ill ask it anyway. How exactly is score determined?
How many points you get per pop on different size maps? How many points you get per square land on different size maps? and does coast/sea tiles count for score? How many points you get per hammer used for wonder on different size maps? or is each wonder valued some kind of different way in score? How many points you get per tech counter on different size maps?
|
|
|
Post by civerdan on Nov 12, 2005 15:30:08 GMT -5
Whether you do worker first depends on map/civs etc. On an island map this is fine, If its a pangaea and I am playing against the Inca definately not.
|
|
|
Post by Onan on Nov 12, 2005 22:39:36 GMT -5
Yilar, score is something like 40% population, 30% technology, 20% land, 10% wonders. Something like that, though they may have tweaked it since the last time I heard it spelled out. As for the other, more specific questions you have, I'm really not sure--but I'd like to know too. One thing I have noticed is that borders something do not expand (or don't appear to) out into the ocean...but then I'm not even sure if water tiles are counted in the first place.
|
|
|
Post by Hrathnir on Nov 14, 2005 12:49:22 GMT -5
Is it true that you cant lose production and science?
If something costs 20 shields per say and your city is kicking out 60 can you make 1 20 shield unit a turn and have a surplus of 40 shields/turn and keep building up the surplus. Then you can throw all those surpluses to building a wonder or something big when you get the technology?
Also slightly less confusing question. Is it possible to get rid of the what do we build now pop up after your unit gets build at beginning of turn? Only having multiple units in built queue?
|
|
|
Post by Random on Nov 14, 2005 15:17:00 GMT -5
Yes and no.
|
|
|
Post by claudelu on Nov 14, 2005 17:37:20 GMT -5
You are wrong. The first promotion for Aggressive civs comes at 2 points of XP still, they just have Combat I extra. It is a very powerful feature, since your units not only start 10 percent stronger than other civs' units, but also any promotion that NEEDS combat I is available to you at 2XP points, not at 5 as for everyone else. Think of it this way: with barracks, both me and you can upgrade our unit to woodsman I, but yours will be 10 percent stronger. However, you can upgrade it to Shock I for example (10 percent against melee) with only Barracks - I can't!
Aggressive is a very powerful military-driven trait. Use it well.
|
|
|
Post by Canucksoldier on Nov 14, 2005 20:53:09 GMT -5
The leader traits as a whole were balanced to make no one trait combination more powerful overall than any other combination. Some are better at different styles or during difference periods for sure, but in the big picture you can do much with any of the leaders.
CS
|
|
|
Post by friedrichpsitalon on Nov 14, 2005 22:00:38 GMT -5
It is nice to know that the xp at least is not different. I suppose Combat I is better than nothing at all, but it still seems like a smaller subset of the choices that 2 promotions should mean. But it seems quite clear that it was deliberate meddling to ensure especially that players don't get to start with woodsman II especially (since admittedly comabt I + City raider I may be better than city raider II anyway if City raider I and II are not additive which is what I understood), I suspect, as much other meddling has been done to make sure that the game comforms more to certain warfare styles (namely defensive and long drawn out seige offense) than others.....but that is another subject which I will go much much much more into detail on later as I am still investigating this game fully. In theory, any 2 promotions should be equal in value since they cost the same xp for a regular player. Well, you would think that since to any player except an agressive player they take just as much effort to obtain. If the combat promotions are equal in value as the xp would suggest, you would think that an agressive player would be able to choose the 2 promotions he wants rather than be limited to a subset of the full 2 promotion possibilities. But it appears that of the full range of 2 level promotions, some were deemed more valuable or dangerous than others (because some are not made available when in theory the xp says they are supposed to be of equal value) Sorry for going in circles, but this prmotion scheme does beg the question of are or are not all of the second level promotions equal? And if they are equal, then why were some made more difficult to get? I think that the nature of this promotion scheme hints at the idea of "deliberate controls" that were built into this game to shape player behavior to how certain people think it should be. Uh... all the promotions are additive, amigo. City Attack 1 stacks with CA 2 to give ... I think it's 45%? City Defense I and II and III all stack. (Ouch!) City Attack stacks with Combat I... if you're attacking a town, otherwise Combat I operates alone. All promotions aren't equal - some are more valuable than others, and so have deeper requirements to reach. Also, some promotions are tied to specific kinds of units, and not available to other kinds. The "Combat" line of promotions is valuable because its bonus is all-situation based, rather than specific - every other one is "one case only" while Combat is all-around. Most of the "specialist" promotions are available via Combat, but not all. (Sentry via Flanking, March via Medic OR Combat IV, etc.) I'm not sure what you're suggesting; the promotion system isn't designed to control anything. It's designed to add flavor. Woodsman II is better than City Raider II if you're in the woods - the reverse against a city. Combat II is better for defense than either one, but pales compared to the 55%(ish?) of City Defense II. Drill II is grand..unless you're against a mounted unit. Flanking 1 + Sentry 1 is great...if you're looking for enemy troops. Combat I and Shock is awesome for bringing down melee units, but you're hating the first ranged unit that shows up. There is no "best" promotion here; they simply all add together to step up different combos. What am I missing here? Why the angst?
|
|
|
Post by friedrichpsitalon on Nov 15, 2005 2:45:53 GMT -5
Yep, that's mine.
|
|
|
Post by friedrichpsitalon on Nov 15, 2005 17:44:23 GMT -5
I don't see it as a denial; I just see that their bonus is specific. Aggressive civs aren't automatically being called "skilled in the woodlands" or "skilled in attacking cities."
They're being called "Skilled in combat" - which is the flavor of Combat I and Aggressive. Expansionist civs might have as much of a right to Guerilla I or Woodsman I as Aggressive do, and so on.
It isn't really denying them anything; they can still get those promotions, starting with the first at 2 experience; Aggressive civs start at level 1 - they just do so with Combat I already in the bag.
|
|
|
Post by friedrichpsitalon on Nov 15, 2005 21:37:56 GMT -5
Heroic, you know I respect you a lot, amigo... but you just slapped me in the face, and quite hard, by saying that MP didn't get the attention it deserves. I spent a lot of time on MP, and I know for a fact that there were quite a few times where MP wagged the dog, if you'll excuse the mixed metaphors. This game is not SP-dominated; the lobby issues are irreflective of that. You'd be surprised just how carefully MP and SP concerns were balanced along the way. Respectfully, if you're joining the chorus of "Defense is too easy," I once again recite the party line of "You haven't played it enough to realize how wrong that is." People die to the BARBARIANS all the time right now. That's not "defense is too easy." More accurate: "Defense is easier to learn than offense." And that statement IS true. Defense IS easier to learn and master - it always has been. Attacking is a fine art now, and done well, you can make a mockery of a defender. It's not hard to take cities once you understand the principles of the new system. To return once again to our argument. You are choosing to look at the Aggressive bonus as a promotion, rather than a bonus. If you look at it that way, I can't change your mind. An Aggressive unit that promotes twice has THREE bonuses. A non-aggressive unit that promotes twice has TWO bonuses. That's the bottom line. With 5 experience, an aggressive unit can harness three total promotions, and a non-aggressive unit can only harness two. That's it. You can twist that if you want to, but that's the bottom line. It would be ridiculously powerful and unfair to let Aggressive civs take any promotion they want at the start, for exactly the reasons you pointed out. City Raider II - a 50% increase in the unit's city strike capability right out the door? Holy gawd, beeline to macemen for the win! Not starting with a worker - I pointed this out, actually. That's why there are so many era starts. Bear in mind that Ancient Start is effectively "Pre-C3C" start. What we're used to is far more equivalent to a Classical Start. There's no rule saying you have to start with "true" ancient. The era select is sitting on the MP staging screen for that reason. The decision on WHEN to build a worker is a very powerful early strategic call; one that should not be stripped about because some MP perspectives don't like it. Some do. The Position of the Horsemen - This was made as a nod to realism AND balance. Mounted units were God in C3C. Horsemen, Knights, Cavalry, (related) Tanks. No one used anything else if they had a choice. Ever. That's not healthy for the game. In CIV, those units rule the field and smash siege units, which are required when you lay siege to a fortified city, hence the name.The use of those units in attacking cities with all their other bonuses had to be discouraged - and while I didn't have a hand in it, I fully agree with the spear's bonus against them. They have a clear purpose now, but alone, are vulnerable. Just like every other unit. Mounted units are attacking units, aggressive units - they have never been good at defending themselves when not pressing an advance. If a mounted unit is attacked by a spear, yes, they're going to be on the ropes. Horsemen do not lay siege to towns; they are field units. They raid, they smash and grab; they don't blow holes in walls and man battlements. That's the benefit of a horse - they move quickly. They're not too great at climbing walls, swimming moats, or running across broken rubble. As for defensive bonus - be serious. Since when have men on horseback EVER enjoyed ANY terrain that wasn't flat and level? Siege units also suffer that penalty, by the way, because they don't operate well in broken terrain, either. Horses rely on speed; attack and get out. They don't deal well with BEING attacked. Consider: In C3C, the horseman's defense was half its attack value (2/1), as was the cavalry's(6/3).... CIV actually increases the defense of those two units relative to every other kind of unit except one - it's counter unit! On the need for Elimination...Think about what you're really asking for here. You want two players of nearly equivalent skill to be able to utterly obliterate each other rapidly with just small shifts in the playing field? What's that going to do to more lopsided fields? To players who want to try and come from behind? If it's possible to utterly eliminate an entire foe - which is what you ask for when you say "Why can't we get rid of elimination and play full games" - in our short time frames, that means the length of the entire GAME has been shortented. That's not healthy for CIV. You'll note, though, that elimination is more flexible now than in C3C; with the status of captured cities up for toggling - another MP-specific change made to make MP more enjoyable, along with the incorporation of "Cton Style" in the rules in two forms (Always War or No Tech Trading) and even "Always Peace" and OCC. Did you think those were put in for SP? Egods, every popular mode except Genghis and Ghandi from this very C3C ladder was incorporated into the setup screen in CIV, and you think we didn't get enough attention? Of public opinion about attack/defenseRespectfully, Apolyton is learning the same things everyone else is, at the same learning curve. Apolyton University isn't saying ANYTHING yet- their first game hasn't even started. I know; I'm the one trying to goad it on! The masses at Apolyton are occasionally complaining about trouble taking cities... right alongside the threads about how this or that UU is overpowered and crushing everything in its path. Apolyton has the usual split - even the great Vel hasn't made up his mind on this. In fact, he hasn't even touched it. Yet strangely, every veteran, highly respected player from Apolyton who was involved in the development isn't saying anything like that. They're saying it's balanced. And so are the respected players who have been playing awhile from CFC. And here. It takes longer to learn the system. This isn't C3C. It's a whole new game and new rules apply. Everyone who's played the game for awhile understands this. I wrote the 'Fine Art of the Siege' article for a reason. Tip about mounted units - you include them in your stack not to "go chasing catapults." You keep them in your stack to counter when catapults come after YOU. Mounted units can smash the catapults that are trying to collateral-damage your stack on the way in for the kill. Here's another tip - if you're worried about defenders getting healing benefits, try this: Take an Aggressive Civ, get a barracks and either of the +2 exp civics. Promote Medic 1 and March. Now you'll heal anywhere, anytime. Give that benefit to all of your army's counterattack units - all the ones that aren't city attack promoted - and you'll skate right on in and pound any defender senseless. That's an advantage for "out the door" units only an Aggressive civ can utilize...unless your non-aggressive civ has THE PENTAGON. That's one of a dozen tips you figure out after you play the game for quite awhile.Maybe after awhile you'll come to understand the strategic decision of worker builds too. If not, you don't need a mod... ...just play the next most advanced start, easily included just for folks who wanted it. Keep playing. In a few more months, you'll be singing the same song to the new players that I am. Just like every other person who joined the development session late did.... after singing the same song you are now.
|
|
|
Post by Onan on Nov 15, 2005 23:29:27 GMT -5
Heroic, I really think you're barking up the wrong tree here. Have you tried testing your theory in the game? Well, I just did. I had to open it up to see what you were on about with aggressive civs being denied certain promotion types. And it simply is not true.
Run a simple test, and you'll see: Pick an aggressive civ. Use a renaissance start so certain exp-granting civics are available. Start the game.
Build a melee unit. Mine were Quechas.
First unit (no extra exp): starts with combat 1.
Then switch into vassalage, for the 'free' promotion due to all units starting with 2 exp in this civic.
Build your second Quecha (2 exp): starts with combat 1, and you can promote to the four promotions you mention, or pick woodsman 1 or city raider 1.
Now, build a barracks (chop a forest, it's a test).
Build your 3rd Quecha (starts with 6 exp): starts with combat 1, and you can pick two promotions. And you're not denied any. Go to town (or the woods rather)--you can pick woodsman 1 and woodsman 2, right off the bat. Or...er, go to town! You can take your combat 1 unit and promote it city raider 1 and 2.
So, I really have to say it again: What the heck are you on about?
p.s.: I too thought this game was too defensively weighted when I first started testing it. Once I learned how to correctly promote my units and mix them, I've found it pretty simple to take down enemy cities, provided their defenders do not outnumber my attackers. It's balanced. As Fried says, it will take players longer to learn the art of attack, but it is there, and it's pretty much been spelled out on these boards, particulary in Fried's fine Art of the Siege article.
|
|
|
Post by Onan on Nov 15, 2005 23:52:10 GMT -5
Also, if your concern is that you don't want to wait till you can switch civics before you get to those 2nd promotions...it's really not that hard. Build your barracks, then see a little combat, even defensive, even killing barbs, and there you go: you've earned your second promotion. There is something to your thought that starting with a worker and some worker actions might be a good middle ground between the current ancient and classical starts. I would try that. But until that mod comes out, I'm pretty happy trying either ancient or classical. And finally: if you've got a worker, and nothing to do with it (or even nothing you want to do with it), then, my friend, you've made a mistake.
|
|
|
Post by MMV on Nov 16, 2005 0:05:23 GMT -5
if the game is SO "defense advantage" - are the thousands of ladder loss reports due to score victories?
Nope.
unit promotions (other than regular to veteran to elite) with no specific "specialties" was not in any of the other civs - it's a great addition to the game.
Equality - how many times in civ3 did we see people get mad and/or quit because "the barbarian warrior killed my tow" etc, etc, etc.
Different game, different strategies - what would be new if it had the same strategies?
"In Yee Olde Civ..." is starting to sound like 80 year old hookers talking about how they "used to do business."
|
|
|
Post by Sidhe on Nov 16, 2005 7:05:59 GMT -5
Nobody expects the Spanish inquisition!!! Our chief weapon is fear and.... surprise
Seriously though keep posting I'm enjoying the dialogue immensely it's realy rather educational.
One point though cavalry units dont move at racing speed they move at a slow trot, about twice the move of warriors incidently. You try racing a unit of horses to a city any faster and there ability to attack will be very much deminished. Funnily enough as well ,something people don't realise is you can force march troops and deprive them of sleep/food to move twice the distance they normally would. This is more logistically difficult with cavalry as they need constant feeding and they're useless if you deprive them of both sleep and food. A soldier you can march for 24 hours with a few hours sleep and a large meal and they'll fight just as effectively.
In past history fast skirmisher units have outmaneuvered cavalry. Not only that well trained units could run for a whole day and sleep for eight hours, wake up and do the same again the next day, horses can't.
Do go on very interesting.
|
|
|
Post by friedrichpsitalon on Nov 16, 2005 7:08:42 GMT -5
Hero, amigo - we DID have a "4 hours what some people did in 32." It was called QuickCiv. Some people loved it, and some despised it. It's very possible - in fact quite high on my list of things - that it'll be in the expansion. It'll probably quite resemble the old one, too. Here's one thing I genuinely, honestly don't understand though: why do people think the early game is slower now? Instead of settler/worker you get settler/warrior. You actually move the warrior around, rather than hitting "M" and enter three times. Your cities don't shrink when you build settlers - they just stop growing, net effect being a faster recovery. Why do people think the game is slower now? Because you actually have to build a worker? Granted, you don't have the worker to speed your early growth, but cities also grow noticeably faster after they're improved in CIV. I really don't understand this point - could I have it explained to me? You don't consider it an interesting choice to either A) go for an early religion, B) go for the full suite of worker actions, C) go for naval exploration, or D) go for a beeline on metals? That's tedium? Heck, there are games I've gone for quite some time without knowing how to farm. I know not all business before Civ4 was wrong. I'm not saying it's perfect - personally, I'm not keen on the espionage system at all, and I think more could've been done with how resources work (bonuses for multiple sources,etc), as well as a more complex MP scoring system. I'm not saying that Civ4 is perfect - I'm saying your objections are based in what you liked about C3C, rather than what is wrong with CIV. Horsemen should never have been the ultimate conquest tool. That just makes sense. As for the combat promotion thing, I think the best promotions (at least for the early game) are Shock and Cover, not City Raider I and II. (Check the math, seriously - Combat is a GOOD promotion chain.) I realize you like the game. I never said you didn't. What angered me is when you said "MP didn't get enough consideration" when I remember countless discussions of "one house, one CIV, one goal" going on in-house. One other point regarding defense - you do realize that all the extra city defense bonuses can be stripped out by siege weapons in as little as 1-2 turns, right? Then you've just got type-bonuses against each other, and that equalizes the system quite well. I'm not saying "shut up." But if you're going to critique, don't I have the right to respond? This is an interesting dialogue, and I've learned there's a perspective about Aggressive promotions that never even occurred to me. Soon, I hope to learn why people consider CIV a slower start, when I'd have thought differently. Healthy dialogue is good, and that's what we have going.
|
|
|
Post by SirPartyMan on Nov 16, 2005 12:30:39 GMT -5
I think the main reason for the slow start in CIV IV is the lack of a worker at start time. This then causes people to build a worker (10 turns at pop 1, usually, 8 at pop 2). If you build a worker at pop 2 and wait to reach pop 3 to build a settler it's like almost turn 30 before your 2nd city.
Simple solution: give us the option to start with a settler, warrior/scout, and worker. Then the games will move much faster. I could have a 2nd city at turn 15 this way.
Just my 2 cents.
SPM
|
|