|
On May 18 2013 08:44 Sermokala wrote:Show nested quote +On May 18 2013 02:49 farvacola wrote: Hmmm, my guess is either the Sioux or Navajo for the Native American civ, but the Inuit would be cool too. My bets on the Seminoles for some forest/marsh/swamp benefits. That would be interesting. If they do go the route of another NA civ and they cant do the Pueblo, it would be nice to see these guys http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Five_Civilized_Tribes
|
On May 18 2013 06:27 {CC}StealthBlue wrote: But what is the unique resource? If Venice is in, it will be glass? Since there are so many trade-centered civs already...
|
On May 18 2013 09:24 Sub40APM wrote:Show nested quote +On May 18 2013 08:36 A Killer Cuppa Tea wrote: ? Why are archers deemed so good? Because of two factors (a) on higher difficulties the Ai will always outnumber you in the early game by a factor 2-3 and (b) the ai is terrible at positional play. So it will be possible to get a couple of archers, and pick of their melee units and they wont be able to capture your city (you need to physically move into a city to take it, which archers cant do) so even if you are surrounded youll end up having 8-10 enemy archer type units in your territory that yo ucan pick of no matter how much damage they do to your city. Later on you can do the same thing offensively, pick a good defensive position and let the ai suicide his entire army at you.
I will argue that ranged units are simply more powerful than melee ones pre-industrial.
|
Always felt pre industrial melee could really use a buff or range a nerf. Like reduced damage from range for melee and/or ranged units shooting back from ranged attacks (and melee fighting back from range when in melee range).
|
On May 18 2013 12:39 rezoacken wrote: Always felt pre industrial melee could really use a buff or range a nerf. Like reduced damage from range for melee and/or ranged units shooting back from ranged attacks (and melee fighting back from range when in melee range).
They definitely need to reduce the combat strength of ranged units. However, I think this will make them too vulnerable to other ranged units. IMO, they should have separated ranged combat strength and melee combat strength, give melee units a universal bonus against ranged units, and/or give ranged units a penalty retaliating against melee attackers.
|
The fact that melee also always move forward after a kill doesn't help imo. It should be a choice, half of the time if I kill something with melee it just ends up being in range of 5 ranged units or cities next turn.
|
|
|
On May 18 2013 14:22 rezoacken wrote: The fact that melee also always move forward after a kill doesn't help imo. It should be a choice, half of the time if I kill something with melee it just ends up being in range of 5 ranged units or cities next turn. Yeah that's a pain in the ass. Combat mechanics feel so clunky for the first part of the game. It doesn't make sense to have a melee based army because they are so inefficient compared to ranged.
How are you supposed to deal with run away civs? I usually have to just abuse the bad combat AI and attack them and let them suicide into my army if they are on my land mass. If they are on another island I'm usually just shit out of luck.
|
On May 19 2013 12:11 tokicheese wrote:Show nested quote +On May 18 2013 14:22 rezoacken wrote: The fact that melee also always move forward after a kill doesn't help imo. It should be a choice, half of the time if I kill something with melee it just ends up being in range of 5 ranged units or cities next turn. Yeah that's a pain in the ass. Combat mechanics feel so clunky for the first part of the game. It doesn't make sense to have a melee based army because they are so inefficient compared to ranged. How are you supposed to deal with run away civs? I usually have to just abuse the bad combat AI and attack them and let them suicide into my army if they are on my land mass. If they are on another island I'm usually just shit out of luck.
Depends how "ran away" it is.
Usually all you need to do is bribe the runaway to fight other civs while you tech up - and you eventually win via science.
If the runaway takes every other civ except you and the geography is favourable, then you can also consider sneaking its capital for a domination victory. Just prepare some nukes, airplanes, and some fast units (e.g. tanks) and go for a blitz attack.
On May 18 2013 12:39 rezoacken wrote: Always felt pre industrial melee could really use a buff or range a nerf. Like reduced damage from range for melee and/or ranged units shooting back from ranged attacks (and melee fighting back from range when in melee range).
Industrial melee are fine, I think - because by industrial era ranged units are no longer 2 range and Artilleries have limited combat strength vs non-cities.
Speaking of melee units: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=489978
|
Thanks very much for the responses, guys. I'm going to try the aforementioned Tradition 4 City Opening and see how it goes!
There doesn't seem to be much discussion around multipayer in this game. Why is that?
|
On May 19 2013 23:35 A Killer Cuppa Tea wrote:Thanks very much for the responses, guys. I'm going to try the aforementioned Tradition 4 City Opening and see how it goes! There doesn't seem to be much discussion around multipayer in this game. Why is that?
Games tend to take way to long to allow for decent multiplayer imo. Unless you have a couple of friends who absolutely love it.
|
on quick pace a multiplayer game takes about 4-5 hrs. There are some Steam groups like "No Quitters" where you can find solid multiplayer games.
|
I can't be the only one that is a little miffed we are, apparently, only getting 1 or maybe two new resources. Where is the Tea, Obsidian, etc.
If Venice(Italy) is in then it can't be glass as remember CS have glassware already as unique resource.
|
Tobacco and tea are the luxuries that should be added.
|
On May 20 2013 06:06 {CC}StealthBlue wrote: Where is the Tea Hi
|
Why does Firaxis allow the German press to release interviews early and not expect American fansites not to track and unveil them themselves?
|
I actually like their justification for removing gold from river and coast tiles, sea trade has a range that is 45 hex vs 10 hex for land and its double income, which will make getting a seaport actually valuable in the game. I still think that rivers should act as roads though, since river transport was such a critical piece of pre-industrial infrastructure.
|
http://www.pcgamer.com/gallery/civilization-vs-new-civilization-abilities-and-unique-units-and-how-to-use-them/
so based on this preview, I have no idea how anyone will be able to beat Morocco. Constant golden ages and unlimited gold? gg.
and then this Adviser T.J. says: I really like Poland. If not for the bombshell that is... one of the unannounced civs we're not allowed to talk about yet, I'd even say they're my favorite new civ. Bombshell?? Speculation on the civ fanatic boards says that it could either mean that Venice is going to be even more OP or that there is the last civilization that is even more horse focused.
Also confirms that Venice is in with this I can't say anything yet, unfortunately. We'll have all the most serene details as soon as we get the okay. Thank god. And my first choice to play through. Well, maybe Ill finally win on Immortal with Morrocco on a decent sized map. Just gotta rush for that Desert Faith.
|
|
|
Just glancing at the new social policy and ideology trees, it looks like gold-fueled domination shenanigans will be just as powerful, if not more so, in BNW. With the new trade route dynamics and the changes to map gold, I'm thinking that gold will be more scarce with minimal investment, but should be far more plentiful if the player focuses on it. Also, the autocracy tree seems to provide nearly limitless happiness, which should make military conquest easier.
|
|
|
|
|
|