Gods & Kings Super Sleuthing

[Joketa]

There's been some pretty bad articles coming out of PAX (one called it Civ 6 and said it had improved graphics over Civ 5), but this one is not bad. http://www.escapistmagazine.com/news...anges-the-Game

Of course, we're scraping bottom on new details. What I got from this was:

Siege weapons effectiveness against units has been decreased, while they will be absolutely necessary if you want to capture a city that has built a wall improvement. No more simply trying to overwhelm a city with massive amounts of warriors. Without siege, you are ☺☺☺☺ out of luck.

If you're more of a merchant-type, your intelligence can also be sold to the highest bidder, using your spies to make a quick bucket of gold.

The pacing of the game has been overhauled, including the entire tech tree. Shirk and Beach's team have tried to make sure units have a usefulness for a much longer period of time, a worry of mine because adding new units such as "Great War" biplanes and machine gunners would have been very difficult to play with if it kept the pacing of vanilla Civ V.

"The entire system of how units come out, the pacing, the cost, all of that stuff has been reworked," Shirk said. "If you look at the tech tree, there has been a lot of shifting around. We always wanted to get at least one tech level between each unit in the chain. We don't want you to get musketman here, and the very next tech you can get will give you a rifleman."

[Arkciv]

I posted it here because I haven’t found anybody that can tell me where a better place to post it would be so the right people will see it the ideas get to them. I'm open to suggestions.

[istry555]

I posted it here because I haven’t found anybody that can tell me where a better place to post it would be so the right people will see it the ideas get to them. I'm open to suggestions.

There is no real place to post suggestions, as most game companies have a policy against officially receiving fan suggestions for legal reasons (also no doubt because of the sheer volume and hassle of unsolicited suggestions). Just make your own new thread and hope a developer reads the forum. Your own thread is more likely to be seen, especially if you get a lot of people to respond, than posting in the middle of a thread on a different topic.

[Arkciv]

Followed your suggestion and posted a separate thread, thank you.

[PRAILE]

Dear zephyrtr,
The biggest problem I have while reading your thread is that when you update it, you don't mention what the update is. "in a post"
you should make a post and mention the new inforamtion you added,
Thanks for your epic thread

Waiting for your answer

[zephyrtr]

Waiting for your answer

Hey, alright, okay. I cannot disagree with you -- that's definitely a problem. If you follow the actual thread, you'll be notified of MOST of the changes, but certainly not all of them. I try to make a little post of some nature, but it would be nearly twice the work updating the main document and then writing, essentially, patch notes for it and post those as well.

Tell you what? I'll try to be better about posting again to the thread when I make a change to the main document and (very quickly) what those changes are, or at least what topic they're under. That won't be a lot more work for me, and everyone will know where to look for new info. Sound good?

[PRAILE]

Man ... Thanks ,, You're trying so hard .. This will solve it ,, I guess many people have had this problem

[steveg700]

Atomic Age makes a lot of sense. If they mean for the "Industrial Era" to represent TRULY the time period labeled as the Industrial Revolution, that would be the mid 18th century to the late 19th century, meaning the Industrial Era would be our new 'Great War Era.'

Then we'd need to rename the era that contains the Fighters, B-17s, Tanks and all that... That could certainly be the "Atomic Age," which represents the early 20th century. The "Modern Era" then could represent the Late 20th and early 21st centuries, and then the "Future Era" would be the 22nd century.

Although I'm no fan of the monicker "Great War Era", I gotta say that the earliest that the Atomic Age started no earlier than the late 40's, essentially at the close of WWII. I would prefer something like the "Globalization" Era. Something that reflects the advent of braodcast communication (radio and television) and developments like the League of Nations.

[Shiav]

Although I'm no fan of the monicker "Great War Era", I gotta say that the earliest that the Atomic Age started no earlier than the late 40's, essentially at the close of WWII. I would prefer something like the "Globalization" Era. Something that reflects the advent of braodcast communication (radio and television) and developments like the League of Nations.

Globalization didn't really begin in earnest til the 50's, and didn't take off to the extent it has until the nineties

[steveg700]

Globalization didn't really begin in earnest til the 50's, and didn't take off to the extent it has until the nineties

By what standards do you define globalization? What is the defining event or series of events?

I mentioned the League of Nations, which was certainly a big step towards nations acting as part of a global community. Treaty of Versailles occurred in 1919. Then again, that was an outgrowth of The Great War.

[Shiav]

By what standards do you define globalization? What is the defining event or series of events?

I mentioned the League of Nations, which was certainly a big step towards nations acting as part of a global community. Treaty of Versailles occurred in 1919. Then again, that was an outgrowth of The Great War.

Come now, the League of Nations was a joke. Since the beginning, when the US didn't join, you knew it wasn't going to pan out. "The watchdog of the world has no teeth" as they said

Globalization as most people see it is the interconnectivity of the planet, yes? So while things like the trans-atlantic cable did enhance this, global communication was still a rather slow and cumbersome activity. After world war two, with Breton Woods, the UN, the Marshall Plan, the Truman doctrine, etc. World affairs started to become a key issue. This is when the world is truly interconnected by a binding and ultimately self replicating force. The UN has authority because it's member states have invested authority in it, nations invest their time and effort and money in the UN because they believe it has the authority and power to create global change. We saw this in Korea.

Globalization as the complete unification of humanity, however, was still relatively slow. Airliners were starting to complete the goal of easily and quickly uniting our population centres, expanding trade networks unified our economies. In the 1970's when OPEC wanted to turn off their oil, the entire world felt the shocks. At no other time in history could you see the complete interconnected fragility of the modern world's economy.

But true Globalization happened only very recently. It happened with the internet. Now I can know exactly what is happening anywhere in the world at any time just by looking at my phone or computer. I can make a video call to my eighty two year old mother in Omsk, Even though she is almost two continents away. When the nation of Azawad was declared I knew it thirteen minutes after the MLNA made the declaration, thanks to the BBC. Every single person on this planet is now physically, economically, mentally and emotionally connected. And that is Globalization to its fullest extent.

[tejon]

I gotta say that the earliest that the Atomic Age started no earlier than the late 40's

Accurate periodic tables go back to 1869. Subatomic theory kicked off in 1897. I can accept a pre-WW1 inception for the Atomic Age.

[Shiav]

Accurate periodic tables go back to 1869. Subatomic theory kicked off in 1897. I can accept a pre-WW1 inception for the Atomic Age.

I think most people's definition of the atomic age doesn't have to do with chemistry, but with nuclear intimidation. "And now I am become Death, the Destroyer of worlds"

[tejon]

Oh, no argument about the actual definition of the term. Just saying that it wouldn't break my brain if the game era kicked off a little earlier.

[Shiav]

Oh, no argument about the actual definition of the term. Just saying that it wouldn't break my brain if the game era kicked off a little earlier.

Considering I normally have atomic weaponry in the 1800's (or 1600s if im going for a science win and am really kicking ass) I wouldn't quibble over terminology either

[steveg700]

I think most people's definition of the atomic age doesn't have to do with chemistry, but with nuclear intimidation. "And now I am become Death, the Destroyer of worlds"

Well, it's certainly ridiculous to suggest, as tejon does, that it has to do with theories and periodic tables that meant nothing to the world at large at the time. Eras are supposed to represent huge, revolutionary shifts in the fundamental nature of a civilization. It's not about the date when an article was published in a science jouranl.

Come now, the League of Nations was a joke. Since the beginning, when the US didn't join, you knew it wasn't going to pan out. "The watchdog of the world has no teeth" as they said

Certainly, but then again, many people find the UN to be rather full of hot air as well. But of course, we are talking about the first awkward baby steps towards nations turning their eye towards world affairs.

Considering I normally have atomic weaponry in the 1800's (or 1600s if im going for a science win and am really kicking ass) I wouldn't quibble over terminology either

Yet with regards to globalization, quibbling over terminology seems to be precisely what you are doing.

"Globalization" isn't exactly the word I'm looking for, but that may be because there isn't a suitable word that can inserted befor "era" that captures it. Perahps the "Global Theater Era". Certainly, "The Great War Era" is a no less of a clumsy classification.

[JFD]

Even though she is almost two continents away. When the nation of Azawad was declared I knew it thirteen minutes after the MLNA made the declaration, thanks to the BBC. Every single person on this planet is now physically, economically, mentally and emotionally connected. And that is Globalization to its fullest extent.

Poor Mali...

I don't think you could say that so definitely. I'm sure telepathy and the like would be the fullest extent, whereby individual's literally acted in accordance with the very essence of others. Anyway, the last time humanity attempted such unity on such a scale we all were turned into babblying barbarians, lol.

[alcibiades]

I think most people's definition of the atomic age doesn't have to do with chemistry, but with nuclear intimidation. "And now I am become Death, the Destroyer of worlds"

Technically, the Atomic Age should then be called Nuclear Era, and was started with Lise Meitner's discovery of fission in 1939.

[zephyrtr]

I think what makes the most sense is Ancient>Classical>Medieval>Renaissance and then Industrial>Atomic>Modern>Future.

Figure the modern era represents 80s-ish on, after the Cold War concluded? That makes a lot of sense to me.

[GeneralY7]

There's a misconception when people use the term Modern Era, in that they believe it means the world we live in now. Ideally the Modern Era refers to the world at the turn of the 20th century (the 1900's) where Modernization (transition of traditional) society into modern civilization) and Modernism (aka modern art) took place, it could be use as a reference of the years 1900-1945. Afterwards, with the development of nuclear weapons we entered the Atomic Era, a time where the fear of nuclear annihilation loomed over the world and shaped global politics (ideally from 1945-1980). From the 1980's up til today we have lived in the Information Era were computers have changed the world we live in, where freedom of information and the internet have helped oppressed peoples to rally together and rise up against their oppressors, effectively ending the Cold War that split the world between two ideologies.

[Black Gate of Mordor]

I'm pretty sure in Civ5 the Modern Era represents at least 1945 onwards. Whilst technically what you've said is correct, in civ's sense it isn't.

[zephyrtr]

Actually the Modern Age refers to everything after the Middle Ages. Since it's such a huge swath of time, and modern is defined specifically as referring to the present, people tend to colloquially use it (not incorrectly) to refer to the present and the most recent couple of decades, especially since we have so many terms for other points in modern history: Victorian, Colonial, Imperial, Industrial...

BGM, I think you're right -- so unless they change the years in the game via pacing, my suggestion won't edge out. Imperial>Industrial might make sense... but I don't know how much sense it would be for the Land Ship to be an imperial era unit. It just doesn't feel right.

W/E, they'll figure it out. I don't want this thread to get too off topic again.

[GeneralY7]

This all reminds me of what my Aerospace Materials professor said about the Iron Age, never really having an end do to our heavy reliance on steel construction. I guess the truth is we can classify history in a thousand and one ways so long as we have a way to justify our naming selection for eras. All we can do is hope the developers give us proper justification. Consider topic drop, back to sleuthing mode.

[Thetford]

Technically, we are still in the ice age.

[Pouakai]

Where'd you hear this? All scientists I've heard on the issue say we're in an Inter-glacial period, between two ice ages

[Shiav]

Where'd you hear this? All scientists I've heard on the issue say we're in an Inter-glacial period, between two ice ages

I think we're more in the phase of fully coming into an interglacial period, whereby it will get warmer til it levels out then slowly get colder til theres another ice age

[Pouakai]

Officially the last proper ice age ended around 10000 BCE, around the time of Gobekli Tepe.

[wingednosering]

*Skipping the age debate*

Anybody else find it strange that there hasn't been a single UB announced yet? I'm assuming Ethiopia will have one, since they lack any kind of faith/religious bonus atm, but I have no idea where others might show up.

I hope Austria has a UB. The UA makes me think I'll be playing them alot and I hate having two UUs.

Really disappointed with the huns. I was expecting more from them since they were new arrivals to the franchse and didn't fit the standard requirements of a civ team.

Carthage looks good, but their Elephants seem like they'll become obsolete too quickly, like the Maori Warriors.

The Netherlands, Celts, and Byzantines all look promising though.

The cynic in me worries that the Maya haven't seen much publicity because their abilities aren't much to brag about. It seems strange that they were one of the first three civs announced and yet we still don't know anything other than they get some sort of boost once calendar is researched.

[Shiav]

*Skipping the age debate*

Anybody else find it strange that there hasn't been a single UB announced yet? I'm assuming Ethiopia will have one, since they lack any kind of faith/religious bonus atm, but I have no idea where others might show up.

I hope Austria has a UB. The UA makes me think I'll be playing them alot and I hate having two UUs.

Really disappointed with the huns. I was expecting more from them since they were new arrivals to the franchse and didn't fit the standard requirements of a civ team.

Carthage looks good, but their Elephants seem like they'll become obsolete too quickly, like the Maori Warriors.

The Netherlands, Celts, and Byzantines all look promising though.

I'm definitely thinking Byzantines and Austrians. Maybe Ethiopia, depending on how their UX's pan out

[wingednosering]

Side note: Isn't Geneva already a city-state?

[Shiav]

Side note: Isn't Geneva already a city-state?

I believe so yes, why?

[wingednosering]

It's in the OP as a new city-state.

[istry555]

It's in the OP as a new city-state.

I don't remember everything about the thread, but it might have been that Geneva changed its focus rather than being completely new?

[Fat_Gizmo]

It is a shame that those new cool leader screens go to waste because of keeping their detail at minimum to avoid infamous leader screen blackout.

[Joketa]

I don't remember everything about the thread, but it might have been that Geneva changed its focus rather than being completely new?

Geneva changed from a cultural to a religious city state.

[zephyrtr]

Yeah, cause of their big role in the reformation, I suppose? There really are very precious few holy cities. And since India owns pretty much all of the holy Hindu cities, the list is even shorter.

Personally, I'm most looking forward to Netherlands, and probably the Mayans but I'm a sucker for pre-Columbians.

[Pouakai]

I wonder if Varanasi will be removed from the Indian city list and be made a Religious?

[Joketa]

According to one source, Kathmandu is being changed to religious, so that counts as a Hindu holy city (as well as Buddhist). Lhasa, Geneva, Jerusalem, Vatican City, and Kathmandu I think are confirmed so far. Mecca is not likely to be pulled out of Arabia, but there are plenty of options for a Muslim religious city state. No doubt they're not going to have one for each religion, but I can't see them excluding a Muslim religious CS.

[Shiav]

According to one source, Kathmandu is being changed to religious, so that counts as a Hindu holy city (as well as Buddhist). Lhasa, Geneva, Jerusalem, Vatican City, and Kathmandu I think are confirmed so far. Mecca is not likely to be pulled out of Arabia, but there are plenty of options for a Muslim religious city state. No doubt they're not going to have one for each religion, but I can't see them excluding a Muslim religious CS.

It saddens me that Mecca isn't being made one, and that it is still the capital of Arabia. It may be the religious centre, but it has never been a political heavyweight like Damascus or Baghdad

[istry555]

Well the whole point of city-states was to give representation to civs that weren't a major civ, not to pull cities from major civs to fit a type (here religious). Are there any city-states that are also cities of a current major civ? It makes no sense to pull Mecca (though I agree that it shouldn't be the capital) or Varanassi from their respective city lists.