I'd get why they'd do that -- so the Huns can have both ranged and melee mounted units out at the same time. Pretty terrifying.
I also got deets on the Carhtaginian units, and added to my strat guide. The G+K article's getting long enough already without all that. Pretty sure I read the numbers right.
Is it? Consider that the mongolian keshik repalces the knight's 18 strength with 13 ranged strength and 8 combat strength. Seems to maintain the formula.Originally Posted by zephyrtr
Like I said, the three final industrial-era sopols are special in nature. They most likely provide the only venues for spending faith in the late game.
Seems slightly ill-conceived IMO. For instance, the tenets of order seem inimical to faith, so buying GE's with them smacks of false symmetry. I'd rather see followers of orders receive a benefit that unvravels their religious infrastructure.
Other random stats (not sure if they were posted, but I'm just going through the video for minor details - and adding ones I think were posted, but it's good for completeness):
Embassies give a positive diplo bonus (@1:20).
Fighter (real vanilla based one) 45 ranged attack.
Battleship:
Move 5 (Great Lighthouse shown in Hun capital), Combat Strength 55, Ranged attack 70.
+ Get 'bonus vs. cities' which is likely the Statue of Zeus bonus.
Destroyer: Move 6 (though a lot of non-obvious bonuses shown), Combat Strength 55
+ They get the Honour 'adjacent friendly unit' bonus, even against cities.
Great War Infantry: CS 50
Mehal Sephari: CS 34
(Rifles are somewhere in the 34ish range - depending on if the MS has a combat strength boost over rifles on top of the bonus for being close to the capital).
Landship: CS 60, Move 4.
African Forest Elephant: Move 3, Combat Strength 14 (text has the 'higher than the ... which it replaces' guessing that means horsemen are sub-14 combat strength).
Quinquereme: Move 4, strength 13. Says 'Strong Ancient', so likely a combat strength boost over the Trireme? Could also mean that triremes are now melee, or that this UU is melee and triremes are still ranged?
Scout: strength 5
Swords: combat strength 14
Comp. Bows: Strength 7, ranged attack 11
Random other things:
Auto added City States to the Peace treaty (rather than having to go and manually make peace with them).
Saved games: 'Sort by Last Modified' (soo useful when you don't bother deleting saves from prior games).
@3:47 in the first part (Dido) if you're very very fast at hitting pause, you can see a hammer output for the fish under the 'founded a pantheon' text. This likely means that the 'free' harbours are actually 'free harbours' from the start of the game (he took the camp bonus, rather than the God of the Seas bonus).
Insta heal (the AI loves it) seems to be only +50 (the Swordsman was in the red, then +50 healed before attacks happened, which means it wasn't normal healing as that happens at the end of your turn).
oh, combat calculation wise (now that we have more stats):
Assuming that they still use the combat strength ratio style damage calculator:
1:1 ratio (as stated in various interviews) will require 3-4 (let's say 3.5 for math) attacks to kill a unit.
So, that's ~27ish (+/- random number) damage in a 1:1 ratio attack (excluding all promotions/terrain/etc just to keep it simple).
Given the new stats for Rifles and Comp. Bows (assuming the Ethiopian rifle replacement is at least close to the rifle stats), that means a comp. bow vs. rifle is doing ~8-9 ranged damage (out of 100). Very 'rough' math there, ignoring most adjustments in the damage calculations and also assuming that the minimum damage limit is sub-10.
Going the other way, the rifle would do ~131 (insta kill) damage to the Comp. bow, with the comp. bow handing the Rifle ~5-6 points of damage (again assuming minimum damage is sub-10).
What concerns me somewhat is the ease with which the Huns were able to capture a coastal city from Ethiopia. Two battleships and one destroyer, and down she goes. Maybe it had damage on it already? Or was it just a feeble city? I didn't notice, but I hope naval attacks aren't normally that effective.
I don't feel like this should be a concern. If Ethiopia had a navy, it would have been able to resist. Since it didn't, the city was taken from a coastal attack. I think that's pretty fair personally, but I hope that since they've weakened coastal cities by making them more vulnerable, they will balance it by making coastal resource improvements more valuable.
It's not practical for every coastal region to be ensconced by a compliment of naval units comparable to whatever naval forces an enemy can concentrate on it. Heck, even having ships near the city wouldn't necessarily prevent that three-hit combo from taking place. Waters are open terrain, and can be traveled through quickly without encountering obstacles. Perfect for bliz tactics. For these reasons, an attack by sea shouldn't be a one-round TKO. It ought to be an actual siege.
But like I said, the Ethiopian city might have simply have been weak. I need to go back and look.
IIRC Lalibela had only half health left when the assault we saw began
just checked and yeah, it was in 'yellow'-1/2 health.
It also only had 50 Combat strength (less than the Huns cities, though it was mentioned that the Huns were far ahead in tech, which does slightly add to city defenses) and less than the Ethiopian capitals 104 combat strength, which either means that the city had little to no defensive buildings, or it was purposely lowered so that the Bships/fighter/destroyer could take it in one turn.
It seems logical to me that you can only get GP's with faith with Autocracy, Order and freedom, I mean they specifically stated that those will take the place of religion (sort of) later in the game so it makes sense they would be the only ones.
I think the text says:
A fast ranged unit used for hit-and-run
attacks. Only the Huns may build it.
I called out the Horse Archer stats a couple of pages back and yeah, that's what the text said IIRC. (It was far more legible in the original feed than after YouTube's compression.) Nothing about not having a horse requirement.
If a unit has a resource requirement, it'll appear right below the stats.
In this case, there's nothing there. Ergo, it is a resourceless unit.
Ha! Sure does. Well then. Horse archers are a little crazy.
I'm gonna go with that being an oversight or a redesign or a mock-up for the demo. I feel confident that horse archers will require horses.
Post specific unit details to my strat thread, if you would please. I'll add when I'm able.
While all of this seems really interesting, I'm still really interested in "Empire of the Smoky Skies." The concept of steam-punk has always been a favourite setting of mine...
Regardless, does anybody know if the map will be random, will the map reflect our world or will it be totally different? Will there be new, different civs to choose from or the same ones "England, China, etc."
Really excited for this, got it marked in my calender.
Also; I want to know if the AI's will be less stingy on you declaring war by bestowing you with the "warmonger" tree even though you've declared war only once. Will they take your relationship with the AI into account. *If an AI player hates you, therefore they shouldn't really judge you for being a warmonger in my opinion.*
Last edited by Tabbris; 04-23-2012 at 05:29 PM.
If that is the case, and they are maintenance-free, that's a pretty awesome UA.
It's quite powerful, and makes a kind of sense. Normally, harbors are a medieval tech. Carthage didn't make it to medieval.
Yep it does makes sense. Now it will be interesting if they are maintenance free. At CivFanatics they think (trying to account for other maintenance costs) that they harbors are not maint free.
It will be over-powered if they are maintenance-free, but stifling to your economy in early expansion if they aren't. If you plop down a coastal city with a building that has a 3 gold maintenance you will be in the red until that city reaches a certain population, I would think.
Well, Carthag e is kind of an early rush Civ, with the elephants and the quinquereme both being anciet era units. They're more useful than Babylon's uniques, but still it's sort of the same situation.
I always thought that it was bizarre to push harbors back to the medieval era anyway. They were around a long time before then for many, many civ's.
I have one word for you: Stakhanov!
Joketa: Well, the instant trade route (assuming the capital is on the coast) should mitigate at least a bit of the upkeep, if so.
However, the best argument for zero-upkeep Harbors would be that you start, turn 1, with a harbor in your capital (assuming, again, it is on the coast). That can have a crippling effect on your gpt until you get another city to do the trade route, and even then it probably wouldn't be profitable in the immediate short term.
I think that Carthage is meant to be an economic/coastal powerhouse. It gains huge benefits from being on the coast, and the money it will make will most likely be one of the best in the game.
Well, yes, that seems pretty manifest. On the whole, I think this is a pretty ham-fisted move that tries to portray pre-medieval maritime civilizations as exceedingly rare and unique.
The simplest answer to this is that they don't get harbors from the get-go. In the demo there's no visible harbor structures in either Carthage city. The harbor is for sure a building you can see on the map. Remind me again why we suspected they get a harbor at the beginning.
Joketa: Ah, your point is that when the Carthaginians research the Harbor, one immediately springs up in each city? Well... that is certainly a possibility, but one reason that may not happen is that Carthage, historically, didn't survive to the Medieval period. If the Harbor is moved back into the Classical period, I could more easily see this.
If you are correct, Carthage will simply rush the Harbor, anyway.
achievement names and icons are apparently up on steam now... 2K Forums seems to be very slow on the sleuthing compared to CFC.
Indeed they are, but the pictures are red x's. Acessing XML for sleuthing now
I can see almost all the new icons at http://steamcommunity.com/stats/CivV/achievements
Only 1 or 2 are missing icons
I prefer the term "geriatric"
I can't see any, apart from 'From Russia With Love' and "hannibal's crossing'
Also, guys, check this out:
http://steamcommunity.com/id/mouseyp...ats/CivV?xml=1
Has the descriptions of all the new achievements:
"Apocalypse Now" - As Maya, nuke a city in 2012
Finally, now we can speculate about the achievement. Only to me it seems that they accidentally switched the win as Sweden and the Netherlands achievement picture. ''Silent no more'' is now paired with the picture of Gustavus Aldolphus, while the picture of the achievement "Defender of the faith" is William of Orange (William the Silent).
Just nitpicking.
*edit* seems to be normal now
Defender of the Faith achievement description is indeed Gustavus Adolphus
How do you actually ever see another person's cheevo's?
No idea, they should make it easier to see another's cheevs. I know how to see recent cheevs friends of mine acquired, but not how to see ALL their cheevs for Civ V.
Go to their Steam Profile -> see all recent playtime -> all games -> scroll down to civ v -> view stats -> x's achievments
I have no idea if there is a shorter way
So the final new civ is Sweden under Gustavus Adolphus. Looks like Europe just got seriously crowded, I hope no more European civs are added in the future, there's almost 2-3 European civs for every 1 civ of any other continent.
Portugal still rightfully deserves a place. And in fact, it's probably the last really strong candidate that jumps out at me.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote