They're being lazy and haven't even answered the Qs from the forums yet (except the german forum ones).Originally Posted by dukeisaac
They're being lazy and haven't even answered the Qs from the forums yet (except the german forum ones).
Same cash, bro, same here ...
Or, they're baking something for us...
Aww, well who am I fooling about here?...
OK...how many questions raised in reply? What a surprise. Plain stupid offer or marketing subterfuge?
If they wanted to do marketing investigation, they could frankly post an official poll, and have some researchments (though I believe they do things like this, but not on the forums). So I beileve they will answer some questions with time
Yeh, we'll get some answers at some point!
Anyone know if we'll have a renaissance ranged unit? A little early for gatling guns, a little late for xbows. Maybe riflemen or musketmen will be repurposed?
Frigates! (and ships of the line)
I know they're lowering Canon and Treb's base strength, and upping their bonus VS Cities, to make sure they're not used against enemy units. It's possible, though, that Canons wont have as low a base Strength, relative to the era's basic frontliner, making it a semi-adequate anti-personnel unit, at least on defense. I haven't heard of field canons or anything like that being added though. I'm pretty sure we have all the new units accounted for, so we may be out of luck there.
It's being tracked on CFC as well and there's apparently 3 'missing' units still.
for your lists though:
It's just the Great Firewall, no 'of China' attached to any references to it.
Are you sure about David? Seems weird to be there.
Pretty sure the scenario specific units aren't counted in the list of new units.
As per Spain/Inca: I thought that Skilldorado and the FoY were added to the base game, rather than just the DLC (they're in the 'shared' folder if anyone wants to delete them). But someone who never bought it would have to confirm that they aren't there.
Fall of Rome scenario:
Sassanid are in the game (achievement list)
Vandals are in (achievement list)
Into the Renaissance:
Also add: Almohad, Russia, England, Celts as playable civs (achievement list)
I'm actually convinced that the 9th Wonder is the already announced National Intelligence Agency, meaning the original "9 New Wonders" included both world and national wonders.
We've had multiple confirmations for all 8 of the world wonders (I think even their art), yet we still haven't had any solid info on the 9th (David is only from the box art). At the same time we've heard of no other new national wonders except the Intelligence Agency. It just seems to fit.
Argh, way too long. I WANT IT TOMORROW! :P
You and me both and probably everyone else here Lol.
At first I was a little bummed to hear about the changes to siege equipment since I use them for defense about as much as offense but with the ranged gunpowder units that shouldn't be much of an issue.
Going back to Steveg's post about renaissance ranged units I think it would be nice if they changed the musketmen into ranged units and put them in line before the gatling guns since that would give me a reason to recruit them. I usually skip them since their strength is the same as longswordsmen and I usually have more than enough iron by the time I research gunpowder. They just seem kind of like a useless unit the way they are right now.
I don't see this happening, just saying it'd be nice.
It's not going to happen, because Musketmen aren't meant to be used by expansionist Civs with lots of iron. If you end up using all your Iron on siege equipment, or have no iron at all (likely happens to cultural Civs who have few Cities) -- that's where Musketmen come in to help balance the playing field.
They're not useful to you because they're not designed to be useful to your playing style. PERSONALLY I would enjoy seeing Pikemen promote to Musketmen before Riflemen. That would (gameplay wise) make a lot of sense to have that option -- not that I'd take it every time. Giving up that bonus VS Mounted would make me pause.
I see what you mean and the pikemen idea sounds like a nice option. Aside from fighting knights they're usually pretty weak by that time in a game. It'd be a big help to Darius for sure because those legacy immortals are really vulnerable to pretty much everything but knights until they can be upgraded to riflemen.
It would also make a lot of sense for Spain's Tercio, which still has the bonus VS Mounted units. A no-brainer upgrade right there. Basically you'd weigh the cost of upgrading them against how many mounted units your enemies are fielding. Their general strength would go up, but Pikemen still field better VS mounted than Musketmen so it's not an OUTRIGHT bonus. Then again, any upgrade comes only after asking whether you can really afford it or if you want to spend your money elsewhere for now.
People have disagreed with this idea in the past. I imagine its a little of a farfetched option, but definitely is a solution, if not a perfect solution, to that gap in the promotion line.
well, *something* has to be done wrt the fact that both the Lancer and the Musket have no upgrade path into them. It's definitely a big reason why most people dislike those units (no 'keeping nicely promoted units around' setup for them).
I'm gonna have to disagree with zephyrtr on the pikemen upgrade to musketman on the grounds that when you receive the upgrade option for a unit, it implies that your level of technology has made that unit obsolete. This is historically not the case as pikemen where used well into the Renaissance, it wasn't until gunpowder weapons and tactics were improved upon that pikemen started being phased out, the final nail in the coffin was the bayonet which turned the rifle into an impromptu spear (So pikemen to riflemen makes sense). If you feel that pikemen are underwhelming in power after Medieval period, might I suggest a new unit in the anti-cavalry line so that it goes spearmen to pikemen to halberdiers, thus providing with a more powerful Renaissance anti-cavalry unit that can be of use on the battlefield until you acquire riflemen. Perhaps if Civ V had cheap-conscript short-ranged units (think javelineers from RoN, or skirmishers from AoE) then promoting those units to musketmen would make sense since they're nature of been untrained country folk wielding ranged weapons that require little skill, wouldn't change.
Pikemen were kept around, but were incorporated into gunpowder units, like the terzio. Cavalry and lancers would ride in firing from pistols, then complete the charge with swords drawn. To counter that, both polearms and gunpowder were necessary.
At any rate, we're really talking about the needs of gameplay here, not thos of pseudo-historical recreation.
Well, that and lancers upgrading to anti-tank guns. Talk about non sequtors...
In general, skirmisher units should be reflected as a true path unto itself. It seems self-evident to me that the high-mobility/low-strength units like lancers and paratroopers should be part of a path. Why should scouts just fizzle into nothingness? What about rangers? Guerillas? Slingers and javelin-throwers?
It's a weird decision to set the strength of musketmen as equal to longswordsmen, and doesn't really mesh with the rest of the game's style. It does seem reasonable to me to have the pikemen merge with musketmen, and then make riflemen a ranged unit. Or, maybe we'll get grenadiers.
Last edited by steveg700; 05-03-2012 at 06:58 AM.
He sorta said it straight up.
Grenadiers would be a nice fill for that gap between crossbowmen and gattling guns.
Yeah musketmen should have str somewhere between longswordmen and riflemen.
Last edited by VicRatlhead51; 05-03-2012 at 05:08 AM.
Gah, this again? Grenadiers, historically, were a SHORTER ranged unit than riflemen. They were assault troops used to attack fortified position, but they had to get close to use their special weapons and skills - because it's hard to throw a bomb anywhere near as far as you can shoot a rifle.
They were also particularly skilled in hand-to-hand or close-quarters combat, because that's how they fought.
Grenadiers as a ranged unit makes no sense.
Most everything should be part of a path, but I don't mind one-off (no upgrades) specialized units - like marines or paratroopers - as long as they aren't quickly replaced by something better.
As per lancers->AT guns, well... that's more by 'function' than anything else. Lancers counter Knights/Cavalry, AT guns counter Tanks, Helicopters counter Modern Armour.
I think some people forget that Civ is a game. It's not a simulation, it's a strategy game -- and so design has to (often) trump historical accuracy. No, the lancers of old weren't being converted into anti-tank units, but in the context of the game, it makes complete sense that they upgrade that way. Perhaps musketmen should definitely be stronger than Longswordsmen historically, but that may not be so in the effort to keep the units balanced in-game.
I'm the biggest advocate this board has of treating Civ as a game rather than a pseudo-historical recreation. I figured you would have known that by now.
I would say it definitely does not make complete sense to upgrade lancers to anti-tank guns when their game characterisitics deviate so sharply. Indeed, it's pretty weak design, rather like having a ranged unit upgrade into becoming a melee unit. I might give the lancer promotions that take advantage of its assets that simply don't make sense when the unit becomes an anti-tank gun. The chain should be defined by the common strengths of the member units. "Has a bonus against another unit of the same era" is a pretty weak definition of a common strength.
Having said that, lancers and choppers actually do share common characteristics beyond their "I'm the rock to some other unit's scissors" bonuses. It's the anti-tank gun that mucks things up.
As for musketmen and longswordsmen, I'm not concerned at all by how they stack up to each historically. As I stated, it's simply aberrant design to have them be of equal strength, and having done so disrupts the upgrade chain in a way that leaves musketmen as odd men out.
Especially when there's so many UUs there.
I'm realizing we're going on about game design in a thread that's really not meant for this -- but it is kind of an important conversation to be had. I think next month when we see the big changes that they've made to the game we will really need to revisit this in depth.
I was just thinking, and this is just an idea, but do you guys think that the Austrian UB could be a music conservatory or concert hall or something like that? Something to replace the Opera House? Considering that Austria, especially Vienna, were the centers of art music in Early Modern Europe, I think it would make sense if that was represented in Civ. Anyone who was anyone in music went to Vienna; it's like how actors today goes to Hollywood, the center of global cinema.
Plus I think it would make sense regarding gameplay. If they can diplomatically marry city states, and absorb all that culture or faith, then that makes them suitable for a cultural victory, yes? But as the Hapsburgs had a large empire, they needed that offensive punch too, and that's where Hussars would presumably come in (I guess that's what you could consider the game's way of representing Hungary, like Ski Infantry for Denmark...).
Of course I'm not basing this on any hard evidence, but I think it's logical to assume this. I'm open to your thoughts on this.
Could be. Makes a whole lot of sense. Also there are no unique opera houses yet in the game. It's kind of committal, seeing as it's 3rd in the Culture line. They usually like to let the uniques for a civ be a little more flexible, so their abilties don't demand that you specifically play a certain way -- but Huns and Ethiopians seem to be breaking that cycle, so I'd say your prediction's most likely right.
It releases on my birthday!
Well, there is one. A wonder.
Hermitage is not a unique Opera House. It is not Civ-specific. Anyone can build it.
I think the poster above you was referring to Sydney as the wonder.
But there's no UB Opera House, no.
It seems that many religous icons, which can be choosen from, ranges from the morden big 5 (Christianity, Judaism, Islam, Buddhism, Hinduism), as well as some older ones (Tengriism etc.).
I'm interested in knowing if it would /could /should be possible to either upload your own icons or get new ones through DLC or the like. For example, be able to use religious icons for the old classical mythologies like ancient greek/roman, egyptian, Norse, Mayan and such. Just a suggestion.
What do you people think?
In the PAX interview with Dennis he said that the only thing not customisable in Base game is the icons, but they can easily be changed via mods IIRC
There are also pantheon symbols -- I don't know if everyone gets a lightningbolt or what? That's the only one i've seen (probably to represent Olympianism). So there are symbols already in the game to represent the classical pantheonic religions. If you swap them around as Pouaki suggests you should be able, maybe getting what you want won't be that hard?
When are we gonna be able to pre-purchase our copy of Civ V: G&K from Steam, the already posted the new COD game after its announcement but still no G&K, it makes worry they won't release at the stated release date.
Back on track though, is there any real evidence for the Hussar yet? What's the reasoning behind that rumor anyway, Hussars in general were used by many European nations, even though they started in Hungary, but the Prussians had a strong Hussar force, and then there's also the Polish Winged Hussars, couldn't there be a unit that's more unique to Austria.
I just preordered my copy on amazon.
Hopefully there is no problem with the steam registration, like I had with the vanilla version.
By the way, is there any known info about the abilities of the new wonders?
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote