|
AI too. Then again, it worked in the past Civs and everyone, AI included, managed. Maybe they fear the AI would spend more time building roads than other things?
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2013 06:00
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 29, 2024 23:44 |
|
|
Kaal posted:The problem with this is that if you don't charge money for roads, then players end up blanketing the countryside with roads so their units can rocket around the map. It looks stupid and breaks the tactical game. I seriously rarely build roads until I get the price reduction in Commerce. They have a strategic application, yes, but their primary use in economy is terribly nerfed. Maybe they should just make it so all units can natively use any nation's roads regardless of borders or war status. That would discourage road spam in case you were attacked rather than punish you for trying to get out of the red.
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2013 06:02
|
|
|
Kaal posted:The problem with this is that if you don't charge money for roads, then players end up blanketing the countryside with roads so their units can rocket around the map. It looks stupid and breaks the tactical game. Paying a maintenance cost on roads is ok. I agree, logistics and good infrastructure are a vitally important facet of any nation, and in civ this is represented through the building of roads. It's an expensive investment, but a worthwhile one that can create a significant advantage.
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2013 06:06
|
|
|
Kaal posted:The problem with this is that if you don't charge money for roads, then players end up blanketing the countryside with roads so their units can rocket around the map. It looks stupid and breaks the tactical game. Paying a maintenance cost on roads is ok. Was it Civ 3 that actually gave you gold for building roads? I remember there was no reason to not spam them on every single tile.
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2013 06:06
|
|
|
Civ 2 had +1 gold for a road in the tile, I think.
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2013 06:07
|
|
|
Starks posted:Was it Civ 3 that actually gave you gold for building roads? I remember there was no reason to not spam them on every single tile. Every civ before 5 you built roads on every tile. The only cost was opportunity ie you could be building a real improvement. Early game this mattered a lot, you needed roads both to connect resources to your cities and for early game wars but you also needed to chop down all your forests and get improvements up. Later in the game you backfilled all the roads and then you've got the roads everywhere problem that firaxis addressed in 5. Personally I'd prefer roads everywhere, it gives you interior lines of reinforcement and is a huge defensive advantage with the new tactical systems in civ5.
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2013 06:09
|
|
|
Rashomon posted:Civ 2 had +1 gold for a road in the tile, I think. Yeah, with 1 and 2, roads provided commerce benefits (different from gold, remember Civ used to have the commerce yield which was split between science and tax, and in 4 other stuff, based on sliders). With 3 and 4, roads connected resources to your trade network. They boosted speed in all of the games. I forget how the mechanic worked exactly in previous games, but in 4 roads also provide trade route opportunities. Every city has a certain amount of trade routes available that it will always automatically fill with the most profitable available routes. So connecting your empire to another empire via road could have been beneficial because international trade routes were more profitable.
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2013 06:15
|
|
|
The White Dragon posted:I seriously rarely build roads until I get the price reduction in Commerce. They have a strategic application, yes, but their primary use in economy is terribly nerfed. Maybe they should just make it so all units can natively use any nation's roads regardless of borders or war status. That would discourage road spam in case you were attacked rather than punish you for trying to get out of the red. That means that you're taking the money you'd spend on roads, diverting some of it on a larger army since it can't react as quickly, and then investing the rest. I think that's a fair trade. And frankly, right now gold is pretty much the last thing I worry about in Civ5, because it is super easy to get your hands on. And roads quickly pay for themselves as long as you aren't building a road to nowhere. If you're waiting until Commerce to build roads, then you're waiting too long. But I also agree that roads should be allowed to be used regardless of who owns them. It's bizarre that your army can't use a road because you haven't paid the toll. History is filled with examples of roads being both an advantage and a disadvantage for defenders - I don't see why this should change. Kaal fucked around with this message at 06:21 on Aug 29, 2013 |
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2013 06:17
|
|
|
Kaal posted:But I also agree that roads should be allowed to be used regardless of who owns them. It's bizarre that your army can't use a road because you haven't paid the toll. I justify it as every country having a different lane width and/or driving on different sides of the road.
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2013 06:23
|
|
|
Roads are a really cheap investment as long as you don't start building them before the break-even point. The only real cost is using up a worker but that's something you'd have to do anyways if you were building roads everywhere. I really don't even think there's a trade-off, just wait til your cities are big enough to profit from a road and take the GPT hit for 10 turns or whatever. If you leave the worker suggestions on, you don't even have to calculate anything, the game will start suggesting roads itself once it's profitable to build them. Starks fucked around with this message at 06:29 on Aug 29, 2013 |
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2013 06:24
|
|
|
JosephWongKS posted:I justify it as every country having a different lane width and/or driving on different sides of the road. "Oh I'm sorry sir, this road takes size 5 wheels and we only have size 7s. Looks like we're going to have to hoof it."
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2013 06:25
|
|
|
Kaal posted:The problem with this is that if you don't charge money for roads, then players end up blanketing the countryside with roads so their units can rocket around the map. It looks stupid and breaks the tactical game. Paying a maintenance cost on roads is ok. Inca + commerce if ya'll want to see how broken free roads would be by the way.
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2013 06:33
|
|
|
SirKibbles posted:Inca + commerce if ya'll want to see how broken free roads would be by the way. Any game I play as Inca I have a side goal of building a road on any hills I encounter.
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2013 06:40
|
|
|
Is this a bug? I had my archaeologist steal an artifact from Portugal, got warned not to do it again, stole a second artifact anyways, and I had no diplomacy hits. I'm not going to complain, but I just want to know.
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2013 07:09
|
|
|
I am Reverend posted:Genghis Khan sure has an eye for prime real estate. What map is this, and what are the settings? Looks like a good Earth but way small.
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2013 07:29
|
|
|
Has anyone gotten the Radio Free Europe or It Belongs In A Museum achievements yet?
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2013 07:41
|
|
|
Speedball posted:Has anyone gotten the Radio Free Europe or It Belongs In A Museum achievements yet? According to Steam, fewer than 1 in 1,000 players have.
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2013 07:57
|
|
|
Strategic question: I am playing as china, and I want to wage some late medieval warfare. My usual tactic as other civs is to build three trebuchets, two pikemen (or longswordsmen if iron), and a few crossbowmen, but seeing how insanely powerful chu-ko-nus seem to be, I was thinking that maybe I should have just one melee unit to capture cities and the rest of my army should be just machine-crossbowmen. For siege purposes, compared to trebuchets it seems that you will need three chu-ko-nus to get the same firepower as two trebuchets, but I think that what I'll lose in firepower I'll gain in versatility. Additional info: I have the fast promotions honor civic, and I am about to fight against  THE GREAT WALL
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2013 09:28
|
|
|
With the way damage works (EG: A strength 30 unit does not do twice the damage a strength 15 unit does) you'll have way more damage with three cho-ko-nu than you will with two trebuchets. Spam them.
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2013 09:48
|
|
|
Rexides posted:Strategic question: I am playing as china, and I want to wage some late medieval warfare. My usual tactic as other civs is to build three trebuchets, two pikemen (or longswordsmen if iron), and a few crossbowmen, but seeing how insanely powerful chu-ko-nus seem to be, I was thinking that maybe I should have just one melee unit to capture cities and the rest of my army should be just machine-crossbowmen. For siege purposes, compared to trebuchets it seems that you will need three chu-ko-nus to get the same firepower as two trebuchets, but I think that what I'll lose in firepower I'll gain in versatility. Additional info: I have the fast promotions honor civic, and I am about to fight against I don't bother with trebuchets when i have regular xbows, chuks are overkill. This isn't even really a question. I'd say get a couple more screening pikes because it's really embarrassing to lose units to the AI in general and the Great Wall makes it more likely that they'll slip some knights past you.
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2013 09:53
|
|
|
Speaking of the way damage works, what do the numbers actually mean when attacking a city? For example, if a city has strength 50 and my attack does 10 damage, that seems to do neither 10% damage nor 20% damage, so I don't really know what "strength 50" and "10 damage" actually means. I admit to not having done any in-depth investigation and this only comes from my weak memory of casually browsing the numbers, so I may be making poo poo up. Also, does a weakened city do less damage with its attack?
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2013 11:13
|
|
|
Chamale posted:According to Steam, fewer than 1 in 1,000 players have. I can't believe only 0.3% of players have won a Space Victory as Poland. (I'm one of them.)
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2013 11:28
|
|
|
KKKlean Energy posted:Speaking of the way damage works, what do the numbers actually mean when attacking a city? City combat strength is just how strong a city is compared to unit's strength. 50 is quite high and you'll probably need artillery/cannons to bust that down without some losses. 10 damage is just that - it's 10 health removed from however much HP the city has. I don't think there's a way to see a city's total health.
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2013 12:09
|
|
|
Snipee posted:Is this a bug? I had my archaeologist steal an artifact from Portugal, got warned not to do it again, stole a second artifact anyways, and I had no diplomacy hits. I'm not going to complain, but I just want to know. It may be a bug, but it's well known behavior that happens regularly (it's not a rare condition that triggers it). Jedit posted:I can't believe only 0.3% of players have won a Space Victory as Poland. (I'm one of them.) I can't seem to get a space victory except on very easy difficulties. I'm always racing the clock for a diplo or randomly getting cultural. The White Dragon posted:it discourages even connecting cities at all until they're of such a large size that they'll outbalance the upkeep price of the roads themselves. One of the side effects of this issue is that it encourages you to settle cities closer to each other
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2013 12:24
|
|
|
Close settlements are fine. The full 3-tile radius has what, 36 tiles? A minimum 4-tile distance settlement overlaps 9 tiles, meaning your cities can potentially work 30.5 tiles each. How many size 30 cities are you expecting anyway? Close cities are great, they can share tiles (one city wants to grow and works river wheat, other city wants to build settler and works hills). They provide overlapping fields of fire, enemies can't effectively surround and dance out of range on one side of the city. They're cheaper to connect. And they don't need as much worker labour to complete.
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2013 14:09
|
|
|
Kaal posted:The problem with this is that if you don't charge money for roads, then players end up blanketing the countryside with roads so their units can rocket around the map. It looks stupid and breaks the tactical game. Paying a maintenance cost on roads is ok. Now that trade routes are in, it could be interesting to have roads get automatically placed over time wherever there's a trade route, instead of being built by workers
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2013 14:30
|
|
|
Any advice on house rules or ways to setup a multi-player game among friends that speeds things up. (beyond timers) Things move along at a pretty good pace with timer while simultaneous turns are on but when two players goes to war it just brings things to a grinding halt. I play with three other friends and have used a 10 turn war limit (you do what damage you can in 10 turns) that seems to work but is a bit unsatisfying. Anyone else come up with ideas?
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2013 15:20
|
|
|
Regarding Roads and connecting to your main city. If you build a road from a city on the interior of a different continent that connects to a city on the outside of that continent that has a harbor that connects to your main city, does that count as connecting the city? I wan to know because I'm not sure if that works and I can see it being a major hurdle to expanding to not have a city connection on anything inside a second continent.
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2013 15:59
|
|
|
SlightlyMadman posted:Now that trade routes are in, it could be interesting to have roads get automatically placed over time wherever there's a trade route, instead of being built by workers Would be more accurate too, people don't often build roads just because they feel like it. Nor do they tend to build a settlement somewhere before having so much as a cart track leading to it. Have the roads placed at the same rate workers currently build them starting at the originating city, and usable by that player only unless they go into another civ's territory. Then have an extra diplomacy option to let players you're friendly with use your roads and vice versa. Actually that last one might be a good idea on its own, along with a bonus of some kind for having a road to another civ. GPT for both players or more likely the tourism multiplier that currently comes just from having the trade route.
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2013 16:00
|
|
|
Yeah. All harbors connect to all other harbors, and all roads between harbors connect all cities on those roads to that harbor, and then through that harbor to all other cities with harbors (and cities connected to those harbors by roads, etc.) Basically a harbor functions as if there were a road drawn on the map from that harbor to all other harbors (at least for city connections). The nice thing about that is that if you have multiple cities with harbors connected by roads, it's a lot harder for the enemy to cut off your city connections, because they have to block *all* the harbors at once.
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2013 16:01
|
|
|
Stallion Cabana posted:Regarding Roads and connecting to your main city. Yup, it works. Any city with a harbor will connect all its land connections to any other city with a harbor and its land connections.
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2013 16:03
|
|
|
J4Gently posted:Any advice on house rules or ways to setup a multi-player game among friends that speeds things up. (beyond timers) Yep. Alt-tab and surf while your friend tries to find whether moving his pikeman West or NW is more optimal. I am serious about this, I did it in my last game and I didn't feel I had to "wait" for my friend to play, Civ was just another activity I did on my computer among other things. My friend had a different opinion and now we are back to full simultaneous turns. meh.
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2013 16:43
|
|
|
Jedit posted:I can't believe only 0.3% of players have won a Space Victory as Poland. (I'm one of them.) That doesn't seem hard to believe at all. I mean to get it you have to pass three major hurdles so it's pretty specific. Here's how I see the percentages breaking down. 1) Owns Civilization 5 and BNW (100%) 2) Finished a game (18%) 3) As Poland (2%) 4) With a space ship (0.3%)
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2013 16:45
|
|
|
Pvt.Scott posted:Any game I play as Inca I have a side goal of building a road on any hills I encounter. You may already know this but for anyone else - when combined with the commerce bonus, roads are completely free for the Inca even if they're not on a hill. Of course I build them through hills anyway, because hills are awesome. Inca are amazing in team games and let you improve hill tiles for your teammate's cities as well. I still need to go back and figure out if Railroads are free for Inca as well, or if that ends up costing money. On a side note, does anyone make extensive use of Railroads? I can see it but it seems that given the cost and the fact that you have to lay the road down a second time I've just not been doing much with them.
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2013 16:53
|
|
|
Chomp8645 posted:That doesn't seem hard to believe at all. I mean to get it you have to pass three major hurdles so it's pretty specific. Here's how I see the percentages breaking down. Pretty sure this is far from it. 25% of people who own the game have never played it, let alone BNW. Maybe 10% of civ V owners have access to Poland as a civ, let alone playing it, winning a game, and getting a science victory when diplomatic and culture tend to be available sooner. Hell, 0.3% of players have achieved any victory as Indonesia, an objectively cooler civilization. EDIT: Right, mods. There's probably also people who have never played online if they could help it. Zulily Zoetrope fucked around with this message at 17:05 on Aug 29, 2013 |
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2013 16:55
|
|
|
Rakthar posted:On a side note, does anyone make extensive use of Railroads? I can see it but it seems that given the cost and the fact that you have to lay the road down a second time I've just not been doing much with them. I'll run them to an already strong production center to make it that much better, yeah.
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2013 16:56
|
|
|
Chomp8645 posted:That doesn't seem hard to believe at all. I mean to get it you have to pass three major hurdles so it's pretty specific. Here's how I see the percentages breaking down. Also 'without mods'. It's bizarre to me that anyone who has BNW is still mod-free.
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2013 16:59
|
|
|
Hieronymous Alloy posted:Also 'without mods'. It's bizarre to me that anyone who has BNW is still mod-free. More obnoxious to start a game with mods, so I don't bother with them. v  v
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2013 17:00
|
|
|
Hieronymous Alloy posted:Also 'without mods'. It's bizarre to me that anyone who has BNW is still mod-free. I play multiplayer, I'm pretty sure I can't play with any mods multi. I mean you can use custom maps but that's about it. So I see no reason to go through the hassle in SP when I can't use them in my primary game mode.
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2013 17:03
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 29, 2024 23:44 |
|
|
It would be nice if Firaxis could separate mods into mechanics-changing mods and pure interface/info add-ons. World of Warcraft, for example is a highly competitive multiplayer game, and yet it has an extensive add-on support because it's limited to just the interface elements.
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2013 17:16
|
|