Apolyton Civ4 PREVIEW (By Solver) - Part 1 online

[Fidel]

so, yin was not among beta testers?

[MarkG]

as i said in the other thread, you can set any custom resolution through the .ini file

in fact the interface is flexible and adjusts to to even extreme situations (like dual monitors running at 2560x1024 )

[korn469]

Solver two questions

1) How does a seige unit attacking a stack work? Does it

a. Engage one unit, then fight it to the death, then if it wins it damages other units in the stack?
or
b. Engage every unit in the stack without killing any of them only damaging them?

if it's b how does the combat engine calculate the seige unit's chance of dying?

2) Can you give us more details on city maintence?

City improvement maintenance is gone – instead, there is city maintenance for which you need to start paying as soon as you build a new city. That maintenance cost is composed of two parts: distance from palace and total number of cities.

Does this truly represent how the city maintenance system works? How would city maintence work for the following example:

1. It's capital size 4 with a library, temple and barracks
2. A size 3 city with a library and barracks two squares away
3. A size 2 city with a library three squares away
4. A size 1 city with no buildings four squares away

Would it be 1 (1 for number of cities + 0 for distance) for the capital, plus 3 (1 #cities + 2 distance) for city two, plus 4 (1 #cities + 3 distance) for city three, plus 5 (1 #cities + 4 distance) for city four?
Or
Would it be 4 (1 #cities + 0 distance + 3 buildings) for the capital, plus 5 (1 #cities + 2 distance + 2 buildings) for city two, plus 5 (1 #cities + 3 distance + 1 buildings) for city three, plus 5 (1 #cities + 4 distance + 0 buildings) for city four?

I'd appreciate any clarification you can give me.

[Mace]

Originally posted by Solver
It depends on how you play. I have had huge empires that I could handle and that were beneficial. Besides, if you conquer cities in the medieval or later, the terrain around them is likely well improved, making those cities become useful quicker.

Well then, is it safe to say that ICS isn't absolutely dead? It's just no longer the "ultimate win-all strategy."?

If so, I can live with that. And someone won't have to eat any cardboard, either...

[Solver]

1. Neither . A siege unit attacking a stack immediately deals collateral damage to other units in the stack (depends on circumstances which and how many). Then, the siege unit battles it out with one unit.

2. I am not exactly sure, I haven't seen the real maintenance formula. I am though fairly certain that buildings don't matter for maintenance - except maintenance-reducing buildings specifically of course. The number of cities maintenance is a constant at any given time. It grows as you get more cities, but at any given moment, the NumCities maintenance is the same for each city.

Thus, if you have 6 cities and (suppose) your NumCities maintenance is 3, then it's so in each city, and you pay 18 in NumCities maintenance, plus the distance from palace costs. The example numbers are pretty random, though, and I do not, unlike the combat system, know the actual formulas.

[Solver]

Well then, is it safe to say that ICS isn't absolutely dead? It's just no longer the "ultimate win-all strategy."?

I don't see how conquering someone in late game is ICS? I think ICS refers to early expansion, and expansion with your Settlers mainly.

Any strategic judgements would anyway have to wait until you lot get your hands on the game. The beta testers are hardcore players, but no beta test team can match hundreds of players here.

But anyway, those who try to play their first games as in Civ3 will be in for a surprise .

[korn469]

Solver thanks for the reply! Is there any reason you can think of why a player shouldn't focus on building mostly seige units though? Also could you find out if buildings cost upkeep. If not then it seems like Civ4 is far more suited for expansion, especially through blitzing opponents to gain their developed land than any of the previous civs.

[Cabbagemeister]

Originally posted by Solver
1. Neither . A siege unit attacking a stack immediately deals collateral damage to other units in the stack (depends on circumstances which and how many). Then, the siege unit battles it out with one unit.

How are seige units on defense? If a stack attacks a cannon, does the cannon deal collateral damage to the attackers:

a) always

b) only if the cannon is the defending unit

or c) never?

Don't you love multiple choice? Get out your No. 2 pencil!

[Solver]

Korn - building siege units only will be a bad idea. They can bombard walls and dish our that collateral damage, but they are likely to lose most combat. So often you'll find yourself suiciding siege for doing the collateral damage. Thus, building only siege is a bad idea as you actually need more able units, too.

Cabbage - it's c. Siege units defend as regular units do, no collateral damage. They're really vulnerable.

[korn469]

Originally posted by Solver
Korn - building siege units only will be a bad idea. They can bombard walls and dish our that collateral damage, but they are likely to lose most combat. So often you'll find yourself suiciding siege for doing the collateral damage. Thus, building only siege is a bad idea as you actually need more able units, too.

If you have two units without any upgrades, one is a seige unit and one is a melee unit and they have comparable strengths, then wouldn't they have a comparable chance of winning a battle? Or do seige units have low strengths, but still have the ability to do collateral damage?

[alva]

A siege units doing colateral damage in defense seems to much, so my guess would be no, or in your case "c".
Anyway, you don't attack with a stack, dou you...just a single unit, therefore no collateral damage.

[Solver]

Siege units have lower strength. Also, the gap between Catapults and Cannons is quite large - Catapults may have a decent chance vs. contemporary units, but later, the siege unit strength is lower compared to units. I like it - otherwise using almost exclusively siege would be a no brainer.

But, siege units are great for softening up stacks that are coming your way!

[Koriand'r]

I don't see how conquering someone in late game is ICS? I think ICS refers to early expansion, and expansion with your Settlers mainly.

Any strategic judgements would anyway have to wait until you lot get your hands on the game. The beta testers are hardcore players, but no beta test team can match hundreds of players here.

early game? i think the definition is what matters.i think ICS works in RL to,the way the earth has been devoloped constantly with setbacks to barbarians etc. if building cities in cIV increases your strength,ICS still works. in my eyes,ICS just means more cities

in SMAC for instance im about to ICS in a PBEM like i have never got a chance,by using satelites and the CBA to spam cities in the late game,with a bunch of 'xyz in all cities improvements' wonders.you play smac,so im sure you know what i mean(i think),so isnt that ICS?

ut anyway, those who try to play their first games as in Civ3 will be in for a surprise

i wont play this like civ3,because i try to devolop my play to suit particular games.for example,i can pick up doom3 etc and win on hardest through on my first try because i can handle the genre,not the game in particular.i got my but owned on KOTOR but have adapted in 5 hours from easy level to putting it on hard just so its not to easy. i never played smac or civ2 on less then hardest from square 1 and always had it easy,because the same principles apply.

all your reasons for not being ICS reminds me of alot of things ive read about variety of games,typically as how xyz will nuke zyx because of so-so. but in the end,it will still work,because its just a temporary rule change,and if it dosnt,something else will

[Koriand'r]

Originally posted by MarkG
as i said in the other thread, you can set any custom resolution through the .ini file

in fact the interface is flexible and adjusts to to even extreme situations (like dual monitors running at 2560x1024 )

have you tried it on a triple moniter setup?i have one here,would look sweet (2048x1524x3 ) although might lag tiny bit

[Maniac]

Originally posted by Solver
1. Neither . A siege unit attacking a stack immediately deals collateral damage to other units in the stack (depends on circumstances which and how many). Then, the siege unit battles it out with one unit.

A siege unit bombards a stack, upon which the siege units gets automatically counterattacked the normal way, even if the siege unit is stacked with a normal unit?

That sucks. How can it be profitable than to eg use cannons on the battlefield instead of only against cities?