Civ V - Working The Land

[Ming]

I read some where that they were going to base the combat system on something similar to panzer general... which is a good war game with an excellent combat system.

[Azuarc]

I'd also like to know where this 3 tile radius came from. That really affects the core of the game as we know it. I'm not the least bit opposed, but I want to hear it semi-officially first.


I honestly think there should be two kinds of roads -- basic roads, which any worked tile will have, and highways. A tile with an improvement should essentially automatically have a route into its core city, so let's say a unit gets 1/2 movement cost on that terrain. If you want to have a highway, which reduces movement cost to 1/4, then you have to pay to maintain the road. You'll want those highways for quick military transportation, but not all over the place. And then some high-level tech will give all your worked tiles a highway for free (or maybe a project/wonder, akin to Eisenhower's national highway system.)

[mzprox]

I read some where that they were going to base the combat system on something similar to panzer general... which is a good war game with an excellent combat system.

Panzer general was played on a battlefield not on a strategic map of Earth. If they really want to implement a more detailed combat they should do it like in the total war series. Mixxed armies are good, archers shooting over terrains are bad, making army moves more complicated because only one unit can stand one tile is bad too..

But more on topic, I don't mind lots of roads, they indicate how developed the land is.. giving penalty makes no sense..

[Slainte]

I dont think the penalty needs to be too severe. It could just be one less coin or food, representing the upkeep of the road, or the land/disruption to farming in the tile.

Any small effect would be sufficient to persuade rulers not to build unnecessary highways.

[rah]

I think one less coin or food would be considered severe.

[Roman]

I must be in a small minority that likes both:

a) lots of roads (don't mind "road spaghetti" at all); and
b) manual control over worker units.

I am also in this camp. I do like to use automation for workers sometimes, but I cease the automation, when I have a new priority.

[rah]

Yeah, once I start on the road of conquest, I pick up too many free workers to control individually so some automation is required. Unless you really like to torture yourself.

[Theben]

If they go with the idea that an improved tile is a roaded tile (no need for graphic), then I'm okay with that. Then if a a tile has a better kind of road (as per Azuarc's suggestion), a minor penalty would be acceptable, if not entirely sensible.

[Arrian]

Yeah, I'm fine with the idea that developed tiles have secondary roads that don't have to be visible on the map. No problem there.

"Major" roads are basically military roads, like Roman roads or the US highway system. I'm fine with some basic maintenance fee for those to prevent spam. I assume something similar will apply to RRs.

I'm worried about the combat system, btw. While the old one could certainly be improved, I don't like the idea of 1-unit-per-tile (a limit, dependant on map size, sure) or the idea that ranged combat units (archers, cats, etc) may shoot over tiles - we're talking world map tiles here - that could be 50 miles!

I have no objection to nerfing the "Stack of Doom." Fine. But be careful that the cure isn't worse than the disease!

-Arrian

[etirmi]

If you consider that each hex is at least several hundred square miles, its not exactly realistic that there would be no roads or railroads. I can't think of a lot of places that size in reality that have no roads, except the polar regions.

[giblets]

If you consider that each hex is at least several hundred square miles, its not exactly realistic that there would be no roads or railroads. I can't think of a lot of places that size in reality that have no roads, except the polar regions.

Also, leaders don't live for 6050 years. Unrealistic

[wodan11]

Also, leaders don't live for 6050 years. Unrealistic

A bit of sophistry for marketing reasons. That doesn't mean it's a valid justification to skip realism in other parts of the game

[giblets]

A bit of sophistry for marketing reasons. That doesn't mean it's a valid justification to skip realism in other parts of the game

Yes it is. There's a precedent of sacrificing realism to make the game more fun.

[wodan11]

The reason leaders live 6000 years is because of marketing, not because of realism. Therefore, this "precedent" is not a valid justification for other decisions to ignore realism.

Other decisions can ignore realism if they, too, have some marketing benefit. Such as to not include Hitler in the game. But something having nothing to do with marketing means that a marketing decision is by no means a precedent. It has absolutely no bearing whatsoever.

[giblets]

How is it marketing?