Monkspider's choice-cuts from the chat session

[Jon Shafer]

Originally posted by Tuberski
Well, to be honest, your questions were more game related and to the point.

So, you are forgiven.

Hey what about me!

I was the one that figured out that Korea would be in, the new units, and the cool editor info!

[Tuberski]

Originally posted by Trip

Hey what about me!

I was the one that figured out that Korea would be in, the new units, and the cool editor info!

Oh, I agree, but you didn't start a "choice cuts" thread, and then have half of those choice cuts be your questions.

[kring]

Originally posted by cyclotron7


A question: If that were the case, then a Man-o-War would trigger a GA every time it bombarded... which AFAIK it does not. It's possible that this will be changed in PTW, but it seems pretty easy for an artillery unit to take even one good shot and trigger a GA. Then again, maybe that's not so easy, especially with early artillery.

As for giving the Kwacha lethal bombard, that would necessitate that all other units at least past cannon be given lethal bombard... which is a radical departure from the way the game currently works. That doesn't seem likely to me.

Another question: Assuming the Kwacha is 0/0, like other land artillery, it is defenseless. Now, defenseless units are either killed or captured if you have the technology. So, if I have the technlogy to build the Kwacha but I am not the Koreans, can I capture a Kwacha for myself? Or, is it automatically destroyed? Or, does it revert to the unit it replaces (cannon, I guess)?

On your first point, that is why I said it would have to inflict at least 1 hp of damage, since you can't inflict hp damage on bombardment of non units (i.e.: cities or terrain improvements), then any of those bombards wouldn't be a factor in the GA. On the one good shot, an early UU could take one good shot and give you the GA just as easily, since winning a combat is the main thing for a GA with a UU (too many initials).

On your last point, good question: it would depend on whether the Hwacha is indeed a UU or not. One way to test the theory now, would be to make an artillery a UU of a civ (pick any arty and any civ, then make that arty specific to just that civ) and test it out. That would also help answer the question about GA with an arty UU that doesn't have lethal bombard.

[DarthVeda]

This is a little more encouraging than what was said at E3 time. I'm still wary though.

[kring]

I am also wary. I am not making any assumptions about what might be in there based on limited information or flawed logic: the old if a, then b, where a and b are not necessarily linked, other than in a person's mind.

Too many unknown variables, too little specific knowledges.

[monkspider]

Originally posted by Trip

Hey what about me!

I was the one that figured out that Korea would be in, the new units, and the cool editor info!

I thought I represented your questions fairly ably Trip.

[Adm.Naismith]

Originally posted by cyclotron7
I'm still pondering my own question about the Hwacha. Will lethal bombard make it into the normal game?

Reading twice that answer:

[cyclotron7] Somebody above mentioned the Hwacha,and Mike said it is an artillery unit. If so, isn't it a pretty poor unit because of its inability to "win" combat, thus causing a GA? (Sorry if this has been answered before).
[MikeBreitkreutzFIRAXIS] cyclo: Maybe.... But there are other ways of getting a GA.

Others ways? More than simply A pacific way to get a GA - building appropriate wonders?

Maybe this could a be an hint: PTW is going to add another way to start a GA...
Maybe a GA will start in way more related to Civ definite traits: any militaristic Civ can start a GA using a military UU victory.

An expansionist Civ will start a GA achieving a great exploration result (e.g. discovering 75% of earth map, or doing first circumnavigation of the world), etc.
IIRC actually only Great Wonders fit for peaceful GA triggering, may be in PTW some specific Small Wonders (as mentioned above) will be able to trigger the GA.

And what about a Specific small wonder/GA trigger for every civ?
Any player can try build it at the moment it better fit for her porpuse (once abilitated by tech tree advances).

Balancing matters: militaristic civ will have an easy GA starting (not expensive) but a bit more forced by UU age of availability. Peaceful Civ must dedicated more effort (but still how much will depends from Small wonder cost, again a balancing choice) but have more control on GA start.

That could solve Korean problem, cleaning the table IMHO

[Jon Shafer]

Originally posted by monkspider
I thought I represented your questions fairly ably Trip.

Yes, but they refuse to recognize that!

(I'm just kidding btw, for all those that might be about ready to conk me on the head for whining )

[Jon Shafer]

Originally posted by Adm.Naismith
Others ways? More than simply A pacific way to get a GA - building appropriate wonders?

Maybe this could a be an hint: PTW is going to add another way to start a GA...
Maybe a GA will start in way more related to Civ definite traits: any militaristic Civ can start a GA using a military UU victory.

An expansionist Civ will start a GA achieving a great exploration result (e.g. discovering 75% of earth map, or doing first circumnavigation of the world), etc.
IIRC actually only Great Wonders fit for peaceful GA triggering, may be in PTW some specific Small Wonders (as mentioned above) will be able to trigger the GA.

And what about a Specific small wonder/GA trigger for every civ?
Any player can try build it at the moment it better fit for her porpuse (once abilitated by tech tree advances).

Balancing matters: militaristic civ will have an easy GA starting (not expensive) but a bit more forced by UU age of availability. Peaceful Civ must dedicated more effort (but still how much will depends from Small wonder cost, again a balancing choice) but have more control on GA start.

That could solve Korean problem, cleaning the table IMHO

I think some of your ideas are great. I must say, that the non-military aspect of the game is quite lacking, and giving people something to do and aim for other than "Conquor your neighbor as fast as you can, or build enough units to prevent him from doing so" is a great way to head. Don't get me wrong, I'm quite the warmonger, and there's nothing like a well-planned invasion going off without a hitch (), but this is "CIVILIZATION", not "TAKE-OVER-THE-WORLD-GAME".

[Level]

You missed this
[Harlan] Is having more terrain slots than currently in the game a relatively easy fix, or a hard fix? That's something else I'd love to see
[DanMagahaFIRAXIS] terrain's another dubious area
[Harlan] "Dubious" is very diplomatically vague
[DanMagahaFIRAXIS] correct me if I'm wrong Mike but terrain types don't lend themselves to editing
[DanMagahaFIRAXIS] like adding new terrain types anyway
[MikeBreitkreutzFIRAXIS] Well, interestingly, I discovered today that I think it's possible to add a *few* types
[Harlan] So, like the guy who hard-coded the number of terrain slots - can we get permission to beat him up?
[MikeBreitkreutzFIRAXIS] Harlan: I herbey give you full permission
[Harlan] Add as few terrain slots? Yes! Maybe I don't have to beat up anybody after all!
[DanMagahaFIRAXIS] Our terrain system is actually really insane
[ALPHAWOLF64] more terrains would be better
[MikeBreitkreutzFIRAXIS] Yeah, you think MOHOnor is bad... you should see the terrain code...
[DanMagahaFIRAXIS] boy a 3D deformable terrain mesh would have been nice
[Harlan] Insane? You mean the way the different terrain graphics interact with each other?
[MikeBreitkreutzFIRAXIS] No that part is pretty cool
[DanMagahaFIRAXIS] imagine, beer, just add a new texture and you've got a new terrain
[MikeBreitkreutzFIRAXIS] Let's not talk about that
[DanMagahaFIRAXIS] hahaha
[MikeBreitkreutzFIRAXIS] And let's definitely not bring up the coordinate "system"

[monkspider]

oh yeah that must have been from the last page or two, i was getting kinda tired by then...thanks level!

[Propaganda]

Nothing worthwhile here, looks like. All Firaxis is doing is adding big blobs of uselessness into the game. I don't want new units, or new improvements. I want sharp and tactful AI, expanded diplomatic features, and a reworking of the current culture/border system. Is that too much to ask?

Blah.

[Switch]

Well, prop, they're probably not changing the whole culture/border thing 'cause they probably REALLY like how they did it. In the 'Making of' video that came with Civ3LE, they mentioned being proud with the culture system. I, btw, also like it too.

And as to AI, they're easily fixing that: MP. (well, that doesn't suit me though. I'm not into MP TBS much, although that turnless looks nice.)

[MarkG]

I want sharp and tactful AI, expanded diplomatic features, and a reworking of the current culture/border system. Is that too much to ask?

not much, if you are describing a sequel

[Propaganda]

Well, obviously, they liked how they did it, otherwise, they wouldn't have implemented it the way they did. All I ask for, however, is more options. For example, I really want to see borders expand quicker in Early-Middle Ages. I also want culture flipping off.

I'd like to have the choice to edit the entire sphere of the game to my liking. Hopefully, the new editor will let me have these options.