So, one of the things that was always strange about Civ maps is that 1 movement point east or west at the equator moved you the same "distance" (e.g., the same percentage of the map) as 1 movement point east or west just south / north of the poles.
I wonder if there's any plans to switch to a more ... globular ... map?
And tiles are nice because of the precision and boardgame feel the give Civ. To me, it's like this ultimate boardgame that would be completely unmanageable without a computer.
I hope they make late game empires less time intensive. I also never enjoyed transporting land units by sea, but I can't really think of a way to make it less annoying. Finally, I would like large empires full of unremarkable cities to be a viable option again. The games have been trending too much towards encouraging the building of megacities for my taste. I'm not saying lots of small cities should be superior, just that it should be a viable option.
Ok Elven, at this point you are being purposely obtuse. Your entire argument is based around how hexes are not as efficient in the cardinal directions, despite the fact that this is entirely irrelevant to anything at all gameplay wise.
While it may not make sense for an army to be able to march into Colorado from Arizona without touching Utah or New Mexico, it similarly makes no sense for an army to be unable to march on Montreal from New York without visiting Connecticut, Massachusetts, and Vermont.
This analogy is not very good. It can also go against squares if you enforce a diagonal penalty. It's just a commentary on the nature of abstract grid systems in wargames.
Moreover, you seem to be stuck on a requirement that 1 square diagonally must always cost 1 movement unit. There are lots, and lots, and lots of square-gridded rulesets in which this is not the case. Ergo, it is not a productive line of argument.
I'm not stuck on it, that's the way it works in civilizations past. I know how 3.5 works, I've played it. It was another hack to make diagonal movement fit in, because Wotc is married to squares for their miniature sales, and to make it easier for people to grasp. But once you start making diagonal penalties, it's effectively about the same as not allowing diagonal movement. And then your movement is even MORE restricted. So why not just use hexes?
Well, I'm sorry, but you're wrong. "I can't run in a straight line both north-and-south and east-and-west" is certainly a criticism of hexes, and it is certainly true.
It's an incredibly weak criticism, from a person who is obviously scrambling to find something, ANYTHING to criticize. It still doesn't affect anything gameplay wise, and so is completely pointless. Whether the path an army takes, between two points determined by finding the center of their start and end hexes, is completely efficient in a geometric sense, is not important at all to the game, since the game measures all distances and effects in terms of the hexes! So why do you even care?
I'm hoping transporting sea units takes a page from the Planetfall mod for Civ 4. In that land units simply move over both land and water within your territory; they just get a little ship model added to the unit graphic while over water. I wouldn't mind seeing something like this for transcontinental movement once modern navy techs come up.
I'm hoping transporting sea units takes a page from the Planetfall mod for Civ 4. In that land units simply move over both land and water within your territory; they just get a little ship model added to the unit graphic while over water. I wouldn't mind seeing something like this for transcontinental movement once modern navy techs come up.
Another game I played recently - albeit a realtime one - did something similar, with land units the entered the water just turning into boats. Might have been Anno 1404/Dawn of Discovery. Whatever it was, I liked it a lot.
I'm hoping transporting sea units takes a page from the Planetfall mod for Civ 4. In that land units simply move over both land and water within your territory; they just get a little ship model added to the unit graphic while over water. I wouldn't mind seeing something like this for transcontinental movement once modern navy techs come up.
Not sure I like this idea. Seems to me that if you want that kind of naval mobility you should have to build the ships necessary to do so.
Ok Elven, at this point you are being purposely obtuse.
No, I'm not. And, seriously, lay off the insults.
Your entire argument is based around how hexes are not as efficient in the cardinal directions, despite the fact that this is entirely irrelevant to anything at all gameplay wise.
No, it isn't. My entire argument is that both hexes and squares are abstractions, and you can write a ruleset which will utilize either in a perfectly acceptable fashion. Hexes are not inherently superior, and neither are squares. Pick the one that works best for your ruleset and your aesthetics.
While it may not make sense for an army to be able to march into Colorado from Arizona without touching Utah or New Mexico, it similarly makes no sense for an army to be unable to march on Montreal from New York without visiting Connecticut, Massachusetts, and Vermont.
This analogy is not very good.
It is just as good as yours.
It's just a commentary on the nature of abstract grid systems in wargames.
By George, I think he's got it!
Moreover, you seem to be stuck on a requirement that 1 square diagonally must always cost 1 movement unit. There are lots, and lots, and lots of square-gridded rulesets in which this is not the case. Ergo, it is not a productive line of argument.
I'm not stuck on it, that's the way it works in civilizations past.[/quote]
And yet, squares were how it worked in Civilizations past. Switching to hexes or switching to staggered movement costs are both changes. They elected to go one way, but they could just as easily have elected to go another - or, even, done away with the grid entirely (though I don't think that would fit as well as either grid, but I'm willing to be proved wrong).
But once you start making diagonal penalties, it's effectively about the same as not allowing diagonal movement. And then your movement is even MORE restricted. So why not just use hexes?
What? Disallowing diagonal movement? That argument doesn't make any sense, since I've been counting diagonals as my players and my own pieces move for years. Disallowing, indeed!
It's an incredibly weak criticism, from a person who is obviously scrambling to find something, ANYTHING to criticize.
Your characterization is misplaced. This "argument" started because someone said, incorrectly, that "All reasons for disliking hexes don't exist."
That's is a factually wrong statement. Now, you're arguing why you like hexes. I like hexes, too. I'm just not emotionally invested in trying to prove their perfection.
Now, unless you've got something substantial to add - such as addressing the criticism you missed:
"It takes me either one or two people to block a 1hex-wide corridor running N-S depending on where in the corridor I'm standing."
Ya know, last time I saw pages of posts that quoted and disiminated the last post point by point... it was the WoW forums...
So yeah... lets get back onto something else...
Didn't someone say their going to bring advisors back? I never played Civ 2, but saw the vids someone posted earlier... and got a chuckle or two, were they helpful at all? Anyone hoping that they stick with live actors, and/or the culture guy still looks like Elvis all through the ages?
Foefaller on
0
Options
KalTorakOne way or another, they all end up inthe Undercity.Registered Userregular
edited February 2010
The day they put a quasi-full version of Civilization on the DS or DS-equivalent portable system is the day I start my descent into homelessness.
I'm hoping transporting sea units takes a page from the Planetfall mod for Civ 4. In that land units simply move over both land and water within your territory; they just get a little ship model added to the unit graphic while over water. I wouldn't mind seeing something like this for transcontinental movement once modern navy techs come up.
Not sure I like this idea. Seems to me that if you want that kind of naval mobility you should have to build the ships necessary to do so.
You could make it a promotion of some kind. Moving large numbers of units really far in 4 is so annoying that I really hope they have some change in how it's done. It would probably make it easier for the AIs to pull of naval invasions too.
thorpe on
[SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
0
Options
Lost CanuckWorld's Greatest Escape ArtistDoctor Vundabar's Murder MachineRegistered Userregular
I'm hoping transporting sea units takes a page from the Planetfall mod for Civ 4. In that land units simply move over both land and water within your territory; they just get a little ship model added to the unit graphic while over water. I wouldn't mind seeing something like this for transcontinental movement once modern navy techs come up.
Not sure I like this idea. Seems to me that if you want that kind of naval mobility you should have to build the ships necessary to do so.
You could make it a promotion of some kind. Moving large numbers of units really far in 4 is so annoying that I really hope they have some change in how it's done. It would probably make it easier for the AIs to pull of naval invasions too.
I enjoyed the hell out of the DS version. It was good times.
Good bye life Hellllllooo Civ 5. I loved 4 and I hope that 5 is everything I want it to be.
So, one of the things that was always strange about Civ maps is that 1 movement point east or west at the equator moved you the same "distance" (e.g., the same percentage of the map) as 1 movement point east or west just south / north of the poles.
I wonder if there's any plans to switch to a more ... globular ... map?
Well that's a fundamentally difficult problem. I'm not aware of any nicely behaved coordinate system for the surface of a sphere. But I'm not enough of a mathematician to know about setting up a tessellation on one.
lowlylowlycook on
(Please do not gift. My game bank is already full.)
So, one of the things that was always strange about Civ maps is that 1 movement point east or west at the equator moved you the same "distance" (e.g., the same percentage of the map) as 1 movement point east or west just south / north of the poles.
I wonder if there's any plans to switch to a more ... globular ... map?
Well that's a fundamentally difficult problem. I'm not aware of any nicely behaved coordinate system for the surface of a sphere. But I'm not enough of a mathematician to know about setting up a tessellation on one.
There's really no way to do it (since you'd have to at some point lose tiles, which would always cause weirdness with a tile-based movement system), other than having the tiles shrink as you go further north (which would be the easiest way to do it, and as long as they shrink slow enough it wouldn't be jarringly obvious)
Going back to the naval transporting discussion, I'd actually like if they could just implement a system by which units could "build their own transport" when entering water tiles (cost 4 turns or something), and they just build their own transports (probably with the limitations on trimenes - can only travel in shallow waters, etc etc) - basically the equivalent of building viking boats. That way it's simpler, still takes time, but you don't have to waste city construction on it (and you don't have to have a city on the water to be able to send ground troops across a lake).
For later times, though, I think they just need bigger transports - there's really no way you could transport a tank platoon without building some sort of fairly large ship, but it's annoying to have to build 80 things to move your army at once
Fuck. 2K games is releasing it? They better not put that stupid activation limit on it like they do with their other games (looking at the Borderlands DLC) or I'm not gonna buy this either.
I'm hoping transporting sea units takes a page from the Planetfall mod for Civ 4. In that land units simply move over both land and water within your territory; they just get a little ship model added to the unit graphic while over water. I wouldn't mind seeing something like this for transcontinental movement once modern navy techs come up.
Not sure I like this idea. Seems to me that if you want that kind of naval mobility you should have to build the ships necessary to do so.
I'd like something to be quasi automated though. Something like, I setup a shipping lane that acts like a bridge then either I have to provide the ships to either manually guard it, or the more expensive the shipping lane the higher the automatic defenses of the ships that ferry the units from city to city. I'd be nice even just for automated workers to move back and forth between islands/continents for just one example.
chrono_traveller on
The trouble with having an open mind, of course, is that people will insist on coming along and trying to put things in it. ~ Terry Pratchett
Reading the Civ5-thread in Paradox Interactive's OT, a Danish guy has written down some info given in a Danish magazine:
Quote:
- Switch from squares to hexagons changing the way the game plays. More room for maneuvers and more tactical options.
- Changes to combat. More depth in combat, no more stacking of units. This will lead to bigger focus on terrain.
- Inspired by Panzer General.
- Reintroduction of Bombardment, now archers and siege equipment can shoot over melee units.
- Better diplomatic AI.
- More diplomatic options between players.
- Less "cheating" AI.
- Religion is not a factor anymore.
- Ressources are not infinite. For example one source of horse only supplies enough horses for 1 unit, but when that horseman dies the horses will respawn as a unit. (this confused me alittle, i guess we will have to watch it in action)
- City States as a sort of small countries that never develop beyond their single city. They can provide bonusses if you befriend them, or you can take over their land.
- Civics are out, now there is something called "Social Policies".
- About the same amount of wonders, the tech tree will feel familiar. Great People still in.
- Some victory conditions changed. For example in Conquest you only have to capture all the other capitals. Eliminates boring mop up phase.
- Unique Civ leader bonusses, no more standard "Spiritual" or "Financial".
- DirectX 11 support.
- Built in webbrowser. Sid Meier is also working on a facebook application of Civilization.
Archers firing over units = mixed bag. Makes the scale of the game smaller, but might be fun.
Finite resources is a bit 'meh'. Seems very gamey. Are they aware that, ummm, that's not how horses work? They can self-replicate. It's amazing!
No more religion = SUCK.
I had high hopes after hearing about the hex grids, but I'm getting the feeling that some of the fears re: Revolutions are coming to pass. Hope not. Lots of time to find out. In the meantime, I have FFH2 and Rise of Mankind to keep me amused.
THE UNBELIEVERS MUST DIE. ALL HAIL THE GREAT CONFUCIAN EMPIRE.
The resource thing I think might be okay if it's mitigated by the number of turns you control it or it's like... "You control horse pasture, after you build a horse, it takes 5 turns for another horse to become available for use." Units dying to get it back sounds really fucking stupid, so I'm assuming the translation is stupid. "We regained our bronze after Captain Doofus led a suicide charge 50 miles deep in enemy territory! Hooray!" MY way would naturally limit it AND make it so that capturing more of a resource really is useful above and beyond trade, and you could stockpile! And have to balance for wonder use! See? My way is the strong Ukranian way.
It'd be interesting to see how that works with the non-military resources, but they could just accomplish that by saying like... "X has grain... 10 turns of grain bonus" and have the grain be on a regrow of 5. Or one nonmilitary resource can serve X cities (albeit the micromanaging there could get annoying). Or just leave the nonmilitary resources as they currently are.
Reading the Civ5-thread in Paradox Interactive's OT, a Danish guy has written down some info given in a Danish magazine:
Quote:
- Switch from squares to hexagons changing the way the game plays. More room for maneuvers and more tactical options.
- Changes to combat. More depth in combat, no more stacking of units. This will lead to bigger focus on terrain.
- Inspired by Panzer General.
- Reintroduction of Bombardment, now archers and siege equipment can shoot over melee units.
- Better diplomatic AI.
- More diplomatic options between players.
- Less "cheating" AI.
- Religion is not a factor anymore.
- Ressources are not infinite. For example one source of horse only supplies enough horses for 1 unit, but when that horseman dies the horses will respawn as a unit. (this confused me alittle, i guess we will have to watch it in action)
- City States as a sort of small countries that never develop beyond their single city. They can provide bonusses if you befriend them, or you can take over their land.
- Civics are out, now there is something called "Social Policies".
- About the same amount of wonders, the tech tree will feel familiar. Great People still in.
- Some victory conditions changed. For example in Conquest you only have to capture all the other capitals. Eliminates boring mop up phase.
- Unique Civ leader bonusses, no more standard "Spiritual" or "Financial".
- DirectX 11 support.
- Built in webbrowser. Sid Meier is also working on a facebook application of Civilization.
Archers firing over units = mixed bag. Makes the scale of the game smaller, but might be fun.
Finite resources is a bit 'meh'. Seems very gamey. Are they aware that, ummm, that's not how horses work? They can self-replicate. It's amazing!
No more religion = SUCK.
I had high hopes after hearing about the hex grids, but I'm getting the feeling that some of the fears re: Revolutions are coming to pass. Hope not. Lots of time to find out. In the meantime, I have FFH2 and Rise of Mankind to keep me amused.
For the limited resources, consider as in that supply of horses/iron/whatever is keeping that unit with fresh mounts/weapons/whatever, for when the old ones get damaged/old.
It makes sense, given the logical fallacy that is Civ, since they have never even let you replicate corn/wheat/whatnot.
Morkath on
0
Options
Zxerolfor the smaller pieces, my shovel wouldn't doso i took off my boot and used my shoeRegistered Userregular
edited February 2010
"Inspired by Panzer General"? fuuuuck yeeeesssss
I'll take that lil bit of wargaming in my 4x, thank you. That sounds awesome, I don't care what anyone says.
Reading the Civ5-thread in Paradox Interactive's OT, a Danish guy has written down some info given in a Danish magazine:
Quote:
- Switch from squares to hexagons changing the way the game plays. More room for maneuvers and more tactical options.
- Changes to combat. More depth in combat, no more stacking of units. This will lead to bigger focus on terrain.
- Reintroduction of Bombardment, now archers and siege equipment can shoot over melee units.
- Better diplomatic AI.
- More diplomatic options between players.
- Less "cheating" AI.
- Ressources are not infinite. For example one source of horse only supplies enough horses for 1 unit, but when that horseman dies the horses will respawn as a unit. (this confused me alittle, i guess we will have to watch it in action)
- City States as a sort of small countries that never develop beyond their single city. They can provide bonusses if you befriend them, or you can take over their land.
- Civics are out, now there is something called "Social Policies".
- About the same amount of wonders, the tech tree will feel familiar. Great People still in.
- Some victory conditions changed. For example in Conquest you only have to capture all the other capitals. Eliminates boring mop up phase.
- Unique Civ leader bonusses, no more standard "Spiritual" or "Financial".
All interesting/good.
- Built in webbrowser. Sid Meier is also working on a facebook application of Civilization.
18 Civs. Seems like Germany and the US are in, so we have 16 slots to go. My take..
3. Chinese
4. Japanese
5. Indian
6. Roman
7. Ancient Greek
8. Russian
9. English
10. French
11. Egyptian
12. Arabian
13. Ottoman
14. Spanish
15. Aztec
16. Incan
17. Persian
18. Mongol
Posts
Too bad you missed the Steam holiday sale, where the Civ 4 Complete pack (all expansions + Colonization) went for 14 bucks.
I wonder if there's any plans to switch to a more ... globular ... map?
Steam: Elvenshae // PSN: Elvenshae // WotC: Elvenshae
Wilds of Aladrion: [https://forums.penny-arcade.com/discussion/comment/43159014/#Comment_43159014]Ellandryn[/url]
Haha. I know the feeling, though.
That is unfortunate. I'll hold out for a sale then, too bad I can't see it in my region. If only.
And tiles are nice because of the precision and boardgame feel the give Civ. To me, it's like this ultimate boardgame that would be completely unmanageable without a computer.
I hope they make late game empires less time intensive. I also never enjoyed transporting land units by sea, but I can't really think of a way to make it less annoying. Finally, I would like large empires full of unremarkable cities to be a viable option again. The games have been trending too much towards encouraging the building of megacities for my taste. I'm not saying lots of small cities should be superior, just that it should be a viable option.
Really? Right at the start of the Fall semester?
That's rather evil.
This analogy is not very good. It can also go against squares if you enforce a diagonal penalty. It's just a commentary on the nature of abstract grid systems in wargames.
I'm not stuck on it, that's the way it works in civilizations past. I know how 3.5 works, I've played it. It was another hack to make diagonal movement fit in, because Wotc is married to squares for their miniature sales, and to make it easier for people to grasp. But once you start making diagonal penalties, it's effectively about the same as not allowing diagonal movement. And then your movement is even MORE restricted. So why not just use hexes?
It's an incredibly weak criticism, from a person who is obviously scrambling to find something, ANYTHING to criticize. It still doesn't affect anything gameplay wise, and so is completely pointless. Whether the path an army takes, between two points determined by finding the center of their start and end hexes, is completely efficient in a geometric sense, is not important at all to the game, since the game measures all distances and effects in terms of the hexes! So why do you even care?
Another game I played recently - albeit a realtime one - did something similar, with land units the entered the water just turning into boats. Might have been Anno 1404/Dawn of Discovery. Whatever it was, I liked it a lot.
Not sure I like this idea. Seems to me that if you want that kind of naval mobility you should have to build the ships necessary to do so.
No, I'm not. And, seriously, lay off the insults.
No, it isn't. My entire argument is that both hexes and squares are abstractions, and you can write a ruleset which will utilize either in a perfectly acceptable fashion. Hexes are not inherently superior, and neither are squares. Pick the one that works best for your ruleset and your aesthetics.
It is just as good as yours.
By George, I think he's got it!
I'm not stuck on it, that's the way it works in civilizations past.[/quote]
And yet, squares were how it worked in Civilizations past. Switching to hexes or switching to staggered movement costs are both changes. They elected to go one way, but they could just as easily have elected to go another - or, even, done away with the grid entirely (though I don't think that would fit as well as either grid, but I'm willing to be proved wrong).
What? Disallowing diagonal movement? That argument doesn't make any sense, since I've been counting diagonals as my players and my own pieces move for years. Disallowing, indeed!
Your characterization is misplaced. This "argument" started because someone said, incorrectly, that "All reasons for disliking hexes don't exist."
That's is a factually wrong statement. Now, you're arguing why you like hexes. I like hexes, too. I'm just not emotionally invested in trying to prove their perfection.
Now, unless you've got something substantial to add - such as addressing the criticism you missed:
... shall we call this done?
Steam: Elvenshae // PSN: Elvenshae // WotC: Elvenshae
Wilds of Aladrion: [https://forums.penny-arcade.com/discussion/comment/43159014/#Comment_43159014]Ellandryn[/url]
So yeah... lets get back onto something else...
Didn't someone say their going to bring advisors back? I never played Civ 2, but saw the vids someone posted earlier... and got a chuckle or two, were they helpful at all? Anyone hoping that they stick with live actors, and/or the culture guy still looks like Elvis all through the ages?
There was a DS version of Civ: Revolutions I think.
Don't know if it was any good or not but now that I remember it I have a strong, overpowering desire to purchase.
You could make it a promotion of some kind. Moving large numbers of units really far in 4 is so annoying that I really hope they have some change in how it's done. It would probably make it easier for the AIs to pull of naval invasions too.
It's obviously not as deep as the PC versions, but it feels and plays like a Civ game.
Nintendo Switch friend code: SW-4012-4821-3053
I enjoyed the hell out of the DS version. It was good times.
Good bye life Hellllllooo Civ 5. I loved 4 and I hope that 5 is everything I want it to be.
Well that's a fundamentally difficult problem. I'm not aware of any nicely behaved coordinate system for the surface of a sphere. But I'm not enough of a mathematician to know about setting up a tessellation on one.
(Please do not gift. My game bank is already full.)
There's really no way to do it (since you'd have to at some point lose tiles, which would always cause weirdness with a tile-based movement system), other than having the tiles shrink as you go further north (which would be the easiest way to do it, and as long as they shrink slow enough it wouldn't be jarringly obvious)
Going back to the naval transporting discussion, I'd actually like if they could just implement a system by which units could "build their own transport" when entering water tiles (cost 4 turns or something), and they just build their own transports (probably with the limitations on trimenes - can only travel in shallow waters, etc etc) - basically the equivalent of building viking boats. That way it's simpler, still takes time, but you don't have to waste city construction on it (and you don't have to have a city on the water to be able to send ground troops across a lake).
For later times, though, I think they just need bigger transports - there's really no way you could transport a tank platoon without building some sort of fairly large ship, but it's annoying to have to build 80 things to move your army at once
Switch: US 1651-2551-4335 JP 6310-4664-2624
MH3U Monster Cheat Sheet / MH3U Veggie Elder Ticket Guide
I'd like something to be quasi automated though. Something like, I setup a shipping lane that acts like a bridge then either I have to provide the ships to either manually guard it, or the more expensive the shipping lane the higher the automatic defenses of the ships that ferry the units from city to city. I'd be nice even just for automated workers to move back and forth between islands/continents for just one example.
Just hits nicely.
Dracil: Uh, of course Take 2 are publishing it, they own Firaxis and Civilization.
September 1st was the exact date that I was shooting for to finish my big project.
Now that's motivation.
Fixed
Oh man. There goes the rest of my life.
Reading the Civ5-thread in Paradox Interactive's OT, a Danish guy has written down some info given in a Danish magazine:
Quote:
- Switch from squares to hexagons changing the way the game plays. More room for maneuvers and more tactical options.
- Changes to combat. More depth in combat, no more stacking of units. This will lead to bigger focus on terrain.
- Inspired by Panzer General.
- Reintroduction of Bombardment, now archers and siege equipment can shoot over melee units.
- Better diplomatic AI.
- More diplomatic options between players.
- Less "cheating" AI.
- Religion is not a factor anymore.
- Ressources are not infinite. For example one source of horse only supplies enough horses for 1 unit, but when that horseman dies the horses will respawn as a unit. (this confused me alittle, i guess we will have to watch it in action)
- City States as a sort of small countries that never develop beyond their single city. They can provide bonusses if you befriend them, or you can take over their land.
- Civics are out, now there is something called "Social Policies".
- About the same amount of wonders, the tech tree will feel familiar. Great People still in.
- Some victory conditions changed. For example in Conquest you only have to capture all the other capitals. Eliminates boring mop up phase.
- Unique Civ leader bonusses, no more standard "Spiritual" or "Financial".
- DirectX 11 support.
- Built in webbrowser. Sid Meier is also working on a facebook application of Civilization.
http://apolyton.net/forums/showpost.php?p=5753192&postcount=23
No stacking and hex grids = excellence.
Archers firing over units = mixed bag. Makes the scale of the game smaller, but might be fun.
Finite resources is a bit 'meh'. Seems very gamey. Are they aware that, ummm, that's not how horses work? They can self-replicate. It's amazing!
No more religion = SUCK.
I had high hopes after hearing about the hex grids, but I'm getting the feeling that some of the fears re: Revolutions are coming to pass. Hope not. Lots of time to find out. In the meantime, I have FFH2 and Rise of Mankind to keep me amused.
Well, you still have 6 months or so to get your affairs in order.
THE UNBELIEVERS MUST DIE. ALL HAIL THE GREAT CONFUCIAN EMPIRE.
The resource thing I think might be okay if it's mitigated by the number of turns you control it or it's like... "You control horse pasture, after you build a horse, it takes 5 turns for another horse to become available for use." Units dying to get it back sounds really fucking stupid, so I'm assuming the translation is stupid. "We regained our bronze after Captain Doofus led a suicide charge 50 miles deep in enemy territory! Hooray!" MY way would naturally limit it AND make it so that capturing more of a resource really is useful above and beyond trade, and you could stockpile! And have to balance for wonder use! See? My way is the strong Ukranian way.
It'd be interesting to see how that works with the non-military resources, but they could just accomplish that by saying like... "X has grain... 10 turns of grain bonus" and have the grain be on a regrow of 5. Or one nonmilitary resource can serve X cities (albeit the micromanaging there could get annoying). Or just leave the nonmilitary resources as they currently are.
SPECULATION! HA!
For the limited resources, consider as in that supply of horses/iron/whatever is keeping that unit with fresh mounts/weapons/whatever, for when the old ones get damaged/old.
It makes sense, given the logical fallacy that is Civ, since they have never even let you replicate corn/wheat/whatnot.
I'll take that lil bit of wargaming in my 4x, thank you. That sounds awesome, I don't care what anyone says.
All interesting/good.
What?
I totally read it as this and only this.
http://www.facebook.com/#!/civnetwork?ref=ts
I don't think anything actual game-wise has been revealed yet, though it wouldn't shock me if it winds up something more resembling Revolution
3. Chinese
4. Japanese
5. Indian
6. Roman
7. Ancient Greek
8. Russian
9. English
10. French
11. Egyptian
12. Arabian
13. Ottoman
14. Spanish
15. Aztec
16. Incan
17. Persian
18. Mongol
It was already like that in Civ4, apparently.
Oh snap