attackfighter
Magister
- Joined
- Jul 15, 2010
- Messages
- 2,307
Malakal said:Cottages take 60 turns to grow into cities, that means at best 60 years. A bit much but you can speed it up with civics.
Stop the lies.
Malakal said:Cottages take 60 turns to grow into cities, that means at best 60 years. A bit much but you can speed it up with civics.
taplonaplo said:I heard late game trade route calculations were really awesome in civ3.
Well, assuming that your opponents manage to pillage your entire empire... In which case you bloody well *should* be at a huge handicap.Civ 4's economic model was worse. Cottages were poorly implemented, they simply took too much time to grow. If you lose a war for example and your cottages are destroyed, you're at too much of a disadvantage to make any sort of comeback because on top of the regular reprecussions of a lost war (captured cities, lost investment you put into the war, lack of military immediately afterwards, etc.) you have to spend roughly 1/4 of the game nursing your cottages back to health, and that's too big of a handicap to overcome (assuming your opponent is competent). I'm all for 'grand strategy', but not when it's applied to such an extent that a single, common event can dictate the rest of the game.
herostratus said:So really, you need to fuck up royally to have the majority of your cottages pillaged.
herostratus said:If you've played civ 4, presumably you are aware that unique resources existed in civ 4 as well?
attackfighter said:Malakal said:Cottages take 60 turns to grow into cities, that means at best 60 years. A bit much but you can speed it up with civics.
Stop the lies.
Malakal said:attackfighter said:Malakal said:Cottages take 60 turns to grow into cities, that means at best 60 years. A bit much but you can speed it up with civics.
Stop the lies.
STFU n00b.
* Cottages +1 Coin ~10 pillage value
o grows to a Hamlet in 7/10/15/30 turns worked
* Hamlet +2 Coin ~15 pillage value
o grows to a Village in 13/20/30/60 turns worked
* Village +3 Coin ~20 pillage value
o +1 Coin.png upon the discovery of the technology Printing Press
o grows to a Town in 27/40/60/120 turns worked
* Town +4 Coin ~25 pillage value
o +1 Coin upon the discovery of the technology Printing Press
o +2 Coin with the civic Free Speech
o +1 Hammer with the civic Universal Suffrage
That gives 70 turns on normal speed for town and 35 with emancipation. From nothing. I will remind you (noob) that it takes four turn for one unit to pillage the improvement to the ground.
catfood said:I remember that in vanilla Civ3 it was quite possible to have such a shit stroke of bad luck that resources would never spawn in your teritory, and the AI would never trade their excess resources with you thus you'd be stuck in the stoneage forever. That was incredibly shit design right there. I played it unpatched however. Did they fix this in a patch or an expansion?
Yes, this helped a lot. Civ 3 was too random in the resource spawning algorythm.although in civ 4/5 they've lowered the randomness a bit by standardizing the amount of resources likely to spawn around your immediate capital (land beyond the reaches of your capital are still completely random though, at least so far as I know).
attackfighter said:You're saying that 1 turn = a maximum of 1 year, which is bs. A turn ranges from being hundreds of years long to only a few months long, depending on the game speed and current date. In civ time, turns taken during the 1500's would be at least a decade long each, even on marathon speed (and since you're getting your cottage growth numbers using normal speed, they'd be more like 50 years each).
Face it, having your economic growth stifled for the better part of an era as a result of a SINGLE lost war is fuckin' stupid from a "historical" perspective (as you put it). And it's not like I was advocating consequence free war in the first place; by all means punish a player for losing a war just don't do it to such an extent that his civ is fucked over for the better part of it's existance.
What I don't get is why you let enemy forces rampage through your entire fucking civ.Face it, having your economic growth stifled for the better part of an era as a result of a SINGLE lost war is fuckin' stupid from a "historical" perspective (as you put it). And it's not like I was advocating consequence free war in the first place; by all means punish a player for losing a war just don't do it to such an extent that his civ is fucked over for the better part of it's existance.
Destroid said:attackfighter said:You're saying that 1 turn = a maximum of 1 year, which is bs. A turn ranges from being hundreds of years long to only a few months long, depending on the game speed and current date. In civ time, turns taken during the 1500's would be at least a decade long each, even on marathon speed (and since you're getting your cottage growth numbers using normal speed, they'd be more like 50 years each).
Face it, having your economic growth stifled for the better part of an era as a result of a SINGLE lost war is fuckin' stupid from a "historical" perspective (as you put it). And it's not like I was advocating consequence free war in the first place; by all means punish a player for losing a war just don't do it to such an extent that his civ is fucked over for the better part of it's existance.
What the fuck man, the years don't mean a thing the game is measured in turns.
What I don't get is why you let enemy forces rampage through your entire fucking civ.
As I've already said, it is plausible for an enemy to destroy the infrastructure of one border city, although impractical. After all, to effectively pillage all the improvements you need to split your stack, which is suicide in a territory where your opponent has two or three times your movement points. If my opponent leaves one unit behind and unguarded by his stack, I'd cheer personally, because he is easy pickings for whatever counter-unit of my choice. Thus the trade becomes one unit for one cottage development level. A decent trade.
If on the other hand the AI keeps his pillagers defended by his stack of doom, you should cheer, since this cuts his movement speed in half, since they have to wait to defend the pillaging units. This gives you ample time to build more forces, which of course moves to the front much quicker than he moves.
If, however, the enemy is vastly superior to you and manages to keep your defensive units in check and pillage at the same time, well - you just lost a city. You have more than one city, right? Not only that, but the most developed cities are typically at your core, and your frontier cities are often the least developed ones. Of course, this is all assuming that the pillaged city was a commerce city. If it was a production city, or a specialist pump, or some sort of mix, then it is much easier to restore since all you need is worker-hours.
By my recollection the only time I've been pillage raped was my first or second game to millions of attack helicopters.
Besides in civ 3 you also would very much lose if opponent could simply pillage all your improvements, then he could also place units on resources and starve your cities of production and food.
Well, if you lost your main army the enemy SHOULD be able to roflstomp you back to the stoneage, or the game would never fuckin end.attackfighter said:What I don't get is why you let enemy forces rampage through your entire fucking civ.
As I've already said, it is plausible for an enemy to destroy the infrastructure of one border city, although impractical. After all, to effectively pillage all the improvements you need to split your stack, which is suicide in a territory where your opponent has two or three times your movement points. If my opponent leaves one unit behind and unguarded by his stack, I'd cheer personally, because he is easy pickings for whatever counter-unit of my choice. Thus the trade becomes one unit for one cottage development level. A decent trade.
If on the other hand the AI keeps his pillagers defended by his stack of doom, you should cheer, since this cuts his movement speed in half, since they have to wait to defend the pillaging units. This gives you ample time to build more forces, which of course moves to the front much quicker than he moves.
If, however, the enemy is vastly superior to you and manages to keep your defensive units in check and pillage at the same time, well - you just lost a city. You have more than one city, right? Not only that, but the most developed cities are typically at your core, and your frontier cities are often the least developed ones. Of course, this is all assuming that the pillaged city was a commerce city. If it was a production city, or a specialist pump, or some sort of mix, then it is much easier to restore since all you need is worker-hours.
If you lose your main army the enemy has free rein over your land. In civ 3 this wasn't the end of your civ, as capturing your cities was a slow process for your opponent and pillaging was more of a short term blow. In civ 4 however, pillaging cottages has long term consequences and is essentially a death sentence if it's done on a large scale (which is possible if your main army is defeated - not an unlikely scenario).
taplonaplo said:Well, if you lost your main army the enemy SHOULD be able to roflstomp you back to the stoneage, or the game would never fuckin end.attackfighter said:What I don't get is why you let enemy forces rampage through your entire fucking civ.
As I've already said, it is plausible for an enemy to destroy the infrastructure of one border city, although impractical. After all, to effectively pillage all the improvements you need to split your stack, which is suicide in a territory where your opponent has two or three times your movement points. If my opponent leaves one unit behind and unguarded by his stack, I'd cheer personally, because he is easy pickings for whatever counter-unit of my choice. Thus the trade becomes one unit for one cottage development level. A decent trade.
If on the other hand the AI keeps his pillagers defended by his stack of doom, you should cheer, since this cuts his movement speed in half, since they have to wait to defend the pillaging units. This gives you ample time to build more forces, which of course moves to the front much quicker than he moves.
If, however, the enemy is vastly superior to you and manages to keep your defensive units in check and pillage at the same time, well - you just lost a city. You have more than one city, right? Not only that, but the most developed cities are typically at your core, and your frontier cities are often the least developed ones. Of course, this is all assuming that the pillaged city was a commerce city. If it was a production city, or a specialist pump, or some sort of mix, then it is much easier to restore since all you need is worker-hours.
If you lose your main army the enemy has free rein over your land. In civ 3 this wasn't the end of your civ, as capturing your cities was a slow process for your opponent and pillaging was more of a short term blow. In civ 4 however, pillaging cottages has long term consequences and is essentially a death sentence if it's done on a large scale (which is possible if your main army is defeated - not an unlikely scenario).
Except for the fact that you can produce units, that is. To move from the edges of one city to the other takes 5 turns. If you are to pillage all the squares, make that 10 turns.If you lose your main army the enemy has free rein over your land.
herostratus said:Except for the fact that you can produce units, that is. To move from the edges of one city to the other takes 5 turns. If you are to pillage all the squares, make that 10 turns.If you lose your main army the enemy has free rein over your land.
In 10 turns you can reinforce something fierce, and if the opponent has split his army to pillage as well, he's fucked or at least he has lost all momentum.