Civ goes hexagonal

[OSK]

-roads are primarily used for an economic bonus for linking cities; you won't need/want more than a minimum
-if a road goes through a resource tile, that tile yields less than it would otherwise
-you can spend gold to purchase cultural borders
-you can't see diplomacy modifiers; the design philosophy is that you should learn the other civs as if they are human friends you play a lot with, each with their own unique play styles

http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=359099

I called it. Roads now penalize you, forcing you to be careful with their placement. No more "spaghetti roads" problem and pillaging roads is now worthwhile.

 

[Grunker]

:D

 

[kris]

Although it is really incorrect to have less resources with a road.

 

[ScottishMartialArts]

How would a Thermopylae like situation (something, to their credit, that is trying to be recreated) occur when armies can just *bloop* sail around defensive positions on the fly?

Historically, because the Greeks controlled the sea.

Persian Navy was actually substantially larger than the "coalition" fleet the Greeks had mustered. The two major naval battles of the campaign of 480 BC, Artemisium and Salamis, were both fought in constricted waters where the Persians couldn't employ their vastly superior numbers. The first battle, Artemisium, was a delaying action fought for the very purpose of securing the flanks of the ground forces at Thermopylae, and occurred over the same three days as the much more famous land battle.

 

[Sovy Kurosei]

Although it is really incorrect to have less resources with a road.

Modern roads take up a lot of space and resources to maintain. An interstate isn't much of a benefit to a locality (since the capacity of it is overkill for the population) so much as it is a benefit for the two population centers that it connects. I would just reason that all tiles have a basic road system and that any road that is built is an equivalent of an interstate that takes up land and needs additional resources to maintain than the tile can handle.

Either way spaghetti roads are gone and now there is a point to destroying them.

 

[kris]

Although it is really incorrect to have less resources with a road.

Modern roads take up a lot of space and resources to maintain. An interstate isn't much of a benefit to a locality (since the capacity of it is overkill for the population) so much as it is a benefit for the two population centers that it connects. I would just reason that all tiles have a basic road system and that any road that is built is an equivalent of an interstate that takes up land and needs additional resources to maintain than the tile can handle.

Either way spaghetti roads are gone and now there is a point to destroying them.

But resources are transported. Better infrastructure always increase resource production, not decrease it.

Roads only really take up a lot of space in an urban enviroment, but you don't produce resources in a urban enviroment to begin with.

 

[Turisas]

-if a road goes through a resource tile, that tile yields less than it would otherwise
http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=359099

I called it. Roads now penalize you, forcing you to be careful with their placement. No more "spaghetti roads" problem and pillaging roads is now worthwhile.

So if I build a railroad that connects to a coal mine, the mine will produce less?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w09rqkY0hbg

 

[Damned Registrations]

I'm guessing there'll no longer be any need to 'connect' resources that way. Which will make plundering them more effective too, since it'll take longer for workers to get there to reestablish the mine.

 

[Gerrard]

-if a road goes through a resource tile, that tile yields less than it would otherwise

Things just went full retard.

 

[Grunker]

-if a road goes through a resource tile, that tile yields less than it would otherwise

Things just went full retard.

Why? Becuase of lack of realism or because of decrease in game-play functionality?

If you think it's bad because it lacks realism, then why the fuck are you playing civilization in the first place?

If you think it's bad because it will decrease gameplay quality, then why? It's basically just a clever alternative to upkeep-costs.

 

[Malakal]

Oh please, you guys know that most if inland transport up to 20 century was going by rivers? Not roads, only armies and small merchants used those.
Thus it is realistic to decrease resource production (upkeep cost of the roads) and instead rivers should give major bonuses. And some kinds of harbor buildings (inland) should be implemented.

 

[JarlFrank]

Also, roads =/= railroads.

Railroads usually give additional benefits in Civ.

 

[Panthera]

How would a Thermopylae like situation (something, to their credit, that is trying to be recreated) occur when armies can just *bloop* sail around defensive positions on the fly?

Historically, because the Greeks controlled the sea.

Persian Navy was actually substantially larger than the "coalition" fleet the Greeks had mustered. The two major naval battles of the campaign of 480 BC, Artemisium and Salamis, were both fought in constricted waters where the Persians couldn't employ their vastly superior numbers. The first battle, Artemisium, was a delaying action fought for the very purpose of securing the flanks of the ground forces at Thermopylae, and occurred over the same three days as the much more famous land battle.

Right. You can't just 'bloop' sail your troops around the pass if there are military boats in the way. It was funny because the example he gave to complain defeated his own point.

 

[Sovy Kurosei]

Better infrastructure always increase resource production, not decrease it.

Better infrastructure needs more maintenance. A case example would be the province of Saskatchewan where a lot of the roads are left unmaintained and some are even regressing back to gravel because it is too expensive.

It would be more realistic to have the tiles improved but the roads to have a maintenance cost to keep them (ala Simcity) but that is a bit round about way of handling it than is necessary for a 4X game, especially for something more mainstream (and heading towards a more wargaming direction) game like Civilization V.

 

[Wild Slop]

..or make it easier in allowing the enemy to utilize the roads.
I dont like the idea of preventing the spaghetti by protecting the player from themselves.
So dont want an unprotected highway into the heart of your nation?

That said this doesn't strike me as that bad , might make for a nice change.

Right. You can't just 'bloop' sail your troops around the pass if there are military boats in the way. It was funny because the example he gave to complain defeated his own point.

I thought your comment about controlling the seas was about throwing out a fun fact not any sort of refute.
If it helps I dont feel like replaying historical events as exactly as they happened for that matter. Just an example.

OK , so in other words sea channels could have massive naval forces blocking the way. but an enemy army on land could just pop out on the sea at any given moment as if were like any other tile if past that point.
Now it goes from cutting off the path to having boats to follow every single unit along the cost to account for the magic ability to create boats ..magic or they carry ships with them on the march of war.

I'm not trying to inject too much realism into this, but find it silly that ocean and sea tiles may be rendered meaningless (or less meaningful rather) in regards to troop movement -dont care at what point in technology this can be overlooked .

I say if they are to do that it should be with coordinated navel units ,not ingrained unit abilities.

It occurs to me that maybe this transition might only be accomplished through cites / cities with ports/ forts which would rest easier with me.

 

[PorkaMorka]

I dont understand how you can do away with stacks.

The United Kingdom is only about 5-20 tiles on most maps.

But during WW2 right before D-day they squeezed like 47+ divisions in there and they didn't even use the northern parts much.

Instead what they should have done is copy call to power.

You make two stacks, and when they bump into each other combat is resolved on a sub screen that simulates the battle using the units in the stacks.

This allows for a full simulation of the battle, allows for true combined arms, variable builds for stacks and avoids long delays when 100 archers suicide on your walls.

It wouldn't have to look stupid like in call to power either.

Between the no stack thing and the road thing, this game looks like The Dumbest Thing™.

"Oh sorry, there is only room for 5 units in Italy now."

 

[MaskedMartyr]

I dont understand how you can do away with stacks.

The United Kingdom is only about 5-20 tiles on most maps.

But during WW2 right before D-day they squeezed like 47+ divisions in there and they didn't even use the northern parts much.

Instead what they should have done is copy call to power.

You make two stacks, and when they bump into each other combat is resolved on a sub screen that simulates the battle using the units in the stacks.

This allows for a full simulation of the battle, allows for true combined arms, variable builds for stacks and avoids long delays when 100 archers suicide on your walls.

It wouldn't have to look stupid like in call to power either.

Between the no stack thing and the road thing, this game looks like The Dumbest Thing™.

"Oh sorry, there is only room for 5 units in Italy now."

You would have to change the whole dynamic of warfare for Civ4, but hey at least they are working around their ruleset rather well. Sorry to say this but if I wanted to play a indepth combat simulator I wouldn't be playing Civ series.

 

[Grunker]

You would have to change the whole dynamic of warfare for Civ4, but hey at least they are working around their ruleset rather well. Sorry to say this but if I wanted to play a indepth combat simulator I wouldn't be playing Civ series.

Yeah, that point has been made several times throughout this thread and it's p. much correct. The old system is better than the old in every way, only two points of criticism has been raised:

1) It's not realistic (it's Civ duuuuuh)

2) It's not as good as a full-fledged wargame (it's Civ duuuuh)

So yeah.

 

[Malakal]

Those units in UK? Those are not divisions, those are armies/corps/army groups. Problem fixed.

 

[PorkaMorka]

Call to Power is a Civ clone from 11 years ago, not a war game.

We can't judge the playability (good or bad) of the new system based on what little we know, but seems as though it really creates some serious issues with suspension of disbelief, when each hex represents some huge amount of land yet you randomly can't move two armies of infantry into there.

It's not about realism, but about plausibility. No one cares about how realistic the archer vs spearman modeling is, but you want the game to feel plausible.

Not being able to build anymore troops because England is full is implausible.

If the Mongols are rampaging through my lands, but I have a walled city or fort, it's going to seem pretty retarded when I can't move my units in there to keep them safe and defend it, but they have to wait outside on indefensible terrain and get beaten one by one.

 

[Grunker]

suspension of disbelief

What, Caesar suggesting some of his "special" salad or ancient warriors destroying a battalion of tanks wasn't suspension of disbelief?

If you're looking for immersion in a Civ-game I think something is seriously fuck up mang.

but you want the game to feel plausible.

No? I want the game to have tactical depth and to be addictively fun. I don't really care about plausible. Historical correctness in terms of buildings, units and that stuff, sure, 'cause that's a staple of the series. It's got nothing to do with plausibility though: When you have The Great Wall, you're able to read up on some historic stuff and have historic context in the game. But it sure as hell's got nothing to do with being plausible, since I'm the Zulu and I'm building it on the great continent of America

Being plausible isn't. Fun and intelligent challenges are what matters in a Civ game.

 

[oscar]

I don't think I like the road thing. I never went crazy with the roads in Civ as it just meant the enemy could move into my cities quicker. And I don't really see how the spaghetti junction is a problem either. Over time more advanced civilizations built roads all over the place (how many 'tiles' in your country don't have roads?). So you know people could move around quicker. Primitive societies never got around to it (in game too busy building farms and chopping down forests).

Movement takes long enough in this game as it is without roads costing upkeep.

 

[poocolator]

Apparently, the cost is such that moving ore from a mine is made better by not building a road from it.

 

[Raghar]

But resources are transported. Better infrastructure always increase resource production, not decrease it.

Roads only really take up a lot of space in an urban enviroment, but you don't produce resources in a urban enviroment to begin with.

RU' = RU - road maintenance.

Obviously the mine without transportation produces more, however the product stays on the site. The easy workaround is to make production facility on site, which would permit smaller transport costs.

 

[kris]

Obviously the mine without transportation produces more, however the product stays on the site.

More accurate would be to say there is nor have ever been a mine without transportation. But resources in this game are many very different ones of course. like animals, food produce and wood.