[PC]Civilization V coming!

[Viking]

By canals you mean cities on a 1-tile wide stretch, or some actual canal improvement from one of those DLC packs I don't have?

Yes, a 1 tile wide spit of land between two bodies of water which can cause communication which didn't exist before.


Actually, I'd like to see cities have a port-side. I'd compensate for that loss by allowing stacking of ships in port. I'd like to see the use of great engineers to create canals as a special great person tile improvement - counts as a trading post only ships can pass through them like carthaginians can cross mountains. I'd also like to see a port tile improvement which would allow, when connected to a city within it's radius, the city to build naval buildings. And naval units built would appear at the port and that port would be used for naval trade. It just wouldn't have the unlimited stacking of the full port city. I can't mod either.

[DGuller]

By canals you mean cities on a 1-tile wide stretch, or some actual canal improvement from one of those DLC packs I don't have?

Yes, a 1 tile wide spit of land between two bodies of water which can cause communication which didn't exist before.


Actually, I'd like to see cities have a port-side. I'd compensate for that loss by allowing stacking of ships in port. I'd like to see the use of great engineers to create canals as a special great person tile improvement - counts as a trading post only ships can pass through them like carthaginians can cross mountains. I'd also like to see a port tile improvement which would allow, when connected to a city within it's radius, the city to build naval buildings. And naval units built would appear at the port and that port would be used for naval trade. It just wouldn't have the unlimited stacking of the full port city. I can't mod either.

The last idea may be too unbalanced.  Why even build a city on the coast then and make it vulnerable to naval attack?

[DGuller]

I also don't think unlimited ship stacking is a good idea.  You can park 10 battleships or missile cruisers in the city and delete any unit within a 4-tile radius.  At least planes with unlimited stacking take damage when they attack.

[Viking]

I also don't think unlimited ship stacking is a good idea.  You can park 10 battleships or missile cruisers in the city and delete any unit within a 4-tile radius.  At least planes with unlimited stacking take damage when they attack.

Actually, the idea was that ships in port don't shoot. Period. They have to be at sea to shoot. Again, this is something that can't be modded.

The last idea may be too unbalanced.  Why even build a city on the coast then and make it vulnerable to naval attack?

Because ships are already way overpowered compared to land units and need a nerf. Because in history no fleet ever took a city from an army. Because a satellite port originating a trade rout wouldn't get the sea trade bonuses. Because pillaging the satellite port would raze the port buildings. Because the port city takes a hex away from normal production. I agree on it's own this would be waaaay OP, but this would have to happen as part of a larger re-balancing.

[Darth Wagtaros]

Sounds like the new expansion is worth getting?

[DGuller]

Actually, the idea was that ships in port don't shoot. Period. They have to be at sea to shoot. Again, this is something that can't be modded.

Ships with double attacks can still pop out, shoot, and pop back in.  Not as automatic of a game changer, but still OP.

Because ships are already way overpowered compared to land units and need a nerf. Because in history no fleet ever took a city from an army.

In history longbowmen didn't have the range of WWII-era artillery either, and academies weren't built in the middle of tundra.  Civ games are not history simulators, they're all about gameplay with historical flavor.

I agree on it's own this would be waaaay OP, but this would have to happen as part of a larger re-balancing.

Why is there a need to re-balance?  In my experience, unless the game is created by clueless developers that somehow shit out a diamond in the rough despite themselves, developers almost always have a much better handle on game balance than modders.  Modders always try to tinker with this and that, and almost always come out with something over-complicated with less playability.

[Viking]

Actually, the idea was that ships in port don't shoot. Period. They have to be at sea to shoot. Again, this is something that can't be modded.

Ships with double attacks can still pop out, shoot, and pop back in.  Not as automatic of a game changer, but still OP.

Only if it has logistics and can move after shooting. Still this does resolve the stacking issue since you do need a plot of water within range....

Because ships are already way overpowered compared to land units and need a nerf. Because in history no fleet ever took a city from an army.

In history longbowmen didn't have the range of WWII-era artillery either, and academies weren't built in the middle of tundra.  Civ games are not history simulators, they're all about gameplay with historical flavor.

The battleship being destroyed by a phalanx in CIV - 1 was very annoying and pissed me off. The rest of the game made up for that stupidity. As for the former of your absurdities, both bowmen and artillery defined the separation between armies before battle both in the 100 years war and in WW2. I see the 1 unit per tile view of the war as a magnified tactical battle. As for the second... remember I am the guy living 200 yards from the the most northerly institution in the world to produce a nobel science laureate. Besides, tundra is a bad place for an academy, the tundra hill is much better.

My issue is rather the unbalancing related to the naval strike force taking the one city without any land units. Naval units are more mobile, more powerful and not as limited by terrain as land based siege weaponry. They are also more survivable on flat ocean than siege artillery is on regular terrain. It is much easier to take a city from the sea than it is by land.

I agree on it's own this would be waaaay OP, but this would have to happen as part of a larger re-balancing.

Why is there a need to re-balance?  In my experience, unless the game is created by clueless developers that somehow shit out a diamond in the rough despite themselves, developers almost always have a much better handle on game balance than modders.  Modders always try to tinker with this and that, and almost always come out with something over-complicated with less playability.

There is (apart from my issue with battleships and destroyers conquering land) no need to rebalance unless you first make the changes I suggested.

[DGuller]

Why is tundra a bad place for great person improvements?  Tundra hill is just like any other hill, while flat tundra cannot be improved in any useful way.  Even a desert tile can give you two food late in the game, just like a water tile.

[Crazy_Ivan80]

Why is tundra a bad place for great person improvements?  Tundra hill is just like any other hill, while flat tundra cannot be improved in any useful way.  Even a desert tile can give you two food late in the game, just like a water tile.

flat tundra when bordering a river can be improved

[Viking]

Why is tundra a bad place for great person improvements?  Tundra hill is just like any other hill, while flat tundra cannot be improved in any useful way.  Even a desert tile can give you two food late in the game, just like a water tile.

Because it's base production is 1 "stuff" rather than the normal 2 "stuff" (stuff being hammers and food). You can add a trading post to tundra and a farm where it has fresh water. Remember a tile which produces 2 food is merely feeding the farmer and maintaining the population. Even on ICS (going super wide) you shouldn't be stacking your cities in a way that they are going to need clear tundra to feed themselves. That doesn't mean don't have clear tundra in your radius, it just means that you should be counting tundra as useless terrain when placing cities.

[DGuller]

Why is tundra a bad place for great person improvements?  Tundra hill is just like any other hill, while flat tundra cannot be improved in any useful way.  Even a desert tile can give you two food late in the game, just like a water tile.

flat tundra when bordering a river can be improved

It rarely does border a river, though.

[Viking]

Why is tundra a bad place for great person improvements?  Tundra hill is just like any other hill, while flat tundra cannot be improved in any useful way.  Even a desert tile can give you two food late in the game, just like a water tile.

flat tundra when bordering a river can be improved

It rarely does border a river, though.

Fresh water lakes and desert oases count as well. Though I can't remember any case of tundra being adjacent to an oasis.

[DGuller]

Why is tundra a bad place for great person improvements?  Tundra hill is just like any other hill, while flat tundra cannot be improved in any useful way.  Even a desert tile can give you two food late in the game, just like a water tile.

Because it's base production is 1 "stuff" rather than the normal 2 "stuff" (stuff being hammers and food). You can add a trading post to tundra and a farm where it has fresh water. Remember a tile which produces 2 food is merely feeding the farmer and maintaining the population. Even on ICS (going super wide) you shouldn't be stacking your cities in a way that they are going to need clear tundra to feed themselves. That doesn't mean don't have clear tundra in your radius, it just means that you should be counting tundra as useless terrain when placing cities.

I still don't understand.  I try to make use of every land tile available to me.  It seems like using academy instead of a mine on a tundra hill, while leaving flat tundra with a useless trading post, is a sub-optimal use of tiles.

[Viking]

Why is tundra a bad place for great person improvements?  Tundra hill is just like any other hill, while flat tundra cannot be improved in any useful way.  Even a desert tile can give you two food late in the game, just like a water tile.

Because it's base production is 1 "stuff" rather than the normal 2 "stuff" (stuff being hammers and food). You can add a trading post to tundra and a farm where it has fresh water. Remember a tile which produces 2 food is merely feeding the farmer and maintaining the population. Even on ICS (going super wide) you shouldn't be stacking your cities in a way that they are going to need clear tundra to feed themselves. That doesn't mean don't have clear tundra in your radius, it just means that you should be counting tundra as useless terrain when placing cities.

I still don't understand.  I try to make use of every land tile available to me.  It seems like using academy instead of a mine on a tundra hill, while leaving flat tundra with a useless trading post, is a sub-optimal use of tiles.

Each population not used most productively is a global happiness wasted. You shouldn't be thinking about maximizing tile usage but rather production, gold, culture and sometimes faith and great persons. Adding small holding peasants to your happiness burden is almost always a waste. Happiness is usually better spent on growing towns which can feed their specialists or have special resource tiles or just simply used to generate golden ages. Unless you have some great use for the quality tiles in a city you really should be limiting your city size to local happiness generated from buildings, religion and policies. In general your population is of best your to your civ when in fully upgraded cities.

[DGuller]

I view academy as a specialist tile of sorts.  It also costs a net of one food just like specialist under Freedom, but it gives me a shitload of science and a little culture.  Yes, it doesn't get the half unhappiness that a real specialists gets, but having 10 sciences in one tile is worth it.