Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Magistrum]

You know, for all that the game seems to be trying to do to reduce unit spam, it's amazing how unit spam is the only way to capture even unguarded cities.

Don't worry about that, capturing cities is meant to be hard in the start, that is why you don't get siege weaponry before the classical era. The game wants the start to be peaceful.
Also, about the quick game pace, the game pace don't make any difference on combat,  unit movement, experience gain or resource distribution. It changes the pace you discover new techs, your cities grow, and social policies are acquired.
Oh, and, if I made the math right... You can fit 18 guys in a 2 tiles radius around the city.

[GreatWyrmGold]

A peaceful beginning? Remarkable. Trying to figure out what would make them do that...

Assuming that there aren't mountains in the way. Or forests. Both of these were impeding my previous attempted conquests some, and before you cry about how I shouldn't be attacking people in fortified positions, consider these facts:
1. Rather few cities are without some variety of terrain protection.
2. It doesn't matter how many trees there are outside your city, or how few passes there are to it. If the enemy is besieging you, you're going to be giving in sooner rather than later. (Find one siege that lasted as long as a decade. How many are there that even lasted a year?)

[Chosrau]

Find one siege that lasted as long as a decade. How many are there that even lasted a year?

1648- 1669

[Toady One]

I muted GWG for ignoring previous warnings and continuing to fight with people, but I think quite a few people could have done better in here.  Please be civil.

[Magistrum]

I muted GWG for ignoring previous warnings and continuing to fight with people, but I think quite a few people could have done better in here.  Please be civil.

Ouch, this probably hurt... I'm sorry if I put fuel in the flame war...
At least it explains why people wanted so much to shoot GWG in the face.
How much time will he be away?

[Mictlantecuhtli]

Find one siege that lasted as long as a decade. How many are there that even lasted a year?

1648- 1669

That's a crazy long siege. I've had sieges in EU/CK/Vicky take upwards of 1,000 days sometimes. Man, those were some drawn out wars.

[umiman]

1000 days is actually not uncommon in historical siege terms. It's hard to believe at first, but sieges have always been extremely drawn out affairs (which is why commanders hated them so much). After all, if you think about it, it's not particularly difficult for a massive city to smuggle food into their own lands. The enemy army would have to be absurdly massive to prevent any sort of shenanigans like that. Even if it's a silly representation, think of your own Dwarf Fortress when you get sieged by the forces of evil. You just hole yourself up and continue on your business. What are the enemy going to do? Dance outside?

Even after the advent of gunpowder, sieges would still take a long-ass time to resolve themselves. And when WW2 rolled around again, we were back to ridiculously drawn-out sieges if two armies decided to actually contest the cities. For example, the Siege of Leningrad lasted 872 days.

I still have no idea where this flamewar came from though. Wasn't GWG angry at some guy who posted years ago? Funny stuff.

[Delta Foxtrot]

He wasn't satisfied with military/siege mechanics. People weren't satisfied with his dissatisfaction. It escalated from there.

Best we not dwell on that any further.

[Shadowlord]

It seems like it would have been more efficient for him to spend his time playing Freeciv or Civilization Revolution instead of complaining that he doesn't grok city combat in Civ V.

[werty892]

Just because a military unit is not stationed in a city does not mean there are people not defending it. See garrisons during medieval era. Most castles even in peace time had troops around in case of a emergency. Also, raining fire arrows on a city. Gee, I bet that does tons of damage. It's not like people can extinguish fires.

[WealthyRadish]

Sorry to jump back in late, didn't get online this weekend.

How many hundreds of cities and towns in WWII were occupied without the invaders firing a shot?

I hate trying to justify game design with realism arguments. Scale is thrown out the window. You could argue that occupying a town is like walking through farmed tiles.

Yeah, I agree. For a game where realism isn't the main attraction, having it influence mechanics is generally bad, and Civ definitely fits in that category. My main gripe was that others apparently thought it was realistic (or at least not grossly unrealistic) for civilians/police/local garrisons to resist sieges from WW1 forward.

That said, if I were to discuss it from a gameplay standpoint, I think they did make cities too powerful relative to units, at all time periods. It's easy to hold off massive invasions with only a few ranged units early on (partly due to bad AI), and later on the number of units needed to conquer sprawling citygasms makes combat a chore. I'd rather in that case that they did go the realistic route, and have WWI/II+ units just treat cities as terrain modifiers, since it would make the late game a lot more enjoyable (in my opinion, anyway). I haven't played civ in forever though, and am not inclined to revisit it, so I'd probably just ignore my opinions on its balance. _{^{Babylon OP}}

[Shadowlord]

So far as I'm aware, Civ II is the only entry in the series to have had partisans which could spawn around a city when it was captured by an enemy. IIRC, this only happened late in the game (modern era) and they were generally no match for any other unit of the time, much less the endless waves of howitzers you would use to conquer the entire world with.

It's no surprise Firaxis tried different things instead in future Civ games, like trying to eliminate the 'One Unit To Rule Them All' issue, adding culture-flips (I remember people got upset about this showing up with Civ 3), making corruption and happiness a pain in the ass - to the point where you have a hard time conquering everyone and taking all their cities in Civ V with G&K and BTW, and an even harder time without G&K and BTW, largely because of the entire-civ unrest and permanent unhappiness for conquered or puppeted cities. In Civ II and SMAC there's little to stop you from rolling over the entire world if you have the superior military: corruption from distance largely only impacts per-city production, happiness is also per-city, and any unrest from taking a city is temporary and for that city only.

In Civ IV you could conquer another civ near the beginning of the game while everyone had warriors simply by pumping out as many warriors as possible and as much gold as possible and hitting their cities with all your warriors until their defenders fell. Of course, you had to do it before you ran out of money (due to having more warriors than you could afford upkeep for, because you needed 3 times as many warriors as your enemy had to pull this off, and it was pointless if they had better defenders). In Civ V the cities automagically regenerate health and get stronger, even under attack, and you don't want someone else's city at the beginning of the game anyways, all it would do is give you unhappiness.

[BFEL]

I am having a good time with this.

I'm playing Carthage and I'm industrialized while everyone else is medieval (Ethiopia might be Renaissance though that wonder stealing bastard) and Tengrism which I founded is the world religion.

I think I've basically won.

[Maldevious]

Was just gifted this... Any thoughts on which DLC to look at?

[FritzPL]

All of them. Seriously. I find it impossible to play without the DLCs now.
If you don't want the extra civs which are dirt cheap, Brave New World and Gods and Kings are a must.