|
Is there any talk about changing the Piety tree to give piety bonuses, and creating a new tree for cultural advances?
|
| # ? Apr 9, 2012 19:09 |
|
|
|
| # ? May 25, 2013 19:20 |
|
|
Kajeesus posted:No, you must be remembering wrong. At launch, Autocracy was incompatible with Freedom and Liberty, but Order could be used with any other tree. They then patched it so that Autocracy could be used with Liberty (but still not Freedom), and Order was made incompatible with Freedom and Autocracy. Hm. I wasn't able to install the game right away, it might be that I didn't actually get to play until the change you mention was made that left Order as I remember it being when I first played. e: Wait that's still not how I could swear I remember it being. Maybe I am just remembering wrong, maybe I'm thinking of Autocracy. Is there anywhere where they list a history of all the changes?
|
| # ? Apr 9, 2012 20:08 |
|
|
thehumandignity posted:If they don't give it drawbacks, no one would do anything else. The massive advantage of conquest is that it actively hampers the efforts of other civilizations to achieve other victory conditions; any resources spent on defending against enemy invasions are resources not spent on building universities or opera houses. I phrased my original post poorly I guess. I'm fine with the idea that, as your empire becomes larger, you find it more difficult to expand due to upkeep cost and what not, like Civ IV and III did. You're right, it's a challenge and without something there to try and impede you, it wouldn't be a challenge to begin with. I think the happiness system if anything in Civ 5 is what annoys me about trying to expand. Having it setup like Civ IV or hell, even giving two different metrics, empire wide and individual city, would be a lot better. Otherwise, I'm really looking forward to this expansion. If it can improve the game even a 10th of what BTS did for IV, I'll be quite happy.
|
| # ? Apr 9, 2012 21:07 |
|
|
The problem with happiness is that there's no fun or skill to it. It's just an artificially imposed limit that prevents you from doing cool poo poo.
|
| # ? Apr 9, 2012 21:16 |
|
|
SlightlyMadman posted:The problem with happiness is that there's no fun or skill to it. It's just an artificially imposed limit that prevents you from doing cool poo poo. Exactly. Thank you.
|
| # ? Apr 9, 2012 21:27 |
|
|
Kajeesus posted:I guess it does makes sense from a gameplay perspective, but that doesn't mean I have to like it. I agree with you. The names of the policies are arbitrary, there's no gameplay reason a policy named Free Religion needs to be in the Piety tree along with Theocracy as opposed to Liberty or Freedom. Likewise with Socialism. It doesn't really matter so most people won't care one way or the other but I bet there's a mod that addresses it.
|
| # ? Apr 9, 2012 21:30 |
|
(I'll shut up about it, though)
|
SlightlyMadman posted:The problem with happiness is that there's no fun or skill to it. It's just an artificially imposed limit that prevents you from doing cool poo poo. So's corruption in earlier games. Still needs to be in there in some format or you'll just build an infinitely sized empire and be infinitely powerful. That's fine if that's the kind of game you want, but clearly in this game they want tall empires as well as wide empires, so we need this mechanic to be here.
|
| # ? Apr 9, 2012 21:35 |
|
|
Gort posted:So's corruption in earlier games. Yes, corruption, the universally hated mechanic that was eventually just thrown away because it's so incredibly un-fun. quote:Still needs to be in there in some format or you'll just build an infinitely sized empire and be infinitely powerful. That's fine if that's the kind of game you want, but clearly in this game they want tall empires as well as wide empires, so we need this mechanic to be here. Civ4's mechanic was fantastic and always felt to me like a near-perfect balance. You could expand quickly and get huge, but your economy would suffer, and you'd have to crank down your science rate to stay big. If you had enough of an economic cushion, you could get through the rough spot though and once your new cities got really rolling you'd be in fantastic shape. You could also just say "gently caress in" and hope you kill everyone before your army became too antiquated. The thing that made it fun was that it wasn't a brick wall you ran up against, but rather a set of challenges with multiple solutions.
|
| # ? Apr 9, 2012 21:39 |
|
|
The thing about happiness, though, is that it forces you to make incursions only when you actually have something to gain from conquest, instead of just stepping all over someone's sandbox just for the sake of ruining it, which you can still do, if you find it necessary, by razing a city, or to a limited extent by puppeting them. It also tempers your conquests, by forcing you to go into an occupation period if you don't want your annexed territories to gridlock your production/research/treasury/everything. this gives the game scale, as conquests of entire countries by anything short of a hyperpower would rarely happen in anything less than decades or more before the Rennaiscance Era. In contrast, once you reach the Industrial Era, and especially in the Modern Era, courthouses can be built much faster (mainly because you should have a pretty hefty treasury by then if you aren't being stupid with your money) which allows for effective invasions and occupations to increase exponentially in speed. Cooling your burning need for democide with occupation happiness penalties gives defensively postured civs some breathing room in the mid-game because it makes bowling them over the moment you get ironworking + mathematics a less appealing option; it gives them more time to prepare their defenses and react. At the same time, a well-thought out plan for world domination in the industrial/modern era is feasible, provided you don't mind spending most of the medieval era knocking out one or two of your rivals and building your treasury and armed forces. Furthermore it reinforces the need for diplomacy and trade, because if you want to build an expansive empire and you haven't been exceptionally blessed with a wide array of luxury resources, you will need to help each other out by trading the ones you do have. SlightlyMadman posted:You could also just say "gently caress in" and hope you kill everyone before your army became too antiquated. Ah yes, the Russian Model. SlightlyMadman posted:The thing that made it fun was that it wasn't a brick wall you ran up against, but rather a set of challenges with multiple solutions. To put it as un-condescendingly as possible, I think the problem here is that you haven't found enough strategies to deal with occupation unhappiness. Stack your low-production cities with happiness producing buildings, so that while your designated "training camps" are churning out swordsmen, you'll have a row of Colosseums and Theatres under construction to provide you with a happiness cushion to start out on. Forge trade alliances with other civs early on to bring in extra luxury goods. Plan your expansions and conquests strategically to seize new ones, or to seize financial hubs to bring in the cash to pay for rushing courthouses. And, of course, invest in Autocracy when possible. thehumandignity fucked around with this message at Apr 9, 2012 around 22:11 |
| # ? Apr 9, 2012 22:05 |
|
|
I'd also like to throw the concept of Inflation out there as something horrible and arbitrarily player-limiting that needs to go away from the Civ series.
|
| # ? Apr 9, 2012 22:33 |
|
|
thehumandignity posted:The thing about happiness, though, is that it forces you to make incursions on I never said I wasn't good at it, just that I thought civ4's model was more fun. I'm glad to see that's the least condescending you get though. Have fun with that. I think Civ5 is a good game, I just liked Civ4's economic model better. You're not going to convince me otherwise, because it's a personal preference.
|
| # ? Apr 9, 2012 22:38 |
|
|
Efexeye posted:I'd also like to throw the concept of Inflation out there as something horrible and arbitrarily player-limiting that needs to go away from the Civ series. Oh gently caress yes. This. Inflation was loving horrible in Civ 4. Also, people seriously have a problem with Civ 5's happiness system? The only time it's ever acted like an absolute brick wall for me is the Mongol scenario on Deity. By the time you're hitting the absolute maximum happiness caps the game is already gonna either be over or drat close to over unless you're specifically aiming for a Score Victory in 2050.
|
| # ? Apr 9, 2012 22:42 |
|
|
I'm sorry if I misinterpreted your post but I didn't see any way to read that "[Civ IV's inflation] wasn't a brick wall you ran up against, but rather a set of challenges with multiple solutions" that didn't also seem to imply that you see unhappiness in Civ V as a brick wall with only one or no viable solutions.
|
| # ? Apr 9, 2012 22:52 |
|
|
I would argue that corruption was just that much better than Civ5's happiness because it wasn't a hard stop to your expansionism. That is, if you plopped down another city past your corruption limit, it'd be limited to 1 hammer-per-turn and 1 GPT forever, but it would not gently caress over the rest of your empire and you could actually do SOMETHING with that corrupted city.
gradenko_2000 fucked around with this message at Apr 10, 2012 around 01:40 |
| # ? Apr 10, 2012 00:44 |
|
|
Edit: Way late with this, but: I've noticed that Bluetooth usually loses in my games, but its not because of slow growth. He often rapidly expands early I've noticed. What end up killing him is that he is too aggressive, and it seems like every game he is in has managed to piss off pretty much everybody by the half way point. Which is usually his downfall.
|
| # ? Apr 10, 2012 01:35 |
|
|
I really dislike the maintenance system of V. I feel punished for building things. I 'd also like it if I could gold-rush partially constructed buildings.
|
| # ? Apr 10, 2012 04:17 |
|
|
HappyHelmet posted:Edit: Way late with this, but:
|
| # ? Apr 10, 2012 05:57 |
|
|
Trivia posted:I really dislike the maintenance system of V. I feel punished for building things. I 'd also like it if I could gold-rush partially constructed buildings. Yeah it really feels off in so many ways. Build something in your city? It costs maintenance. Train a unit? Costs maintenance. The only way to play is to make lots of trading posts and gun for wonders so even if you lose the race you get gold back.
|
| # ? Apr 10, 2012 05:59 |
|
|
Mystic_Shadow posted:Yeah it really feels off in so many ways. Build something in your city? It costs maintenance. Train a unit? Costs maintenance. The only way to play is to make lots of trading posts and gun for wonders so even if you lose the race you get gold back. Uhhhhhh.......no. The solution is to play smart and only build the stuff you need so that you don't have a fuckton of superfluous poo poo dragging your economy down. Unless you're going for a gigantic puppet empire that is, in which case you should be spamming Trading Posts everywhere so that they don't end up growing incredibly huge and crashing your happiness.
|
| # ? Apr 10, 2012 06:29 |
|
|
Speaking of crashing your happiness, does anyone else have trouble with the extra food from tradition giving you permanent anger once you conquer a few cities or build a few extra? Um, or it's just not meant to be used for sprawling (except when playing as Gandhi)?
|
| # ? Apr 10, 2012 09:40 |
|
|
Mystic_Shadow posted:Yeah it really feels off in so many ways. Build something in your city? It costs maintenance. Train a unit? Costs maintenance. The only way to play is to make lots of trading posts and gun for wonders so even if you lose the race you get gold back. Trading posts are certainly important, but I don't really understand your point of view as a criticism, since it seems to me like you could say it about any resource in the game. "Every city needs food to grow, so the only way to play is to make lots of farms and build +food buildings." "Every city needs production to make things, so the only way to play is to build lots of mines and lumber mills and +production buildings." "Every civilization needs science, so the only way to play..." and so on. It's not too hard to get over a hundred GPT by the mid-game playing even a moderately fast conquest strategy, or to trade resources for cash to mitigate being in the negatives for awhile. As for happiness, burn AI cities you take that don't have new luxuries, pillage all of the AI's farms around a city before you claim it (and eventually replace with trading posts once your workers catch up), build a few happiness buildings in your core cities, and use happiness generating policies with a high potential. (Liberty's +1 happiness for trade routes and Piety's +1 happiness for monument/temple, for instance, if you're playing a conquest game.)
|
| # ? Apr 10, 2012 10:25 |
|
|
Also Honour's +1 Happiness for garrisoning troops and for Walls, Castles and Arsenals.
|
| # ? Apr 10, 2012 11:06 |
|
|
gradenko_2000 posted:I would argue that corruption was just that much better than Civ5's happiness because it wasn't a hard stop to your expansionism. That is, if you plopped down another city past your corruption limit, it'd be limited to 1 hammer-per-turn and 1 GPT forever, but it would not gently caress over the rest of your empire and you could actually do SOMETHING with that corrupted city. If you're operating in negatives to begin with, or you're accruing enough unhappiness to tank yourself down to -10 in several turns then you need to examine what you're doing, not just toddle along and blame the happiness mechanic for loving your empire.
|
| # ? Apr 10, 2012 11:54 |
|
|
thehumandignity posted:I'm sorry if I misinterpreted your post but I didn't see any way to read that "[Civ IV's inflation] wasn't a brick wall you ran up against, but rather a set of challenges with multiple solutions" that didn't also seem to imply that you see unhappiness in Civ V as a brick wall with only one or no viable solutions. Are you trying to argue that Civ5's happiness system isn't a simpler system than Civ4's? I'm pretty sure that was the developer's intent and I feel like they succeeded. I liked Civ4's economic model better, that's all I'm saying. I know we're all really sick of people making GBS threads up the thread with "DURR CIV5 SUCKS" but you don't have to jump all over anyone who says they liked one aspect of the previous game better.
|
| # ? Apr 10, 2012 13:21 |
|
|
I think the issue is saying that happiness is a brick wall, because it certainly does not end your game if you slip below 0 happiness, or 10 happiness... or 20 happiness! You can do that sometimes and still win the game because there are situations where it's a net benefit for you to conquer a bunch of cities and then enter a build up period before continuing conquest. Civ 5 gives you several ways to get happiness and if you have any reasonable plan in mind it's not going to gently caress you up. Do you really want to play ICS or what?
|
| # ? Apr 10, 2012 14:54 |
|
|
Sacro posted:I think the issue is saying that happiness is a brick wall, because it certainly does not end your game if you slip below 0 happiness, or 10 happiness... or 20 happiness! You can do that sometimes and still win the game because there are situations where it's a net benefit for you to conquer a bunch of cities and then enter a build up period before continuing conquest. Yes you're right, you win. I want ICS and corruption because I'm a big stupid dummy and I eat poo.
|
| # ? Apr 10, 2012 15:00 |
|
|
The first step to recovery is admitting you have a problem. Also: can anyone comment on how much (if any) better the multiplayer has become since launch? It was such a pile of poo poo originally, and I'm hoping that it at least smells better before the expansion launches.
|
| # ? Apr 10, 2012 15:27 |
|
|
So the periodic lists of military strength, tech, etc... are all helpful, especially considering there is 0 espionage element to this game until the expansion comes out. But what's with the social policy one? It always seems to be wrong to me, at least since I've been counting. I had 4 trees fully finished and had unlocked a 5th and it said I had 29 social policies. 4*6+1=25 doesn't it? I could easily see it undercounting due to 'free policy' mechanics but what's with 29? This has happened in more than one game, all on either prince/king difficulty. edit- \/\/\/ That makes a lot more sense now even if it is stupid in implementation. Thanks. USDA Choice fucked around with this message at Apr 10, 2012 around 16:58 |
| # ? Apr 10, 2012 16:25 |
|
|
USDA Choice posted:But what's with the social policy one? It always seems to be wrong to me, at least since I've been counting. I had 4 trees fully finished and had unlocked a 5th and it said I had 29 social policies. 4*6+1=25 doesn't it? I could easily see it undercounting due to 'free policy' mechanics but what's with 29? This has happened in more than one game, all on either prince/king difficulty. My best guess is that it counts the completion bonus as a separate "policy," since it's technically a new ability/bonus and I can see the programming counting just those abilities.
|
| # ? Apr 10, 2012 16:36 |
|
|
Adopting and completing a policy tree count towards the most progressive people list. So in your case you had 7*4 from finishing four trees, and one more from adopting a fifth tree to make 29 in the list.
Geight fucked around with this message at Apr 10, 2012 around 17:12 |
| # ? Apr 10, 2012 17:08 |
|
|
Forward_Bee posted:The first step to recovery is admitting you have a problem. Anecdote isn't data, but: I played multiple 2-player/6-ai games to conclusion without encountering a desync or crash or significant lag in term times (though we were blitzing, so if you want to have a long culture game I don't know how good the prognosis would be.)
|
| # ? Apr 10, 2012 17:10 |
|
|
Am I crazy or has no one written a mod to show the "fat hex" of a city, especially when you're about to found it. I dislike counting the grid tiles and a quick and easy UI mod would be really nice.
|
| # ? Apr 10, 2012 18:01 |
|
|
I hope the expansion improves the AI so it plays in a more interesting manner, and moves away from the 'my stuff is worth way more than your stuff' thing. I assume when I try to trade luxury A for luxury B, which is an equal trade and beneficial to us both, the AI demands another resource, gold, and open borders to try and curb the human player from getting too much of an advantage by smart trading. I just find it really annoying. It is also kind of a Civ tradition though.
|
| # ? Apr 10, 2012 18:21 |
|
|
What happened here?  I've never played Polynesia but I don't remember this being a feature of theirs.
|
| # ? Apr 10, 2012 18:22 |
|
|
When you get a free scientist the best option is to burn him for a free tech right? (assuming one that takes many turns is available) I always burn or wait and burn, I don't use any of his other features.
|
| # ? Apr 10, 2012 18:56 |
|
|
Contest Winner posted:I hope the expansion improves the AI so it plays in a more interesting manner, and moves away from the 'my stuff is worth way more than your stuff' thing. I assume when I try to trade luxury A for luxury B, which is an equal trade and beneficial to us both, the AI demands another resource, gold, and open borders to try and curb the human player from getting too much of an advantage by smart trading. I just find it really annoying. It is also kind of a Civ tradition though. I hope the AI can realize when it's losing a war. I'm sick of seeing my adviser saying "The war with Rome is not going well" after I have just killed 10 of their units, and taken a city." Then Rome proposes a treaty where I give them all of my gold and resources in exchange for peace.
|
| # ? Apr 10, 2012 19:10 |
|
|
I also want the option to trade maps again and have the ability to reveal the whole map once you get satellites. Here's to hoping 
|
| # ? Apr 10, 2012 19:13 |
|
|
Quodio Stotes posted:When you get a free scientist the best option is to burn him for a free tech right? (assuming one that takes many turns is available) I always burn or wait and burn, I don't use any of his other features. You can drop the academy if you'll get more use out of it than the single tech you'd get, such as if you have an observatory city earlier in the game or a similar situation.
|
| # ? Apr 10, 2012 19:14 |
|
|
Boondock Saint posted:I also want ... the ability to reveal the whole map once you get satellites. This was patched into the game a while ago.
|
| # ? Apr 10, 2012 19:33 |
|
|
|
| # ? May 25, 2013 19:20 |
|
|
Quodio Stotes posted:When you get a free scientist the best option is to burn him for a free tech right? (assuming one that takes many turns is available) I always burn or wait and burn, I don't use any of his other features. 99% of the time, yes, the best thing to do is burn him for a tech.
|
| # ? Apr 10, 2012 19:35 |
|
