|
So apparently if you play with Japan + YNAEMP mods on with the real city names option turned on, this happens: ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 'Ritchimondo' 'Nasshubiru 'Atoranta'
|
#
¿
Dec 16, 2017 18:50
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 16, 2024 00:21 |
|
|
I feel the extra city penalties in Civ V is greatly exaggerated. I think Liberty is quite anaemic and could have been balanced much better, but even so I rarely have trouble making a city 'pay for itself' until at least mid game.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 17, 2017 07:22
|
|
|
StashAugustine posted:civ needs to actually commit to being either a competitive or a sandbox game imo. either would be neat but it needs to pick one and stick to it Civ as a sandbox empire builder is pretty poo poo. I think the real dichotomy is whether Civ wants to be a finely tuned virtual board game with historical theming or a fleshed out alternate history simulator. Unfortunately these often stand at odds with one another. So the Facebook page just posted a teaser about upcoming features that featured a guy with a very ‘I’m going to colonize the poo poo out of you’ look on his face. New leader or maybe the governor? Would post image but imgur doesn’t like my phone.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 15, 2018 16:30
|
|
|
As a couple with a combined 4000+ hours in the Civilization series, myself and my fiancé will undoubtedly be corporate whores playing this on release day. If it’s bad our entertainment will come from doing our best ‘What were they thinking?!’ AVGN impersonations. To this day we find the game nigh unplayable without CQUI. They should probably just roll that mod into he base game.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 15, 2018 18:01
|
|
|
Magil Zeal posted:On this subject though Maintaining good relationships is actually very possible now and the people who continue to complain about it probably aren’t doing the necessary things to maintain relationships (e.g. embassies, a deal, and a trade route with every other Civ). Or they’re wondering why the AI thinks they’re a warmonger after they take territory in a ‘defensive’ war. You’re always going to encounter rear end in a top hat leaders, but that’s just the name of the game. I regularly have neutral or better relationships with 80% of the other Civs, even when playing ludicrous games (~40 Civ YNAEMP game).
|
|
#
¿
Jan 16, 2018 00:40
|
|
|
 Don’t worry canucks, we’ll show up in the game as DLC now that the Aussies are in, right?... right?
|
|
#
¿
Jan 17, 2018 00:10
|
|
|
So the new city banner is nice and definitely more informative than before. I might even like it better than CQUI if not for the fact I miss the specialty district icons. Seems like they more or less ‘borrowed’ a whole bunch of the CQUI tweaks.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 8, 2018 15:27
|
|
|
I'm feeling like this expansion is as good as BNW, relatively speaking. Especially considering that Civ VI was so comparatively feature rich at launch. My problem with Civ VI was and continues to be dumb AI and bad use interface decisions. R&F is definitely a step in the right direction for the UI, but it continues with some mind bogglingly stupid decisions. I feel the scroll bar on a great person screen is like a perfect microcosm of all the wrong decisions Civ VI made.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 12, 2018 19:19
|
|
|
Kudos to the expansion for some things though- spies are actually fun to use now. Combined with the loyalty mechanic, full-blown cold wars are possible now. Especially with other human players.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 3, 2018 06:16
|
|
|
JeremoudCorbynejad posted:Can you elaborate? I love cold war ideas and wish Civilisation would get this right, but I just can't imagine Civ 6 doing proxy wars or mutually assured destruction right (I don't have the expac) I essentially just waged a culture/spy war with an old rival- placing governors and running 'bread and circuses' and poo poo to flip ~4 cities with no military action whatsoever. Open warfare would have been too costly. JeremoudCorbynejad posted:I kinda feel like MAD wouldn't be that hard to design into the game actually, even if it is turn-based. Here's the simplest implementation of MAD I can think of: Nukes have a 1-turn delay on deployment, and the target of the Nuke is alerted to the launch. Perhaps whether you're alerted is dependent on the construction or research of some detection system.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 3, 2018 20:23
|
|
|
I agree governors are amazing, but I kind of feel like Magnus has the same problem as tradition in Civ V- I’m not seeing a reason not to pick him as my first choice once I realized how insane the superchop boost is.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 6, 2018 21:49
|
|
|
Zulily Zoetrope posted:Also Free Cities basically being barbarians is apparently a design choice they're doubling down on. Probably my most hated decision for the current game. Free cities absolutely should take on the status of a city state you can be at peace with. And perhaps even spawn a new Civ if their borders contain multiple cities.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 9, 2018 22:33
|
|
|
So did the game actually get patched today? I didn't see any updates in my logs or Steam downloads.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 22, 2018 14:41
|
|
|
Are there any mods yet (or being worked on) t lhat allow Free Cities to become new civilizations or city states? Because if not, there really needs to be one. The rebellion mechanic is fun but the fact free cities, if they remain independent, are permanently hostile ‘barbarian nations’ is really dumb. Besides, I really want a crazy organic colonial game to emerge from the mechanics. I want to play TSL Britain and put down the fledgling American empire dammit. Glory to the (virtual) commonwealth!
|
|
#
¿
Apr 5, 2018 19:05
|
|
|
Can’t wait for this expansion focused on international diplomacy, canals, and exploiting geography to finally introduce Canada to a mainline civ game, right guys? But seriously, there’s not even a modded Canadian civ on the Workshop anymore. If ever there was a time where it looked like Canada could be included for thematic appropriateness and cheap pandering, it seems like it’s now. Lester B Pearson would be an obvious pick if we have to have another western Civ or two, what with the Suez Canal Crisis. CANDU reactor could even play into the new energy mechanic, given Canada’s participation in the development of Nuclear Energy. I didn’t see anything in the trailer that pointed to Canada though, and the way the Facebook page is teasing the new civ reveals implies there are major clues for the new civs in that trailer. I found one reddit thread that treats Canada as a confirmed addition but can’t find the evidence. PoizenJam fucked around with this message at 20:13 on Nov 26, 2018 |
|
#
¿
Nov 26, 2018 20:01
|
|
|
I feel like the congress would be so much better if there were two rounds of voting: one that determined which motions go to the floor, and one on the motions themselves. I love almost everything about present Civ 6 except the randomness of the options up for vote. I think allowing people to vote on which options are brought to the floor also creates a neat meta game of balancing prioritizing bringing issues to the floor vs. power to determine the outcome. We already have this mechanic somewhat with grievances triggering proposal opportunities, but I think that should simply be one among a more general proposal system with varying prerequisites.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 27, 2019 04:41
|
|
|
JeremoudCorbynejad posted:And then, if i remember correctly, they quietly fixed it without ever admitting the error They did cop to this, and believe it or not they thanked the modder that found (and initially patched) it. But they also described it in a way that implied the bug was relatively minor and not some game-breakingly bad typo that persisted for over a year. Also yes, the World Congress is hands down the worst part about Civ VI. Something closer to Civ V would be great, but tweaked a little bit. Instead of only the top civs adding proposals perhaps diplomatic favour can be spent to put proposals up for debate and vote on those proposals. So you have to choose between bringing proposals to the floor and controlling the outcome of proposals. I have to choose whether to put up a vote to 'embargo _____' or hold on to my favor so that I can downvote someone else's luxury ban proposal. Also make governments/ideologies more salient in international relations as time goes on to encourage those alliance-blocks like we saw in Civ5 BNW.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 28, 2019 20:32
|
|
|
The Human Crouton posted:I remember if funnier. That it was thought to be a major bug because it was affecting how the AI builds, and the same typo was in many places. But the AI was written so poorly that nothing changed even after it was corrected and working as intended. It didn't improve the military AI, no, but the build AI significantly improved from my subjective experience.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 29, 2019 01:09
|
|
|
I think the change to how movement cost works is good, at least conceptually. It makes maneuverable units and movement speed promotions more valuable. I can frequently exploit this tactically to ensure the survival of units or place them in a clever way. The main problem is that 1UPT already causes plenty of traffic jams and slow movement as it is, and the movement cost change compounds that. I've been a defender of 1UPT and the attempts to turn the military game into 'Advance Wars Lite'. I will always maintain it's more engaging than doom stacks. I get that doom stacks are an abstraction of economic power, and some people prefer that kind of war, but I just don't. That being said, there's something that feels wrong about the scale in Civ V & VI when it comes to tactical turn-based combat. The corps/army system helps but doesn't fix everything. It think for 1UPT to work well, you'd need a base movement speed of 3 or 4. I've played mods like this and it makes the combat feel better, but it also makes it way too easy to explore the entire map much more quickly- so it hurts another aspect of the game. I wonder if it would be better to increase the 'resolution' of the map tiles to compensate. That way movement across the world is similarly paced, but maneuverability increases on the micro scale for war.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 30, 2020 15:22
|
|
|
Across my last several games I think I may have noticed a glitch. When negotiating peace, demand every one of your opponents’ cities you can without triggering outright refusal (I.e. ‘what would it take?’ Needs to remain an option). They still refuse, but once I click ‘What would it take?’ They switch to accepting the deal without any further alterations. Has this happened to anyone else? Is the AI just more willing to cede cities than before, particularly when they’ve been defeated militarily?
|
|
#
¿
Oct 27, 2020 13:29
|
|
|
Goa Tse-tung posted:this game-pass has been horrible in that regard if you play with mods I hate the season pass release model for Civ DLC that adds/modifies game modes for this reason. Myself and my partner find the game incredibly cumbersome without CQUI (so good- cuts the number of clicks required to do anything by like... 75%) and the Global Relations mod, and we're having trouble completing games before they're broken by whatever season pass update comes out. If they must do piecemeal DLC, I'd really rather they reserve gameplay additions to major expansions and just release new Civs.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 28, 2020 14:57
|
|
|
I have never personally organized a game involving >2 people that lasted more than 2 sessions.  But if you want a game that's competitive without immediate warfare, I'd suggest playing on a map 1 size larger than the intended player count. 6 players on a standard size map. Early war is strongly driven by land claims and border establishment, and that will give you more breathing room. Dynamic turns could be a huge slog, but are the most fair option. Alternatively, play simultaneous turns and follow the 'gentleman's rule'- the aggressor moves military units first, then the defender. As for what victory type is most common... That comes down to your skill level. To be frank, a score victory should be very rare among a group of human players. It would take a pretty bad map and sloggy back-and-forth war for no one to score a science victory I figure. The earliest achievable wins are religion/domination wins maybe?
|
|
#
¿
Nov 5, 2020 20:15
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 16, 2024 00:21 |
|
|
Is there a mod to fix the 'AI cedes all their poo poo in peace deals' bug? I usually play mixed human/AI multiplayer games with my partner, and this game has been essentially unplayable for us since late Summer. There's not even a way to find out what the AI would fairly give you in a peace deal, so you can't even obey an honour system to work around it. I'll live with every other bit of garbage AI in this game, but this bug is completely gamebreaking to both of us. And it's ludicrous that it's been around for half a year now, through multiple content updates, and I have no way to revert to an earlier version where the bug wasn't present. PoizenJam fucked around with this message at 18:08 on Jan 23, 2021 |
|
#
¿
Jan 23, 2021 18:05
|
|