|
Scalding Coffee posted:What is wrong with the other one? OP is super salty about the graphics, and also didn't notify the Civ5 thread (or participate in it at all AFAICT). 
|
#
¿
May 14, 2016 00:50
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 29, 2024 17:36 |
|
|
Node posted:People that like good games instead of bad ones are grognards. Civ4 is grognardy as gently caress (EDIT: considering the scope of the game, I mean), I don't think that's a controversial statement. Civ5 is much simpler, and thus the people who liked Civ4 for being grognardy have been bitching about it for half a decade now. sarmhan posted:Civ 4 religion wasn't very interesting either. It was a rather convulted way of maybe getting a bunch of gold. Civ V's religion has way more going on, although as with everything I'll be interested to see how they tweaked it for VI. Civ4's religion was a hammer the game used to keep things from becoming diplomatic lovefests, and it worked very well in that regard. It was usually not possible for the player to be friends with everyone. Civ5's religion had interesting mechanical ideas but was completely ruined by a) the AI being willing and able to spam missionaries all day every day, and b) missionaries invading your territory not being considered a casus belli.
|
|
#
¿
May 14, 2016 05:53
|
|
|
Eighty posted:Who would even be the leader? Trudeau? King? John A MacDonald? Tim Horton.
|
|
#
¿
May 16, 2016 02:59
|
|
|
Gold vs. production makes a certain amount of sense: if you don't have any major projects you're working on right now, then your civ can dedicate its productive capacity towards banking resources. Then you can pay nebulous other entities with those banked resources at a later date, rather than use your own productive capacity. It's kind of like the difference between a state-owned corporation and a contractor. It is weird from a simulationist standpoint that you get results instantly when you spend gold, though.
|
|
#
¿
May 16, 2016 16:34
|
|
|
Especially since a few of the leader bonuses were clearly massively better/worse than the others (looking at you, Financial and Protective).
|
|
#
¿
May 16, 2016 17:23
|
|
|
SirKibbles posted:She doesn't count because if you have the same religion she's fine. Buddhist warmonger Isabella is a Civilization classic that surpasses nuke-happy Gandhi IMO.
|
|
#
¿
May 16, 2016 18:36
|
|
|
John Dough posted:The base game will mostly have all the classic civs already discussed, but it would be cool if they used one DLC pack to put in a few more obscure Civs. Maybe Hawaii, or Lapland, or the Kurds. A Micronation DLC Pack would be pretty amusing. Get the Marshall Islands in there, Liechtenstein, Rwanda, etc. Maybe upgrade a few of the city-states to full-on civ status.
|
|
#
¿
May 16, 2016 21:38
|
|
|
Oh, and don't forget about Sealand!
|
|
#
¿
May 16, 2016 21:50
|
|
|
Proposition Joe posted:Canada and Australia got a bunch of city states over other more historical possibilities. City states are also the best way to represent cultures and nations that can't make it into the main game as a full playable "civilization" and hopefully they add some more features for them, like maybe giving militaristic city states their own unique units or certain city states their own unique wonders. Given that Civilization is in large part about making weird wacky alt-histories, having full-blown civs for nations that in reality are relatively small is not remotely impossible or a bad idea.
|
|
#
¿
May 17, 2016 02:37
|
|
|
Yeah, it sounds to me like you have to have a specific district built as a prerequisite for building certain buildings (and possibly units). Want to have a library? You need the campus. Want to have a barracks? You need the military district. Etc. There's 12 district types and they compete with tile improvements for space around your city, which should hopefully fix the "just build everything" problem that Civ 5 had (leading to a bunch of cities that all looked identical) while also being a more obvious tradeoff than Civ 4's upkeep and commerce system. And of course wonders also take up map space. I wonder if you can end up crippling a city's long-term growth prospects by building too many wonders around it early on.
|
|
#
¿
May 17, 2016 03:49
|
|
|
Cowman posted:I want an Antarctica DLC where all your units are military penguins and orcas for sea. Lead by a very confused polar bear.
|
|
#
¿
May 17, 2016 04:22
|
|
|
My beef with Civ4's cities wasn't that it was hard to manage large numbers of cities, just that it was a pain in the rear end to do so. Rather than make having large empires an actively bad idea in Civ5, I would rather have had a governor I could trust to make reasonable decisions after some basic configuration.
|
|
#
¿
May 17, 2016 16:42
|
|
|
berryjon posted:You know what would be an elegant/cute cheat? When you set your Governor's settings, have the AI copy it for their cities. After all, if it's good enough for the human, the AI can use it too! It really feels like you ought to just be able to say "keep the people from revolting, otherwise build science buildings first, then buildings that give hammers, then buildings that give gold" and the governor would almost always do the right thing. I don't feel like choosing which building to build is a hard decision, in other words...so why are AI cities always so lovely? I guess part of it is the awful, awful worker automation, which keeps AI cities from having the hammers to actually build things. But again, it's not like human players are applying especially complicated logic there -- it's basically "okay, throw down farms everywhere you can, and mines on hills with no freshwater". But you routinely see Civ5 cities in the modern era that are primarily working unimproved tiles! It's not like the AI lacks for workers, so what the hell are they doing?
|
|
#
¿
May 17, 2016 17:24
|
|
|
Put another way, it took them four iterations plus the usual bevy of expansions (plus SMAC) to get the original Civ style right; expecting them to get the new Civ style right in two iterations (plus BE) is optimistic. Doesn't mean it won't be a good game, but mostly we're looking for "fixes the most glaring flaws in its predecessor" as our metric for success.
|
|
#
¿
May 18, 2016 02:42
|
|
|
JVNO posted:I think If they gave ranged units minimum range and made them more vulnerable to melee, they'd be a lot more squishy and balanced. I like that ranged units can shoot multiple tiles, but I don't think the Advance Wars or Tactics style range mechanics work well when you only move or shoot two tiles a turn. I would be fine if maneuverability and range are scaled up. The big problems with ranged units are that they don't get hurt when they attack and that you can bring a lot more ranged attack to bear on a single enemy unit than you can bring melee attack to bear. Increasing attack ranges makes the latter problem worse even if they have a firing shadow, and the former problem would be completely untouched. Making them squishier in melee...well, they're going to be part of combined-arms military now, so they'll be paired with melee units to defend them better. I'd go in the opposite direction and just remove ranged attack altogether. Archers just become another melee unit, one that specializes at attacking but has crap defense.
|
|
#
¿
May 18, 2016 14:23
|
|
|
CountFosco posted:loving hexes? Again??? Yeah man, where's my octagon/square tesselated tileset?
|
|
#
¿
May 18, 2016 19:19
|
|
|
sarmhan posted:I'm pretty sure that's just a bad quote- it seems completely redundant with districts, which we know basically fill the same role. It could be that your city has a population cap, which building these suburban districts could help alleviate. Want to grow above size 10? You're gonna need some sprawl. Man, protecting cities is going to be a bitch in Civ 6.
|
|
#
¿
May 18, 2016 21:39
|
|
|
JeremoudCorbynejad posted:http://t0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcRYGVPk62rnykTJZeY_0NQIDGVk0XAMP8XdadWGa0hUIVZheziO Yeah, there's room for a whole 12 cities! Actually, a micro-4X game where every tile is a city could potentially be interesting. No terrain to speak of, but diplomacy becomes incredibly important and every city is always vulnerable to attack.
|
|
#
¿
May 18, 2016 21:49
|
|
|
I want a stealth worker I can use to build a mountain pass so I can backstab your "impregnable" capital.
|
|
#
¿
May 18, 2016 22:44
|
|
|
The French Army! posted:The AI in this had better be willing to trade me luxury resource for luxury resource because the most glaringly wrong thing in V is asking to straight trade marble for whales and the AI demanding that you give it marble, silver, furs and a pile of cash. What even causes it to be so unreasonably one sided in trade? They do this because they hate you. They give much more balanced trades if they don't hate you as much (the Civ5 AI always hates you at least a little, it has no concept of the idea of friendship).
|
|
#
¿
May 19, 2016 01:09
|
|
|
Serephina posted:That just reminded me, I've had an odd scenario play out once or twice on deity in Civ5 whereupon getting nukes, every neighbour's status changed into 'Afraid' for a few turns. After just googling it now, it seems more common early game on the lower difficulties and is totally non-nuke-related. Has anyone ever managed to capitalize on it? Nukes count massively for army score, so building a few could easily make the AI think you massively out-military them. I've definitely seen that happen on Emperor.
|
|
#
¿
May 20, 2016 04:49
|
|
|
Gort posted:I'd say giant ideological power blocs forming should be a feature of the atomic age. Hard to say how you get that into the usual Civ "only one country can win" formula though. You get it by having AI civs not be playing to win. Civ4's diplomatic victory involved actually making friends with a significant portion of the world, as opposed to Civ5's "conquer half the world and bribe all the city-states" model. That didn't work in Civ5 simply because AI civs always hated you.
|
|
#
¿
May 20, 2016 15:53
|
|
|
Gort posted:How does that work in multiplayer, though? Mutual victories, I guess? Doesn't the game have permanent alliances where if one of the civs in the alliance wins, the other(s) win as well?
|
|
#
¿
May 20, 2016 16:05
|
|
|
Eric the Mauve posted:Whether to optimize the game design for single player or multiplayer is an important and unavoidable decision. If you optimize for multiplayer then AI civs should behave as much like humans as possible: win or die trying. I don't think this follows, actually. If you're in a multiplayer game, wouldn't you rather the AI-controlled civs be "part of the game board" rather than a lovely stand-in for another player? Manipulating AIs should be part of the multiplayer gameplay (unless of course you play a no-AI game).
|
|
#
¿
May 20, 2016 16:25
|
|
|
Tuxedo Gin posted:It would end up as something like a spike in upkeep the further from your own territory you are, which would probably not be fun. Great Generals already (in Civ 5) act like mobile logistics centers, by buffing units that are adjacent to them. Remember that any penalty can be rewritten as a withheld bonus without changing mechanics.
|
|
#
¿
May 21, 2016 05:56
|
|
|
Star Warrior X posted:I liked it when caravans were units that you had to walk to their destination. I would make it so that your military units don't heal on their own, but you can build cheap 'supply' units which destroy themselves to give some amount of health to friendly military units on the same tile. Then you would have supply lines without needing a whole new mechanic or another hidden number or modifier, as it's just health. I like this concept in principle, though I'm a little worried about how much overhead it'd add to warfare. I think I'd want to make certain that running supply convoys is not something you'd be expected to handle in micro for every conflict. That is, if you wanted to make certain that a specific army was okay, then you could bundle a supply convoy with them, but that'd be a tradeoff you'd be making, and you wouldn't generally want (or need) to send out a continual train of supply convoys to your army as it operates in the field. Maybe supply convoys just give you 2x the health value you get from pillaging an improvement. It's nice, certainly, especially if you've already pillaged everything or you want to keep tile improvements around, but it's not something you'd want to have instead of, say, a ranged support squad. EDIT: something I've often wondered about is why you aren't allowed to spend production on upgrading a unit. If I want to park a unit in a city and dedicate that city's productive output into getting said unit a poo poo-ton of promotions, why can't I? Obviously the hammer cost of promotions would need to be balanced, but you're spending production on non-economic means, and you can still lose the unit and thus all the hammers you spent on making your super-unit. TooMuchAbstraction fucked around with this message at 21:50 on May 23, 2016 |
|
#
¿
May 23, 2016 21:47
|
|
|
Poil posted:I only play at emperor but there is certainly no diplomacy involved. That's because you're playing Civ5. In Civ4 there was actual diplomacy. I mean, you could game it (e.g. buying allies by repeatedly giving them tiny gifts), but it was still "you can make friends with the AI, and thereby convince them to do things they wouldn't otherwise do, including join you in wars and vote for you for diplo victory".
|
|
#
¿
May 24, 2016 00:01
|
|
|
Jay Rust posted:What's stopping you from doing that in Civ V? The maintenance cost? The main thing that stops me from bringing workers with me in Civ5 is that you can't stack workers and thereby build roads in a single turn. In Civ4 you could basically bring a corps of engineers with you and slam out improvements as you needed them. It is still occasionally worth building roads out to your enemy's borders in advance of declaring war, though, especially if there's a lot of terrain in the way.
|
|
#
¿
May 24, 2016 01:54
|
|
|
SpaceCommunist posted:* The glorious armies of communist America going to war against the robber-baron capitalists of Persia * Getting into a holy war with Buddhist Queen Izzy.
|
|
#
¿
May 24, 2016 22:13
|
|
|
There's only so many iconic Egyptian leaders. Hatty, Rameses, and Cleo are by far the most famous, so it's no surprise that they cycle through them routinely. Much as I would have enjoyed the resulting flamewars, there's no way they would've used Obama for the American civ. I think the most recent leader ever used for any civ was Stalin, with FDR/Gandhi as close seconds. The devs want at least a generation or two to have passed before they'll use a leader; it's just too contentious otherwise.
|
|
#
¿
May 25, 2016 17:30
|
|
|
For those who didn't watch the video: I dunno, he looks cartoony and his cheeks are comically huge, but otherwise he doesn't look that fat.
|
|
#
¿
May 25, 2016 18:43
|
|
|
Xelkelvos posted:It looks like Qin Shi Huang, the Yellow Emperor. I 100% wager that if it's him, China will be an annoying SoB since his claims to fame are basically big engineering projects (like Wonders) and bureaucratizing the nation to better function as a war machine and conquer the poo poo out of its neighbors. The video states that one of China's UUs is a builder that can be used to rush wonders. At least China as a wonderwhore will be a change of pace.
|
|
#
¿
May 25, 2016 20:28
|
|
|
Clarste posted:When they say "rush wonder" I'm guessing it's significantly less of a boost than a Great Engineer. You'll probably need to throw multiple workers at it to finish in a reasonable amount of time at all (unless only China can do it at all, n which case, still). Really it sounds like builders are simply a means of transferring hammers from cities to the terrain. Maybe all wonders are built by builders and it's just a question of how many charges you spend? It's not clear to me if cities build anything directly besides units and buildings-in-districts.
|
|
#
¿
May 25, 2016 21:11
|
|
|
Jastiger posted:And the leaders did too as you progressed ala Civ 4. You're thinking of Civ3, with its punk-rocker Joan of Arc.
|
|
#
¿
May 25, 2016 22:19
|
|
|
Xelkelvos posted:hopefully the victory conditions are a little more distinct. In base Civ, from my experience, all of victory conditions except for Warfare essentially involve reaching the endgame era. Diplomatic victory is probably the next earliest, but is ultimately a survival game as you try not to piss off everyone by being allies with as many CSes as possible. Culture and Tourism don't really take shape until the latter techs since they unlock buildings that boost Tourism output and winning without them is essentially impossible. There's also the Science Victory which is pretty much the last possible victory condition outside of Time I expect that all victory conditions will still usually involve playing a "full" game, where you're in the last era at least before you achieve victory. There'll be gimmicks like getting absurd early conquest victories or maybe something like Civ4's Apostolic Palace religious victory, but otherwise, you're in it for the long haul. Victory should prove your civ's dominance, and if there remains the possibility of a later civ outshining you by whatever metric, how have you truly won? That said, I do hope that Civ6's victories involve playing differently moreso than they do in Civ5. In particular, it'd be nice if the diplomatic victory wasn't really an economic victory -- in Civ5 it's almost entirely just a measure of how effectively you can bribe city-states.
|
|
#
¿
May 25, 2016 23:26
|
|
|
Gort posted:I'd be very surprised if it ran better than Civ 5. They'll have thrown in a ton of bells and whistles since graphics - as this thread has shown - matter a ton to players when they decide whether or not to buy. Civ5 was badly-optimized, so there's plenty of room for performance improvements. The real question is if they have the necessary software design chops to actually achieve those improvements (and the development time, of course). I don't think this is a question we can really answer at this point. Graphics-wise the games are nothing special (and I wouldn't be surprised if the new graphic style is actually cheaper to render than Civ5's is), but what really matters is what the CPU is up to. Harmonia posted:The game is going to be 64bit, to be honest I'm not sure what it all means but I guess larger maps are faster and graphics can have more details etc. It mostly just means that you'll be able to use more RAM to run the game. Which actually could be a massive performance improvement, since 32-bit programs are limited to 2-3GB of RAM on Windows -- if you need to store more things in memory, then you're swapping to disk, which is slow.
|
|
#
¿
May 26, 2016 22:02
|
|
|
Sindai posted:You swap to disk if physical memory is smaller than virtual memory. If it's the other way around the next call to allocate memory fails when you hit the virtual limit and you crash immediately. D'oh, you're right. The problem is address space, not physical memory. I think my brain has been captured by barbarians. But yes, moving to a 64-bit engine will give them vastly more RAM to play with, so if that's been a constraint on making the game work well, then you can expect Civ6 to improve things. That said, I'm not really sure how having access to large amounts of RAM would improve Civ, since most of the problems the CPU has to solve are not large problems.
|
|
#
¿
May 26, 2016 22:42
|
|
|
Having low yields makes local terrain matter less in terms of how it impacts your city. Civ5's low-yield tile improvements are just another facet of its generic one-size-fits-all cities. I mean, in Civ4 you literally couldn't grow cities unless they had a few food-giving tiles, because each pop point consumed 2 food/turn (unlike in Civ5 where existing population food consumption is 1/turn, IIRC). So you needed high-food-yield tiles to have a large city. And conversely, if you could support a few citizens working hill mines, then you'd have a really noticeable bump in your production speeds.
|
|
#
¿
May 27, 2016 17:05
|
|
|
JeremoudCorbynejad posted:Edit: ^^^ Civ 5 citizens consumed 2 food per turn too. What, really? Then why is it that I never seem to run into a food cap for my cities outside of the very early game, while in Civ4 making certain there was enough food was a constant struggle for any city I wanted to grow big?
|
|
#
¿
May 27, 2016 17:38
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 29, 2024 17:36 |
|
|
Jay Rust posted:Plus there was the whole Health mechanic that did stuff, can't remember what, to limit growth. That was pretty simple: if you had more sources of unhealthiness than healthiness in your city, you lost food equal to (healthiness - unhealthiness). Generally that was solvable by building more health buildings or chopping down jungles; unhealthiness due to overcrowding was only noticeable in large cities.
|
|
#
¿
May 27, 2016 17:54
|
|