|
SHISHKABOB posted:The weirdest thing about the greeks is that the USA and England both have two unique units, one of which that says "when X is this is [the civ]'s leader". Implying that you could have a different leader for that civ, and get a different unique unit. But the greeks get screwed out of that deal. I'm honestly not sure what unique unit Sparta could get if it was like that. Keeping hoplites as the UU for the Greek civ, Athens could get a unique trireme and Sparta could get... Unique great generals, to represent their kings? But that wouldn't work with the great persons system in Civ6... Or maybe a unique support unit that gives the same kind of passive boost as a great general? But you could only ever have two, to balance out the ability to build them like normal units.
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2017 13:46
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 28, 2024 11:03 |
|
|
The Human Crouton posted:I don't know how much you know about the CQUI mod, so I'm going to assume you know nothing so we don't have to go back and forth to get you your answers. The lens doesn't go away when I select another unit. I then have to open up the lens options and turn it on and off so it goes away. Seems like a bug. Thanks for the help.
|
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2017 14:18
|
|
|
Digital Jedi posted:The lens doesn't go away when I select another unit. I then have to open up the lens options and turn it on and off so it goes away. Seems like a bug. I was also having this very same problem, but it stopped happening when I updated the CQUI nightly build with a newer version and started a new game.
|
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2017 14:20
|
|
|
Kassad posted:I'm honestly not sure what unique unit Sparta could get if it was like that. Keeping hoplites as the UU for the Greek civ, Athens could get a unique trireme and Sparta could get... Unique great generals, to represent their kings? But that wouldn't work with the great persons system in Civ6... Or maybe a unique support unit that gives the same kind of passive boost as a great general? But you could only ever have two, to balance out the ability to build them like normal units. Just make a new one called Spartans and put it in the spot where samurai and I think berserkers go. It's that tech I never get because it doesn't go anywhere and pikemen are useless. The wonder is interesting though I guess, but also insanely niche. Yeah I know Spartans are just hoplites but no one cares really.
|
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2017 14:40
|
|
|
SHISHKABOB posted:Just make a new one called Spartans and put it in the spot where samurai and I think berserkers go. It's that tech I never get because it doesn't go anywhere and pikemen are useless. The wonder is interesting though I guess, but also insanely niche. I love it when I have one single lake hex in my civilization and then I put Huey Teocalli right there. Yeah, I wasted a wonder and a hex.
|
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2017 14:46
|
|
|
They should give Spartans a Unique Rebel Unit, the Helot, and give them a mechanism for pushing their luck to the point where they appear.
|
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2017 16:32
|
|
|
homullus posted:They should give Spartans a Unique Rebel Unit, the Helot, and give them a mechanism for pushing their luck to the point where they appear. What about Shouty Guy With Beard? I saw there was a movie about him.
|
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2017 16:36
|
|
|
Some good multiplayer US Civil War mod/scenario theme would be nice, with the chance to play as generals on either side.
|
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2017 17:02
|
|
|
I built an aqueduct leading to Mount Everest and the tile graphic turned into a neighborhood. Though in civ 5 I could rarely get a natural wonder like a mountain to do stuff like let me build an observatory.
|
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2017 18:08
|
|
|
Vahakyla posted:Some good multiplayer US Civil War mod/scenario theme would be nice, with the chance to play as generals on either side. Civ 5 has this. As I understand it, it's easy to win against the AI because the AI is garbage at combat, and it's guaranteed stalemate in MP because cities are trivially easy to defend when you have one or more brain cells. If they do remake scenarios for Civ 6 they had loving better create a human version and AI version for each one Edit: a balanced version of Into The Renaissance or Fall of Rome for MP Civ 6 would be glorious Microplastics fucked around with this message at 18:51 on Mar 8, 2017 |
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2017 18:48
|
|
|
JeremoudCorbynejad posted:Civ 5 has this. As I understand it, it's easy to win against the AI because the AI is garbage at combat, and it's guaranteed stalemate in MP because cities are trivially easy to defend when you have one or more brain cells. You can't play civ 5 scenarios in multiplayer. ...can you?
|
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2017 19:35
|
|
|
Magil Zeal posted:That's why I made a mod specifically to address that. Nah, as far as I know, Influence points are eternal. Even if a city state is conquered, and then liberated, the influence stay's the same. There should be a way to influence city-states via war, but there isn't now.
|
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2017 20:13
|
|
|
Civ5 still makes me chuckle now and then when things turn a little odd. Trying the Bering Strait map from the explorer's pack, got a world with Sweden, China, Korea, Carthage, America, Siam, Germany, and Rome. In the absence of any religiously-inclined civs, China's been going completely batshit with religion and has converted most of the world to Taoism. Not something you see every day from Wu Zetian.
|
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2017 21:33
|
|
|
Gort posted:You can't play civ 5 scenarios in multiplayer. I'm about 99% sure you can in PBEM games.
|
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2017 22:27
|
|
|
ate poo poo on live tv posted:Nah, as far as I know, Influence points are eternal. Even if a city state is conquered, and then liberated, the influence stay's the same. There should be a way to influence city-states via war, but there isn't now. I'm about 90% sure this isn't the case; if you liberate a city-state the only envoys there are 3 for the liberator. I remember observing this in a YouTube LP of Civ, but I'll have to check with Firetuner next time I get a chance to be sure.
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2017 16:22
|
|
|
prefect posted:I love it when I have one single lake hex in my civilization and then I put Huey Teocalli right there. Yeah, I wasted a wonder and a hex.
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2017 16:33
|
|
|
Apraxin posted:You get to hear Sean Bean struggle manfully with pronouncing Huitzilopotchli, which is reward enough in itself. Hoochly-poochly.
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2017 16:33
|
|
|
I'm on turn 328 of a game, and India has been ahead of me in science the whole time. They've got like 259 right now. Then I get a report that says they just researched Gunpowder. Like, what.
|
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2017 00:15
|
|
|
Civ VI down to $48 on amazon today. https://www.amazon.com/Meiers-Civilization-Online-Game-Code/dp/B01FG4VF62
|
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2017 14:03
|
|
|
After playing a few games, my opinion of this game is basically the same as beyond earth. Trade caravan's clog up the turns by having to reselect the route all the time and now its even more important that you keep them running because they make the roads now and their retarded gold income. By the end of a few games I had around 40 of them running while it seemed the computer used none to make their own roads. I wish they could think up some other method to make roads and trade routes.
|
|
#
?
Mar 11, 2017 02:03
|
|
|
I hope they just patch in some of the improvements that these mods have added. Like the "do last route" for trade routes.
|
|
#
?
Mar 11, 2017 02:11
|
|
|
I think they keep the need for the user to reselect the route to make the turns feel like there's more to do.
|
|
#
?
Mar 11, 2017 02:15
|
|
|
Tenzarin posted:I think they keep the need for the user to reselect the route to make the turns feel like there's more to do. Idk about that, the game feels pretty much the same as civ V to me in that sense.
|
|
#
?
Mar 11, 2017 02:16
|
|
|
So what's the strategy now that you can't build crowded cities stacked with multiple overlapping industrial/entertainment districts. Just build tall cities?
|
|
#
?
Mar 11, 2017 03:13
|
|
|
Sanctum posted:So what's the strategy now that you can't build crowded cities stacked with multiple overlapping industrial/entertainment districts. Just build tall cities? Actually tall is bad, the primary benefit of pops is unlocking districts and you want to get enough pops to get your good districts in each city (whatever fits your victory condition) and also work all the good tiles, but any growth over that requires amenities to support and provides little benefit. If you think about it, 4 pops in a new city is better than 4 more pops in a size 10 city, because those 4 pops will let you build another campus and commercial hub but require the same amenities. Since there's no buildings that scale with pop (Civ V) or good improvements that feed your economy (Civ IV) and specialists suck pretty bad (unlike Civ IV+Civ V), growing your cities past a certain point just doesn't feel right to me. A mere 0.7 science and 0.3 culture per citizen can't save it.
|
|
#
?
Mar 11, 2017 03:53
|
|
|
Flood the land with cities and traders. wash clean the filthy AI.
|
|
#
?
Mar 11, 2017 04:07
|
|
|
yeah, wide really is better in this game. Any diminishing returns on growth/expansion seem not there. I think they listened to the Civ players who went "We feel like we're trapped at 4-5 cities, I wanna expand!" and got rid of that stupid tall vs wide stuff. Sure, there are some cities that will grow far larger, and be more powerful depending on the civ/location/resources/etc. However each citizen only gives +0.7 science and +0.3 culture to a city so you really don't gain THAT much of the two research resources from growing. Extra pop is more about gaining non-housing districts, and once you reach 10 pop you're probably pretty well set with your 4 districts. Though you're not punished for going tall, you're just not really rewarded unlike Civ V which punished you for going wide. Alkydere fucked around with this message at 04:29 on Mar 11, 2017 |
|
#
?
Mar 11, 2017 04:25
|
|
|
Alkydere posted:yeah, wide really is better in this game. Any diminishing returns on growth/expansion seem not there. I think they listened to the Civ players who went "We feel like we're trapped at 4-5 cities, I wanna expand!" and got rid of that stupid tall vs wide stuff. The thing that scares me is that we might get a knee-jerk reaction to this in an expansion much like V's expansions were in terms of economy, in that they provide benefits for staying below some arbitrary city number threshold or actively punish you for expanding. The way I see it, the situation is due to deliberate design choices made in VI, which is that your economy is generally based on flat (non-scaling) yields that come from districts. Naturally this means the more districts you have of a given type, the better, but you can't benefit twice from the same district in the same city. Just how problematic this is is up for debate, but I'll say that even though I love making a large empire in terms of territory and I certainly don't want to be restricted to X cities just to receive Y benefit, I would appreciate a little more reward for growing and building up cities. I just don't want the two to be mutually exclusive for some arbitrary "tall versus wide" thing they try to push on us. Tenzarin posted:After playing a few games, my opinion of this game is basically the same as beyond earth. Trade caravan's clog up the turns by having to reselect the route all the time and now its even more important that you keep them running because they make the roads now and their retarded gold income. By the end of a few games I had around 40 of them running while it seemed the computer used none to make their own roads. I wish they could think up some other method to make roads and trade routes. Yeah I don't think Trade Routes as they are currently implemented are really good for the game. They should exist in some capacity but should be more hands-off, and probably shouldn't provide production (regional IZs cover that concept imo). They do need to scale with # of cities or we'll run into the Civ V problem again, it's just managing them needs to be less tedious. The problem with implementing something simple like a "repeat route" function is there's no real way to cancel a trade-route halfway. I'm certain there are better ways to handle this (and I have some ideas myself), but it definitely needs a shake-up. Magil Zeal fucked around with this message at 05:30 on Mar 11, 2017 |
|
#
?
Mar 11, 2017 05:09
|
|
|
Here's an idea. What if Trade Routes were calculated more along the lines of Civ 4? As in, there is no global limit, but rather each city gets a certain number of routes based on buildings, and the game auto-calculates maximum yield routes and just applies them? Obviously the benefits would have to scale back due to having more routes. If they want to give players more control, perhaps giving them the option to dictate if their cities should focus on internal trade (food and production, faith) or international (gold, science, tourism) much in the same way the cities can optimize for certain resource types already.
|
|
#
?
Mar 11, 2017 05:36
|
|
|
berryjon posted:Here's an idea. What if Trade Routes were calculated more along the lines of Civ 4? As in, there is no global limit, but rather each city gets a certain number of routes based on buildings, and the game auto-calculates maximum yield routes and just applies them? Obviously the benefits would have to scale back due to having more routes. If they want to give players more control, perhaps giving them the option to dictate if their cities should focus on internal trade (food and production, faith) or international (gold, science, tourism) much in the same way the cities can optimize for certain resource types already. I definitely think trade routes being a local thing rather than global makes more sense, yeah.
|
|
#
?
Mar 11, 2017 05:45
|
|
|
Magil Zeal posted:Trade routes are established in a similar manner by building a trader and sending it to its destination, but in my concept it would provide zero benefit until it reaches its destination (speed of the trader increases with tech/civic progress), at which point it disappears and the trade route is "established". At this point you receive a constant benefit, unless the path between the two cities is blocked by enemies (at which point it's suspended until this is no longer the case), and the trade route can be cancelled at any time. That would be okay but even then I worry there's just too much management involved. Honestly, just do away with the unit entirely. Traders are such a drag. You can't attach a defender to them, they don't have an auto-cower reponse, and you constantly have to update them. Set it up so that internal economic routes happen and resolve automatically (like in Civ 5), but then have a list of limited slots to do some specialized trade. So just "Target city / <Increase Productivity> or <Stimulate Growth> (or <Emphasize Gold/Science/Tourism> for foreign routes)" and then a preview of the route that will be used. After you finalize it, the route goes on cooldown for a set number of turns, and after the counter runs out, you can reassign the route if you want to. The best originating city will automatically be chosen. So if you were sending hammers to Los Angeles, the originating city would be whichever one would provide the highest value for the route. If you spend two slots on increasing productivity in LA, it would automatically go Los Angeles / Increase Productivity / Washington: +12 hammers / Cooldown 13 Los Angeles / Increase Productivity / Boston: +10 hammers / Cooldown 13 and so on and so forth. Or if you had three slots on increasing productivity in three different cities, it would probably look like Boston / Increase Productivity / Washington: +12 hammers / <click to change route> Los Angeles / Increase Productivity / Washington: +12 hammers / Cooldown 5 Boise / Increase Productivity / Washington: +12 hammers / Cooldown 9 in practice, if firaxis implemented this with the deftness that they've implemented diplomacy, it would probably send trade routes from the same city over and over again, or automatically choose the weakest route Fur20 fucked around with this message at 05:50 on Mar 11, 2017 |
|
#
?
Mar 11, 2017 05:46
|
|
|
Well with the current design the Trader is kinda integral to building roads. That's one of the other side benefits to going Internal-only with your trade routes, not only is it usually more efficient but you end up with a very nice web of roads through your land. But I wouldn't see "attaching" a military unit to a trader as something totally impossible to do, though it'd cause some issues that'd need to be ironed out. Probably possible at any rate.
|
|
#
?
Mar 11, 2017 06:14
|
|
|
Yeah maybe. Speaking as someone who's wanted the feature for a long time now and feeling a little cynical about it, though, I wouldn't hold my breath--the series has basically gone through two iterations without being able to attach a defender to a trade unit (BNW -> Beyond Earth -> Civ 6).
|
|
#
?
Mar 11, 2017 06:20
|
|
|
Tenzarin posted:After playing a few games, my opinion of this game is basically the same as beyond earth. Trade caravan's clog up the turns by having to reselect the route all the time and now its even more important that you keep them running because they make the roads now and their retarded gold income. By the end of a few games I had around 40 of them running while it seemed the computer used none to make their own roads. I wish they could think up some other method to make roads and trade routes. Were you on the easiest difficulty? Because in order to have 40 trade routes running you would have to build 40 cities each with a specialty district that grants a trade route, and you'd actually have to build the trader unit 40 times.
|
|
#
?
Mar 11, 2017 06:31
|
|
|
The Human Crouton posted:Were you on the easiest difficulty? Because in order to have 40 trade routes running you would have to build 40 cities each with a specialty district that grants a trade route, and you'd actually have to build the trader unit 40 times. I took over the map.
|
|
#
?
Mar 11, 2017 08:00
|
|
|
Play using the district cost mod that makes district cost increase each time you build a district of that type and you'll find it less attractive to just spam commercial districts. Civ 1 had the best implementation of trade - routes automatically generate based on city size and go to the most profitable city you're not at war with. Take Civ 1s stacking and combat system while you're at it. Stack infinitely, best defender fights if the stack is attacked, entire stack takes the damage that defender takes. Encourage players not to stack, don't enforce it. Abolish the concept of "ranged units", just make archers good city defenders. Air units have a special "air war" pool they vanish into that modifies other combats.
|
|
#
?
Mar 11, 2017 10:55
|
|
|
Gort posted:Play using the district cost mod that makes district cost increase each time you build a district of that type and you'll find it less attractive to just spam commercial districts. I don't agree with the mechanic of one unit losing means the whole stack gets obliterated, though. Collateral damage is one thing, but that's way too harsh. Automatically generating trade routes worked for older Civ games because they only had one yield--Commerce, which could be converted into gold/science/etc. as needed. Without the commerce slider things are a bit different. It could still certainly be done but it'd need to be done a little differently. Magil Zeal fucked around with this message at 12:51 on Mar 11, 2017 |
|
#
?
Mar 11, 2017 12:30
|
|
|
Gort posted:Civ 1 had the best implementation of trade - routes automatically generate based on city size and go to the most profitable city you're not at war with. That doesn't sound very interactive though. What's the point in having them at all if there's no decisions to make? What does it add to the game? If prefer to see the trade route system as a fun minigame, where you have to factor in various trade-offs into your overall strategy. I think Civ 5 came close (though the science and faith bleeds were too negligible to give a poo poo about) but the route renewal was tedious and took the fun away.
|
|
#
?
Mar 11, 2017 14:01
|
|
|
JeremoudCorbynejad posted:That doesn't sound very interactive though. What's the point in having them at all if there's no decisions to make? What does it add to the game? Still, though, there weren't a lot of decisions to make in Civ 5, either. Thanks to the way population and tall cities worked, the optimal loadout was "six cities, five send food routes to your capital, your capital sends a food route to each satellite city" and there was no thought or opportunity cost involved. If you needed cash, you just weren't building enough economic buildings or trading posts; the extra 200-300GPT (and even then you won't see those kinds of numbers unless you're sending sea routes to capitals from a city built on a river with East India Trading Company, the Colossus, and Petra) is nothing compared to the food bonuses and honestly you could get like two to three thousand gpt once your population is high enough. Trade routes are busy work and I'm really not so jazzed about them. I do think Civ 5 did it right in the sense that they were a strictly limited resource and you could only ever cap at 10 unless you were Venice--and even then, to get the full amount, you also needed to build two wonders that the AI really likes. They were super powerful, even if they really did only have one optimal purpose (short of stop-gapping your economy before your population completely explodes). Civ 6... poo poo, game, how you expect me to manage fifty of these frickin' things? 
Fur20 fucked around with this message at 14:17 on Mar 11, 2017 |
|
#
?
Mar 11, 2017 14:08
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 28, 2024 11:03 |
|
|
Probably the better way to handle routes would've been to put it in its own dialog box like religion, govt, and so on are, rather than requiring units to do the work. Maybe have roads be constructed one hex per turn between all cities (rather than just intra-civ cities) as a natural thing rather than as a unit-driven thing. In time of war, roads to opponents' cities automatically revert to unimproved hexes until a military engineer or so comes along to make them usable again (as a passive; engineer charges build fortifications only).
|
|
#
?
Mar 11, 2017 14:13
|
|
