|
TipTow posted:62 (64 at full health) is a pretty drat strong classical era unit. Yeah. He's somehow ranked up 38 strength in bonuses!
|
#
?
May 30, 2017 22:26
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 20, 2024 09:36 |
|
|
They also get double support bonuses. One of my veteran Hypaspists managed to one shot an Immortal, which I think it's from having over 30 combat strength and they are both Swordsman replacements. I'm not really much of a warmonger and somehow I rolled Gorgo, Tomyris and now Alex.  Besides the overpowered poo poo, fighting and generally interacting with another human, is way more challenging and fun, and these games are being a blast specially the Spring one. I really hope we can get it to the end and hope we can repeat this sometime.
|
|
#
?
May 30, 2017 22:34
|
|
|
Ulvino posted:I really hope we can get it to the end and hope we can repeat this sometime. Agreed. The six of us seem to be pretty diligent about our turns, or staying in communication if there's going to be some kind of interruption. I was kind of hoping we'd start another game after this one--keep the group together.
|
|
#
?
May 30, 2017 22:45
|
|
|
I would definitely be up for this again. Sorry for being less chatty lately, on a tangent; I usually try to be more diplomatic (as my neighbors probably noticed early on), but lately haven't been feeling as great in general so haven't been keeping up with that, among other things.
|
|
#
?
May 31, 2017 08:13
|
|
|
Incidentally I think I've about managed to mod in a sort of scaling maintenance cost for VI similar to IV's maintenance system. There are actually some neat things you can do with the mod tools available, though it's far from a complete set, and I haven't even gotten into the LUA code (I've just been modifying the XML/SQL tables). Now if I wasn't so terrible with art assets there'd be all kinds of things I could do.
|
|
#
?
May 31, 2017 15:31
|
|
|
Does anyone know how to mod the included TSL Earth map to have more than 8 civs? I like it crowded but the YNAEMP maps are too big for my pc.
|
|
#
?
May 31, 2017 15:38
|
|
|
TipTow posted:I'm only in the Spring game, but I have to agree. The AI (while improved) is bad enough you can be sloppy and still win. Against other people the margin for error really is zero. Exactly. I thought I was hot poo poo at single player Civ 5 until I got my rear end kicked over and over at PBEM, and now I've got the game down so well from multiplayer that the only single player things that are fun anymore are runs like "download a ton of extra world wonders and see how many you can build." It also really highlighted for me one of the glaring errors of Civ 5: that happiness is so much of a problem on higher difficulty levels that it actually restricts how you play the game by giving you fewer "good" choices; there's almost always a right build order, a right tech order, which largely revolves around growing quickly and keeping happiness in the positive. Multiplayer on Prince or King eliminates that, and gives you the strategic challenge of playing against real people, so you feel like you always have options and there isn't necessarily "one right way" to do things, while still keeping the game from being a pushover. I have faith that Civ 6 will get to that point too, and I'm way more excited about that than I am salty about dumb AI poo poo because apart from learning mechanics all I care about is playing other humans anyway.
|
|
#
?
May 31, 2017 19:08
|
|
|
Peas and Rice posted:It also really highlighted for me one of the glaring errors of Civ 5: that happiness is so much of a problem on higher difficulty levels that it actually restricts how you play the game by giving you fewer "good" choices; there's almost always a right build order, a right tech order, which largely revolves around growing quickly and keeping happiness in the positive. Agreed. Poorly-balanced games mean that there are far fewer meaningful choices - being good at the game is a case of learning the trap options and the no-brainer options. See also: Ranged units in Civ 5 onwards.
|
|
#
?
May 31, 2017 19:40
|
|
|
Speaking of ranged units, I don't get why they still insist on making ranged units useless in later eras by removing their range. I guess at least in 6 it only happens an era after you get artillery, so it's not as bad, but uh, it's still bad.
|
|
#
?
May 31, 2017 22:23
|
|
|
Mymla posted:Speaking of ranged units, I don't get why they still insist on making ranged units useless in later eras by removing their range. I guess at least in 6 it only happens an era after you get artillery, so it's not as bad, but uh, it's still bad. It seems to me that later era ranged units are meant to be specifically designed for city defense. You can pick up the +10 Strength when in a district promotion early with your more experienced ranged units and promote them to eventually sit in a city to shoot down attackers. I suspect that their "worthlessness" is primarily due to 1UPT and the AI in general, in that rarely do you defend cities against the AI in the lategame and even if you do the units that threaten it might not necessarily be right next to the city. This is in sharp contrast to older Civ games (featuring stack-based combat) where 1 tile next to the city is where most of the important battles happened.
|
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2017 06:13
|
|
|
What's the point in a city defense unit that can't protect the city against anything ranged? In Civ5 I always replaced the ranged units with cannon and artillery as time went on. It might not be optimal but at least I could shoot back.
|
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2017 09:13
|
|
|
Poil posted:What's the point in a city defense unit that can't protect the city against anything ranged? In Civ5 I always replaced the ranged units with cannon and artillery as time went on. It might not be optimal but at least I could shoot back. Well, yes. They're not very good at it.
|
|
#
?
Jun 2, 2017 01:18
|
|
|
I like theorycrafting better combat systems for Civ. I'd like a system where armies are based on a type (infantry or cavalry early on) but then you can add attachments to them, which you unlock with technology. Archers will give your army a small ranged attack which hits an enemy unit you end your turn next to. Siege engines give you bonuses to assault cities and forts, and damage cities and forts you fortify next to. Scouts grant a longer view distance. Medics let the unit heal faster. Spearmen give you bonuses versus cavalry armies. It would make combat much simpler, since you're no longer worrying about keeping your archers from getting hit in melee, for example, but it would be much easier for the AI to handle, would remove the current supremacy of ranged units, and would eliminate the "Archers can shoot across the English Channel" thing we've got going on at the moment.
|
|
#
?
Jun 2, 2017 10:02
|
|
|
I dream of a CIv/Paradox mixed game. Civ city building & etc, EU4-like diplomacy and combat
|
|
#
?
Jun 2, 2017 12:28
|
|
|
And throw in some Total War combat while we're at it.
|
|
#
?
Jun 2, 2017 12:52
|
|
|
That would quickly become tedious
|
|
#
?
Jun 2, 2017 12:56
|
|
|
John F Bennett posted:And throw in some Total War combat while we're at it. Deltasquid posted:That would quickly become tedious True
|
|
#
?
Jun 2, 2017 13:02
|
|
|
Also true in Total War. You can let the computer decide the outcome there.
|
|
#
?
Jun 2, 2017 13:06
|
|
|
Any thoughts about long loading times to start new games? I may be misremembering, but I feel like when the game came out a standard size map would have generated and loaded before Sean Bean finished talking. I haven't touched the game since launch, but I did reinstall Windows 7 and the game on a SSD and now it takes like... 5 minutes to generate and launch a standard size map. Longer for anything bigger. I see a bunch of talk about Windows Defender online, but I'm not running Defender. The only other thing I saw was allowing it through the firewall, which I've done. Not the end of the world, but a little exasperating.
|
|
#
?
Jun 2, 2017 13:27
|
|
|
Elias_Maluco posted:I dream of a CIv/Paradox mixed game. Civ city building & etc, EU4-like diplomacy and combat A Paradox game with civ-like building would be my favourite game ever. What I most dislike about Paradox games is how the map is pretty much meaningless, nothing ever happens on a map except of war and colonisation. Each province is just a box with some numbers attached, and you can move units to neigboring boxes, and thats about the only thing that happens on the map. There's no sense of location, of building anything. When you build something, it only increases some numbers but things don't change visually, and there's no effect for the map. It doesn't feel rewarding, which is why I find peace and development uninteresting in Paradox games. In contrast, in Civ you get to see how the map slowly changes and becomes developed. Plains change into farms, forests are cut, building pop up in the landscape. Your improvements have a visual feedback which is rewarding. But - especially in Civ VI now - it's also important where you build things, what are they next to, which way a road goes etc... All in all, peace and development are very rewarding. Now... if someone were to combine the freeform simulation of Paradox games with the "builder-game" feeling of Civ games, and I'd be in heaven. I honestly think Paradox should do this for the next generation of their games. Play with the map a bit more. (And at the same time, I don't think it'll ever happen because their bound to their Clausewith engine which I don't think can handle anything else but abstract boxes with numbers attached.) markus_cz fucked around with this message at 17:15 on Jun 2, 2017 |
|
#
?
Jun 2, 2017 17:13
|
|
|
Gort posted:I like theorycrafting better combat systems for Civ. To be honest, I actually thought this was what they were going to do, when they first started talking about how it was going to work.
|
|
#
?
Jun 2, 2017 18:37
|
|
|
Does anyone play with a tech cost increase mod? Is there a sweet spot that keeps the modern era from happening in 1200 by 2-3 countries?
|
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2017 00:05
|
|
|
See I would like it the other way around, a Paradox map painting game with the Civilization map generation. It partially works with their random map generator but it would need a lot more work to be fun.
|
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2017 06:48
|
|
|
Baron Porkface posted:Does anyone play with a tech cost increase mod? Is there a sweet spot that keeps the modern era from happening in 1200 by 2-3 countries? I played a couple games with a 3x tech cost mod. I enjoyed it, but the AI couldn't handle it at all. It filled every single tile in the world with ancient/classical units even as it progressed into later eras.
|
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2017 14:00
|
|
|
And when every tile is full, it starts stacking units. Then when a war breaks out, the stacked units teleport over to the enemy. I advise the 1.5x mod. Don't forget to do this for tech and civics both.
|
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2017 14:15
|
|
|
It's really stupid that you can't remove districs by any means. Like, really really stupid.
|
|
#
?
Jun 11, 2017 18:21
|
|
|
Mymla posted:It's really stupid that you can't remove districs by any means. Like, really really stupid. I agree. I also think that it's stupid that you have to choose where to put them. IMO civ didn't need the puzzle minigame element of physically arranging assets in each city. It is more an annoyance than a challenge and it only takes one errant click to irreversibly gently caress up a city's production forever.
|
|
#
?
Jun 11, 2017 18:29
|
|
|
Nah, I like placing them and planning your expansions so you can build more districts next to each other etc, but it's just stupid that they're literally permanent. Especially if you build holy sites but don't get a religion, then you have a bunch of districts that not only were wasted production, but reduce the number of useful districts you can have in those cities, so they're actually actively detrimental to you.
|
|
#
?
Jun 11, 2017 18:33
|
|
|
City planning is Cool and Good but agreed... You should be able to change the layout. Also the costs for districts is wacky.
|
|
#
?
Jun 12, 2017 00:58
|
|
|
theres a will theres moe posted:I agree. I also think that it's stupid that you have to choose where to put them. IMO civ didn't need the puzzle minigame element of physically arranging assets in each city. It is more an annoyance than a challenge and it only takes one errant click to irreversibly gently caress up a city's production forever. Load an autosave.
|
|
#
?
Jun 12, 2017 01:33
|
|
|
Ratios and Tendency posted:Load an autosave. I just play 5 instead
|
|
#
?
Jun 12, 2017 01:35
|
|
|
Whens the first dlc for this bitch. Or thr next patch
|
|
#
?
Jun 12, 2017 03:10
|
|
|
Mymla posted:Nah, I like placing them and planning your expansions so you can build more districts next to each other etc, but it's just stupid that they're literally permanent. Especially if you build holy sites but don't get a religion, then you have a bunch of districts that not only were wasted production, but reduce the number of useful districts you can have in those cities, so they're actually actively detrimental to you.
|
|
#
?
Jun 12, 2017 16:01
|
|
|
I tried going for a religion a few times. It was a slog with all the apostles and missionaries and holy sites. I personally think Civ 6 has the most unfun religion mechanic since religion is a thing in the series.
|
|
#
?
Jun 12, 2017 16:07
|
|
|
I gave up on religion because every AI spams missionaries like a motherfucker and it's too much of a slog to counter, so I just end up with a military victory cause I go to wipe out the source.
|
|
#
?
Jun 12, 2017 16:16
|
|
|
Religion is pretty bad. I think they need to add a second follower belief, like they did in 5. Right now, there is just not enough incentive to want a religion in your cities other than one you started. They also need have those follower beliefs scale in some way based upon you playing faith without having a religion. Maybe give each belief a bonus in each city with a holy site. Give us a reason to care about and use this mechanic when we don't have a religion.
|
|
#
?
Jun 12, 2017 16:44
|
|
|
WAY TO GO WAMPA!! posted:It would be cool if your holy site turned into some kind of lesser cultural district when you miss out on a religion, like it just becomes some relic of the past for tourists to gawk at as to not be totally useless. I mean, that is what happens. You can still spend faith on stuff. I think there is ample room for improvement.
|
|
#
?
Jun 12, 2017 18:06
|
|
|
Religious victory is a bit like military victory except you effectively only have one type of unit.
|
|
#
?
Jun 12, 2017 18:13
|
|
|
homullus posted:I mean, that is what happens. You can still spend faith on stuff. There were a couple games where I tried to go after a religion just to do a holy war casus belli but got bored/frustrated about halfway through and just did a regular domination game.
|
|
#
?
Jun 12, 2017 18:56
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 20, 2024 09:36 |
|
|
Anyone else having a huge bug with CQUI that removes all of the loving UI elements from your screen when you meet a new civilization? I can't play this without CQUI and it's been happening for a couple of weeks now. I've posted in the Steam discussion comments about it and haven't gotten an answer from the mod maker, but it's happening to other people too. It's literally impossible to play because you can't take any actions and also don't have a UI. I'm not running any other mods so it's definitely a bug with CQUI and I wish the creator would fix it.
|
|
#
?
Jun 12, 2017 22:55
|
|