|
DNK posted:Anyone who likes unit stacks must have forgotten the single tactical strategy of suiciding splash damage units and then mopping up the rest. Offense was monumentally overpowered because of the ability to splash attack AND the concentration of power it allowed you. Any choke point could be overwhelmed. In 5/6 a well fortified same-tech unit can hold a mountain pass very effectively. I liked civ 4 a lot, too. This isn't true by the way. Defensive stacks were always more powerful than offensive stacks. Stopping for a turn to bombard defenses or suicide cats into a city meant leaving your stack vulnerable to the opponent's counter stack (in multiplayer)
|
#
?
Mar 12, 2018 17:10
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 14, 2024 09:04 |
|
|
Man I thought we had a lot more players for the Civ Goon Rumble but instead it was W A R M O N G E R I N G discussion  ibntumart posted:Is this a PYDT sheet I didn't know about? https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1zZJLBNDtAJjA2Uzbmx_YXbia2lS4bUod9TVAWkYud8M/edit#gid=0
|
|
#
?
Mar 12, 2018 17:55
|
|
|
To be a good warmonger means having to study warmongering
|
|
#
?
Mar 12, 2018 18:06
|
|
|
AI aside, I think 1UPT does makes things more interesting but it doenst scale well Early wars when your army is 4-5 units and you are figthing a neighbour is ok, but later on when you have dozens of unit and need to move then across the map, it becomes a chore.
|
|
#
?
Mar 12, 2018 18:14
|
|
|
Serephina posted:Oh man I played exactly that a few years ago. It's a very old game, DOS-era but with gfx (so like, the first X-com). You're setting up civilization for mankind in a new solar system, so you explore planets, find good spots for a city, build the city up vertically, have the cities (one per planet/moon) specialize a bit and send their surpluses to each other, either via manual shuttling early game, or a huge fuckoff mass-driver lategame. Eventually the precurser race that was dormant wakes up and you suddenly have to deal with Crisis' everywhere such as the local flora eating the cities alive, of a doomsday device aimed at the sun. I'm pretty sure you're talking about Alien Legacy.
|
|
#
?
Mar 12, 2018 18:27
|
|
|
Straight White Shark posted:yeah, no. I think every game of Civ6 I've played has seen at least one AI civ flip from chain-denunciation to alliance, usually with zero effort on my part. And while attitudes between denunciation/friendship do tend to run together they're actually very common and stable. Well we obviously have very different experiences, because I don't think I've ever seen an AI civ neither denounce nor befriend me within two eras of meeting them, usually much less. And I'm not sure where you got any of that other stuff from what I posted, so I'll try again, slower and more clearly: I would like for there to be a difference between having just met a civilization and oh my god, you guys have a monarchy too??? and having been allies for 500 years and having fought off the Koreans three times together. I would like for civs to react to warmongers, rather than treat them exactly as they do republics that are a bit slow to build shrines. I would like if earning points beyond either of the two easily-reached thresholds actually affected any diplomatic calculations made by the AI.
|
|
#
?
Mar 12, 2018 19:20
|
|
|
Zulily Zoetrope posted:Well we obviously have very different experiences, because I don't think I've ever seen an AI civ neither denounce nor befriend me within two eras of meeting them, usually much less. Personally I see this all the time now that there's apparently some sort of check the AI does where it won't declare friendship with a player that's leading in multiple victory categories.
|
|
#
?
Mar 12, 2018 19:51
|
|
|
Elias_Maluco posted:AI aside, I think 1UPT does makes things more interesting but it doenst scale well I haven't played a real game where I've had dozens (as in 24+) units, it seems like at that point you won a long time ago and are just loving around against the AI - every aspect of the game turns into a chore, then. What I like about 1UPT is that effectiveness tapers off fast after those 4-5 units, moving 24 units is indeed a chore but unless you're fighting on four different fronts, you probably could have ended the game with half the army size.
|
|
#
?
Mar 12, 2018 19:52
|
|
|
ibntumart posted:Is this a PYDT sheet I didn't know about? Not a sheet for PYDT, but people looking to coordinate live MP games. If you have interest in a PYDT, start a game at https://www.playyourdamnturn.com/ and post it in the thread. I’ve started two games through the thread, and joined another two from others posting. I’m pretty much willing to join any PYDT that gets posted here, so if you want to try out Civ VI MP without a block of hours set aside from live MP, this is the way to go about it for sure. We really just need someone willing to kick it off, and I try staggering my created games by a couple weeks so they aren’t all at the same spot.
|
|
#
?
Mar 12, 2018 19:57
|
|
|
markus_cz posted:The AI is (got?) actually quite predictable and it's quite easy to be on friendly terms with most countries, as long as you're peaceful. The "AI hates you no matter what" myth has been repeatedly debunked here as the case of people not understanding warmongering. People who make this complain are surprised that the AI hates them (as it should) after they've conquered one of the other nations. This still doesn't explain why the AI still continues to instantly declare war upon meeting you in the ancient era, usually a joint declaration, often with someone you haven't met yet. The problem, I think, is that the AI is always willing to evaluate whether or not to go to war with you. It's not so much that the player takes it personally, but when an AI keeps issuing declarations of war against you because of some stupid "chaos value" getting too low or whatever, to no penalty, at that point, it becomes more convenient just to destroy them completely. That's like the opposite of playing like a human, or whatever they wanted to make it feel like, because a human player won't go Montezuma on a player who's dozens of times stronger than they are just becaue the game hasn't been "interesting" enough. Fur20 fucked around with this message at 20:11 on Mar 12, 2018 |
|
#
?
Mar 12, 2018 20:04
|
|
|
Standard opener: Build three slingers. Upgrade to Archers as soon as possible. Build a fourth or fifth Archer as soon as it is logical to do so / earlier than later. Most AI will leave you alone in my experience if you do this. I’ve even watched AI approach my borders in an obvious pre-war march only to slow walk back as I produced another two Archers. AI will be mad if you are ahead of them on a victory condition, or weak enough to wipe out. Fool them by front-loading military when you’re playing AI games to offset Ancient / Classical wars. Mind you, some Civs will do this regardless, because it’s just how they work, but this isn’t as common a thing as it is played out to be if you know that military score is a huge factor in why an AI might want to dec you. Also, playing PYDT games will prevent this from being a factor because the AI doesn’t exist in player games!
|
|
#
?
Mar 12, 2018 20:09
|
|
|
onesixtwo posted:Standard opener: Build three slingers. Upgrade to Archers as soon as possible. Build a fourth or fifth Archer as soon as it is logical to do so / earlier than later. Most AI will leave you alone in my experience if you do this. That is my standard opener, because taking other civs' capitals is more valuable than getting some second-rate expansion with a settler. They declare war anyway, because the AI is extremely aggressive, but equally braindead.
|
|
#
?
Mar 12, 2018 20:12
|
|
|
Zulily Zoetrope posted:Well we obviously have very different experiences, because I don't think I've ever seen an AI civ neither denounce nor befriend me within two eras of meeting them, usually much less. It's entirely possible that your different experiences come down to a difference in playstyle. This is how things tend to go down for me: 1) Some AI decides they don't like me for agenda reasons because my production/culture/what have you is lower than theirs due to difficulty modifiers. 2) They declare war after a round or two of denunciations, I bloody them up a bit and then let them off the hook for some gold/lux. 3) I expand and develop and get strong enough to start fulfilling their agenda. 4) The civ that was chain-denouncing me within a few turns of meeting is now BFFs with me Sometimes it happens even if I take a city off them in step 2, but that's rarer. If that's closer to what you usually do that might be why you're not seeing the same. As for the rest, I apologize if you thought my interpretation was uncharitable--but what exactly do you want, then? The AI's willingness to declare war or not declare war is the most important defining factor of diplomatic states, so when you say you want a more visible difference between the AI hating you or disliking you or being neutral to you, what else is there except de-fanging the AI by limiting its ability to declare war? There already exist noticeable differences in how likely the AI is to declare war, how much it requires for trades, how easy it is to swing its attitude back to friendly, etc. If these levers aren't enough for you, then what?
|
|
#
?
Mar 12, 2018 20:36
|
|
|
Straight White Shark posted:There already exist noticeable differences in how likely the AI is to declare war, how much it requires for trades, how easy it is to swing its attitude back to friendly, etc. If these levers aren't enough for you, then what? I think my problem with it currently is as you say, it's likelihood. The way the game is currently designed, an AI declaring war on you is a statistical inevitability, like getting a meltdown when someone builds a nuclear power plant in Civ 4. There should be a possibility for it, provided the correct circumstances, like military strength, international relations, etc etc. "My closest human player ally has a capital city" should not even be close to grounds for an AI plotting against you, but it is. Your capital is equal or greater in value to their best city, and the idiot AI evaluates it as grounds for backstabbing you, and will do it as soon as possible. The fact that the AI is also programmed to be more friendly with other AI players is a huge mistake, because nobody will ever get mad at the rear end in a top hat who keeps declaring war on you; otoh, if you declared war on THEM, the world would denounce you instantly. Fur20 fucked around with this message at 20:52 on Mar 12, 2018 |
|
#
?
Mar 12, 2018 20:48
|
|
|
The White Dragon posted:This still doesn't explain why the AI still continues to instantly declare war upon meeting you in the ancient era, usually a joint declaration, often with someone you haven't met yet. That's pretty easy to explain, actually. Joint wars are not handled correctly, first off. To cover non-joint war scenarios: the AI starts with a big military on higher difficulty levels, so they see that their power is way above yours. Warriors count for more than slingers in raw power. They don't have a good relationship with you since you just met, and there are no warmongering penalties in early eras. All these things together make it so the AI is very likely to declare war early at higher difficulty levels. Though I think the "often with someone you haven't met yet" is hyperbole, this is a pretty rare occurrence for me.
|
|
#
?
Mar 12, 2018 20:52
|
|
|
Magil Zeal posted:Though I think the "often with someone you haven't met yet" is hyperbole, this is a pretty rare occurrence for me. My perspective is probably extremely skewed, because I've never played a single game yet where I haven't started next to at least one major warmonger. Always with Japan, or Greece, or Azetcs--at least one player who is programmed to DoW you out of reflex.
|
|
#
?
Mar 12, 2018 20:54
|
|
|
The White Dragon posted:I think my problem with it currently is as you say, it's likelihood. The way the game is currently designed, an AI declaring war on you is a statistical inevitability, like getting a meltdown when someone builds a nuclear power plant in Civ 4. There should be a possibility for it, provided the correct circumstances, like military strength, international relations, etc etc. "My closest human player ally has a capital city" should not even be close to grounds for an AI plotting against you, but it is. Your capital is equal or greater in value to their best city, and the idiot AI evaluates it as grounds for backstabbing you, and will do it as soon as possible. Broadly speaking, yes, in any given game most of your AI opponents will declare war on you at some time or another. If you're not out to conquer, though, most of them will send one halfass attack, pay you for peace, and then play nice the rest of the game. Which makes for a reasonably satisfying system, IMO--you generally can't really hope to just sleep through a peaceful game, and if you let the AI catch you with your pants down it can cause you some trouble, but as long as you don't completely neglect your military you can generally build in peace with only a few brief interruptions.
|
|
#
?
Mar 12, 2018 21:16
|
|
|
I do think the way the maps generate now it does have the very real possibility of putting you very close to an opponent, perhaps too close for a healthy early game. The maps in Civ 6 could stand to be bigger, that much I believe is certain. Maybe then the new movement rules that slow down movement so much wouldn't be necessary. I really don't like the whole needing your full movement to enter rough terrain, as opposed to how it worked in 4/5.
|
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2018 00:44
|
|
|
Straight White Shark posted:It's entirely possible that your different experiences come down to a difference in playstyle. This is how things tend to go down for me: Well, I always have at least two civs more than the map standard, so usually ancient/classical wars end up with someone losing. Sometimes to me, mostly to a third civ that didn't just lose their entire army to a walled city and some archers. (One thing I really enjoy in Rise and Fall is that belligerent rump states tend to disappear on their own once they hit a dark age). I just play on King or Prince, so I never really fail to satisfy an agenda unless it's something I'm not intending to do. I can see how playing on higher difficulties would change that up, at least. I don't want civ to be a game where every AI is always looking to bring the player down a peg. I just want civ to be a sandbox with a bunch of end conditions, and I understand that that's not the design vision for Civ VI, but it still frustrates me how predictably stupid the AI gets about war. I would honestly rather see it defanged than the way it works now, but ideally it would be smarter or at least have some semblance of personality. Paradox games have a basic set of Trust/Threat variables, where a neighbor who trusts you will neglect its defenses on your shared border and happily sign any mutually beneficial deals, while AIs that are threatened will band together and sign defense treaties or even declare a multiple front war against the major threat. Even Civ V had basic AI personalities, so you could know that Oda Nobunaga and Napoleon were ruthless opportunists, and Montezuma needed to be at war with someone, but Harald Bluetooth and Genghis Khan would be fast friends if you won them over. They wouldn't stop warmongering, but they'd pick targets who weren't their buddies. In VI, you can liberate all the city states alongside John Curtin*, but as soon as he notices that he stopped bordering Germany, he'll start sizing you up since Australia can't not be at war. It doesn't matter who you border (unless it's Gandhi) or how much bigger you are; the AI will eventually decide that it's more likely to win the game by throwing spears at your tanks than it is by focusing on culture or science or fighting someone its own size across the ocean. It's not a threat, it's just predictable and annoying. *Well, not so much "alongside" as "letting him watch," since you can't declare a joint war with a casus belli or a liberation war for city states, but that's a whole 'nother thing.
|
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2018 09:16
|
|
|
I've not yet had a game on emperor where I don't get disliked/surprise warred by one of my neighbors within the first 30 turns or so. I like civ vi, and I don't think the AI is arbitrary, but there are few tools to get them to like you, especially early on. Negating the agendas for part of the early game where you're shuffling around a scout and warrior no matter what you do seems like an easy fix, but Rome or Egypt hating me when my people are barely out of caves is a little preposterous.
|
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2018 09:23
|
|
|
Tyrel Lohr posted:I'm pretty sure you're talking about Alien Legacy. Boom! Ty. One quick search on steam shows no hits... second search on google shows it playable in-browser with DL links as abandonware? I hope mentioning this isn't all Filez. So yea, play it if you want city building on a solar system scale.
|
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2018 12:28
|
|
|
Abandonware, if really abandoned, is fine. How else will we keep their legacy alive.
|
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2018 12:54
|
|
|
Zulily Zoetrope posted:I don't want civ to be a game where every AI is always looking to bring the player down a peg. Thanks Zulily, your responses in this have been exactly what I was saying in the first post. I'm a story player and Civ6 treats the AI as though they're other players. They want to win the game and will do anything that they can to do that. The problem is that they're terrible at it and all it makes is for a boring game where you can't trust any of them so have to treat them all like they're your enemy. So many of them punish you for things that you have to do as well. Getting great people or building wonders making the AI mad is just boring as hell because there's no place to just go "don't do this". In Stellaris and other Paradox games I can have long running alliances with people and they've got set things they want and don't want which work within the game without punishing me for playing. There's nobody who is going to say "You've got level 4 lasers now so I hate you" like there is in Civ6. I want the game to be more narrative, like it was in Civ4. Where I'd have an alliance for the whole game with Cyrus or something. Here the AI just exist, they're not like other players even though "being like other players" seems to be what Firaxis wants to pretend they're doing.
|
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2018 14:31
|
|
|
I dont know much about Stellaris but civ diplo could certainly learn some lessons from paradox. Like in EU4 every nation will like you or hate you for clearly defined and, for the most part, pretty rational reasons, and with a good amount of nuance. Like once for ex a nation I didnt had good relations at all accepted to give me military access cause I happened to be fighting their biggest rival. This is the kind of small stuff that make the world feel alive, instead of nations surprise attacking you for no reason or hating you cause you dont have a navy or something I get what they wanted with the agendas but it just dont work very well. All it makes is to have the AI hating you or liking you for dumb arbitrary reasons Also is boring that the AI will just "play to win" because, like the above poster said, its not very good at it
|
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2018 14:52
|
|
|
That's legit and if that's what you want from the game, that's fine. My whole point is just that different people want different things from the AI and wanting the AI to roleplay more necessarily means making it perform worse in other regards. I'm not even talking about "playing to win" or "playing like a human", either--like The White Dragon said, the AI's willingness to attack doesn't have anything to do with either. It's about wanting the AI to pose an interesting obstacle instead of just existing and taking up space (and processing power.) Barbarians for example do not play to win and do not pretend to be a human civ but they frequently wind up being more interesting to play against than the AI. But personally, I still prefer AI that offers a weak threat over an AI that offers no threat.
|
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2018 15:20
|
|
|
I don't think the AI is playing hard "to win" right now in VI. It will try to take advantage of you if you're weak, but that's par for the course in a competitive environment. The AI isn't programmed "to win" per se, like, they don't deny all open borders requests and declare war on you when you approach a cultural victory, even though doing so would, from a gameplay standpoint, make a lot of sense. About the only thing they seem to do to that end is prioritize hitting spaceports with spies.Elias_Maluco posted:I dont know much about Stellaris but civ diplo could certainly learn some lessons from paradox. Please, no. Civilization is not a sandbox game, it will never be a sandbox game, it should not be designed like a sandbox game. Civilization is a different game with different goals and it shouldn't try to be something it isn't. The agenda system could use some work, certainly. And there's improvements to be made. But I think taking it in the direction of Paradox games is the wrong way to take it. Magil Zeal fucked around with this message at 15:35 on Mar 13, 2018 |
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2018 15:20
|
|
|
If the AI were truly playing to win, it wouldn't be declaring wars (only against the player) that it has no hope of winning. Ultimately though, if the AI could wage war, most of the complaints about it would be moot.
|
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2018 15:29
|
|
|
Well, I guess you are right: the AI behavior is so erratic we cant tell its playing to win. Its more like it doenst knows what it wants Anyway what I like about diplo in EU4 is that is usually possible to figure why the AI does what it does. Why it likes you or hates you, why it decided to attack you or dont, why it allies, why it breaks an alliance. It wont suicide itself attacking players it cant possibly beat, nor it will hate you for attacking its enemies etc Elias_Maluco fucked around with this message at 15:39 on Mar 13, 2018 |
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2018 15:32
|
|
|
Magil Zeal posted:I don't think the AI is playing hard "to win" right now in VI. It will try to take advantage of you if you're weak, but that's par for the course in a competitive environment. I don't think the AI is programmed "to win" per se, like, they don't deny all open borders requests and declare war on you when you approach a cultural victory, even though doing so would, from a gameplay standpoint, make a lot of sense. About the only thing they seem to do to that end is prioritize hitting spaceports with spies. Is it not? I can't really tell what game it's supposed to be when the AI isn't playing it. 
|
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2018 15:35
|
|
|
Just start a game without any AI and turn off victory conditions. There, you have your civilization city builder. Download a mod for super many and angry barbarians if you want so you can have the occasional fight. See, I solved problems and now everybody is a winner.
|
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2018 15:38
|
|
|
Captain Oblivious posted:Is it not? I can't really tell what game it's supposed to be when the AI isn't playing it. Yes, yes, more "the AI can't play the game" stuff. Recently I came across a YouTuber actually losing a game to an AI in a cultural victory though, so it must do something occasionally. Seems to be some hubbub about religious victory too, apparently the AI seems pretty decent at getting one of those on small maps. I'm not sure what standard the AI needs to meet to be considered "playing the game" but "winning" might be a valid endpoint. It needs to be better about it, but this hyperbole is getting somewhat ridiculous.
|
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2018 15:48
|
|
|
My favorite part of the LITERALLY FOREVER argument is how none of the people bitching about the AI join the posted PYDT games. Kinda self-defeating but hey, forums warrior to your hearts content I suppose in a video game’s thread you dislike. https://www.playyourdamnturn.com/ Another plug by me. Host a game and post in this thread, we’ll join and play. I’m going to be posting another myself soon, but more turns the merrier. Magil, started using your Wonders mod the other day. I’m still getting thrown off and forgetting to build National Wonders, but I really like the changes made so far. Definitely seems to also add towards guarding a capital due to the +10 defense on most of them, which I like as a side feature to bulk up.
|
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2018 16:00
|
|
|
onesixtwo posted:My favorite part of the LITERALLY FOREVER argument is how none of the people bitching about the AI join the posted PYDT games. Kinda self-defeating but hey, forums warrior to your hearts content I suppose in a video game’s thread you dislike. I've got no interest in playing the game in bits like that at all. Nor with people I don't know!
|
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2018 16:04
|
|
|
onesixtwo posted:Magil, started using your Wonders mod the other day. I’m still getting thrown off and forgetting to build National Wonders, but I really like the changes made so far. Definitely seems to also add towards guarding a capital due to the +10 defense on most of them, which I like as a side feature to bulk up. Thanks! I've been back and forth on National Wonders a few times, not sure how I felt about them as a concept after I added them but playing with them still feels good to me so I've kept working with them. I keep alternate versions of the mods with and without National Wonders for varying tastes. The +10 defense thing was something of a workaround to prevent National Wonders from duplicating when capturing cities. It's not perfect but it works well enough, and it does create some interesting side-effects. Planning on playing a bit more with what I can do with the new Rise and Fall stuff soon, I had been taking a break from Civ modding for a while but now I think I'm ready to dive back in.
|
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2018 16:12
|
|
|
I'm in several PYDT games, some of which I'm doing well in and many of which I'm not, and I enjoy the experience immensely. In fact, its the only reason I load the game up anymore. I also think the AI is a broken mess, and it is supremely disappointing, because it makes a long session of Civ VI boring. I don't think it's unreasonable to want a game designed predominantly for single player play to have an AI that can understand the mechanics enough to be competitive.
|
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2018 16:19
|
|
|
Taear posted:I've got no interest in playing the game in bits like that at all. you shouldn't be, because it sucks rear end nothing like taking a month to play the first 20 turns which involve pressing an arrow key, then enter, or just pressing enter
|
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2018 16:22
|
|
|
boar guy posted:you shouldn't be, because it sucks rear end If I'm playing a game I want to sit and play for the time I've got spare. Playing it in bits means it's not even worth buying really.
|
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2018 16:27
|
|
|
Taear posted:If I'm playing a game I want to sit and play for the time I've got spare. Playing it in bits means it's not even worth buying really. i dont mean to poo poo on the guys enjoying the PBEM games but there are real valid reasons not to play them edit: playing "live" multiplayer is even worse. i tried to play a game with some buddies in other states and it got so boring that i got a loving coloring book for killing time while they took their turns also, real fun to be in a months-long game when you are clearly not going to win boar guy fucked around with this message at 16:34 on Mar 13, 2018 |
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2018 16:30
|
|
|
onesixtwo posted:My favorite part of the LITERALLY FOREVER argument is how none of the people bitching about the AI join the posted PYDT games. Kinda self-defeating but hey, forums warrior to your hearts content I suppose in a video game’s thread you dislike. I might try someday, but Im just a SP guy. Videogames for me are a solitary experience
|
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2018 16:53
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 14, 2024 09:04 |
|
|
boar guy posted:also, real fun to be in a months-long game when you are clearly not going to win If you have to be winning to be having fun I dunno what to say. I've had plenty of fun being the player in fourth place and loving with the top dogs trying to king-make (only fun in MP mind) It's only not fun if you've been pummeled into an inconsequential city-state. Anyway PBEM is ecstasy for some and sucks rear end for others, can we not go tribal about this Microplastics fucked around with this message at 17:25 on Mar 13, 2018 |
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2018 17:23
|
|
