|
It's really just supposed to be a way to build roads through bits of territory that are hampering an army advance, but that comes up so rarely that they are pointless. The AI isn't good enough tactically for Engineers to ever be necessary, and honestly given how large armies become continent sized with 1UPT I don't see things like forts or silos being all that strategic. I have used silos to extend the reach of my nukes when I carpet bombed America with nuclear warheads
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2018 18:05
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 8, 2024 02:08 |
|
|
fridge corn posted:Yeah I get all that I'm just not sure I like it compared to how builders always worked I've always hated the way builders work, I'd much rather a Call to Power type of system where you can allocate public works and then spend X public works a turn improvable via technology or investment in public works. In a civ4 system this wouldn't work very well because at that you are just using the sliders to exchange Research/Tax/Culture/Espionage/Public works, but I could see see some other type of system whereyou exchange Hammers for public works, maybe by a building or something. You could even have builders just go obsolete once you discover civil service, and then the only thing that contributes to public works budget would be city population, with various technologies that increase the radius you can build public works in, and how much public works you can spend in a turn empire-wide. I just want something better managing physical units for mid-game city improvements.
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2018 18:54
|
|
|
watch moais secretly add to the global warming counter and people will build them and wonder why everything is going so wrong in the classical era
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2018 20:37
|
|
|
Secretly? It literally says you have to deforest the hell out of a place to build them. Edit: Oh that's going to be fun quote:
vvvv Oh, my bad then Kassad fucked around with this message at 20:59 on Dec 1, 2018 |
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2018 20:55
|
|
|
Kassad posted:Secretly? It literally says you have to deforest the hell out of a place to build them. no i mean they'll make each moai count towards the gw track even if it's built in like a desert because they're too lazy to track true deforestation
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2018 20:57
|
|
|
Kassad posted:Secretly? It literally says you have to deforest the hell out of a place to build them. Where did you see the thing about dams? It sounds fun
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2018 22:37
|
|
|
The Civilization Analyst website has a bunch of info.
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2018 22:49
|
|
|
Builders working the way they do is better as long as the system is 1UPT for sure. Civilization V workers were the worst of both worlds, you couldn't stack workers to speed up their task like in IV and they constantly blocked each other leading to lots of micromanagement to optimize your turns. Military engineers are more or less pointless though unless you want Eurekas or to build missile silos in the current build.The Glumslinger posted:Where did you see the thing about dams? It sounds fun I believe it was mentioned in the Firaxis stream.
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2018 22:50
|
|
|
I kinda really like how builders operate now. I don't have hordes of idle builders hanging around, but I also don't need to build like fifty of them to get railroads established within like a hundred turns off unlocking the tech. That and districts are awesome. I hope they one day introduce a base speed of three as default for military units.
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2018 22:54
|
|
|
Kassad posted:The Civilization Analyst website has a bunch of info. Ok, that also answers some of the questions about canals quote:Must be on flat land adjacent to city center and water, and must connect two bodies of water. So they let you get a ship or a trade route across a 3 wide piece of land with a city in the middle, but can be much larger with the Panama Canal wonder
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2018 23:07
|
|
|
builders are one of those few civ VI changes that i 100% prefer, it feels less cluttered than workers and them being treated more like a spendable resource leads to some neat civ abilities like the aztecs or china
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2018 23:15
|
|
|
Chronojam posted:That and districts are awesome. I hope they one day introduce a base speed of three as default for military units. My personal pipe dream is that the next civ game just ups the granularity a whole bunch. Make cities and improvements take up 7 (or maybe just 3-4) hexes, make roads wide enough to accommodate multiple units, make the default movement rate 5 or 6, and have terrain features of varying sizes. Bam, you can have actual tactical position-based combat and all that jazz without five units creating a hellish gridlock.
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2018 23:22
|
|
|
Zulily Zoetrope posted:My personal pipe dream is that the next civ game just ups the granularity a whole bunch. Make cities and improvements take up 7 (or maybe just 3-4) hexes, make roads wide enough to accommodate multiple units, make the default movement rate 5 or 6, and have terrain features of varying sizes. Bam, you can have actual tactical position-based combat and all that jazz without five units creating a hellish gridlock. I just wish that movement speed scaled with game speed. Why do units move at the same rate in a Quick game or a Marathon game?
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2018 23:24
|
|
|
I downloaded the Rocket Boots mod, which adds +1 movement to all units, the second I got the game and haven't looked back. Still hate the new movement rules and having to go through my army twice a turn when they approach a river.
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2018 23:29
|
|
|
The Glumslinger posted:I just wish that movement speed scaled with game speed. Why do units move at the same rate in a Quick game or a Marathon game? I'd hate it if that happened. I play on long speeds because I hate getting my newly minted units to the front line just in time for them to be obsoleted.
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2018 23:33
|
|
|
Huh, missed a huge change to strategic resourcesquote:Strategic resources nodes now contribute a per-turn yield to a global stockpile of each resource type, which is consumed both by one-time costs for building units, but also by per-turn upkeep costs for later units and for resource-consuming buildings such as powerplants. Upgrading units now also costs strategic resources (where applicable) in addition to Gold. In the announcement livestream gameplay, a single Iron deposit contributed 3 units of Iron per turn to the stockpile. It appears that 13 of the applicable resource is now required to build a unit, and 9 to upgrade.
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2018 23:35
|
|
|
The Glumslinger posted:I just wish that movement speed scaled with game speed. Why do units move at the same rate in a Quick game or a Marathon game? movement isn't the only factor; getting to the front lines is only half of the equation. if units can't attack 8x as many times per turn on quick as marathon then all the move in the world wouldn't save you from busting a highly-defended capital if your enemy takes 3 turns to research rifling but you still only attack once. granularity is just what happens on a slow game speed. i guess the true balance would be to have an attack cooldown on slower speeds and multiple on quick, but cooldowns suck and the opposite end of attacking eight times a round is like  just play on the speed you like, if you can. there's just too much to modify for balance otherwise. Fur20 fucked around with this message at 00:06 on Dec 2, 2018 |
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2018 00:04
|
|
|
Straight White Shark posted:I've pretty much only ever used engineers to pick up a couple eurekas. Maybe once I actually used an airstrip? I don't think it actually made a difference though. Yeah I pretty much only ever build them when like seven city states give me a bonus for getting that one eureka that requires an airstrip or something. I've never made actual use of them.
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2018 00:25
|
|
|
Well of Souls now has a complete list of Civs. They're not 100% certain but they've been right every other time so I'd say we're quite likely to see it. It's not a super exciting one but it's nice to see some old favourites. I still think it's dumb that Canada is one but whatever.
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2018 09:46
|
|
|
Taear posted:Well of Souls now has a complete list of Civs. They're not 100% certain but they've been right every other time so I'd say we're quite likely to see it. Well, this is the Civ that brought us Australia. I maintain that Christina I is a weird choice for Sweden. The really weird one: Eleanor of Aquitane as a second leader choice... for England or France. She can lead either one. That's a very interesting precedent...
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2018 14:29
|
|
|
Cythereal posted:Well, this is the Civ that brought us Australia. I think putting her as a French leader is dumb really but whatever, that's fine and interesting too. Christina is a really interesting Monarch so I'm absolutely down with her being the ruler. I think I'd have gone for Denmark and made Margarite the queen but at least Christina did some "weird" stuff and it'll hopefully mean more people learn about her.
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2018 14:33
|
|
|
After a trip to wikipedia, I'm interested to see what they do with Wilfrid Laurier for Canada. He was a diplomat and a stateman, and is still regarded today as an extremely influential leader of early Canada. There's all sorts of ways Civ6 could go with that, but I'm guessing they'll emphasize Canada's diplomatic side, maybe legacy government stuff like America.
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2018 16:49
|
|
|
Taear posted:Well of Souls now has a complete list of Civs. They're not 100% certain but they've been right every other time so I'd say we're quite likely to see it. Australia has less people and governs less territory that Canada. And the Brazilian empire lasted for all of 58 years, yet they get to be a civilization No, i'm not defensive, why do you ask. 
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2018 17:25
|
|
|
I don't see why Canada is a bad choice at all, the game has been a mix of modern nation states and unique cultural civilizations since 1991. If you're going to have Rome and France, why not Canada?
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2018 17:57
|
|
|
Euro Colony Simulator VI: Build an Empire to Last, oh, like a hundred years, if that
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2018 18:00
|
|
|
Sedge and Bee posted:Australia has less people and governs less territory that Canada. And the Brazilian empire lasted for all of 58 years, yet they get to be a civilization I think they're dumb too. And the US. Colonial nations always feel weird, they're too recent. They've made loads of bizzare choices this time anyway though like having Scotland as a Civ but having Victoria ruling "England". So whatever! Maybe they'll add the Kingdom of Jerusalem or the Two Sicilies or something. It's still strange to me that Italy has pretty much never been in it although maybe they say Rome counts. Who knows!
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2018 18:01
|
|
|
Byzantine posted:Euro Colony Simulator VI: Build an Empire to Last, oh, like a hundred years, if that And has had more global influence than many civilizations that lasted three times as long. Taear posted:I think they're dumb too. And the US. So, when's the cut-off date for when the game should stop mattering? Because a game that includes 20th century stuff without including the US would be really, really weird.
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2018 18:02
|
|
|
Cythereal posted:And has had more global influence than many civilizations that lasted three times as long. I mean that's a bit of a weird thing to say when in the modern day you can communicate with people in a way that was never possible before. Of course they're going to have more global influence when it doesn't take 6 months to take your caravan to "distant Cathay" or etc. Cythereal posted:And has had more global influence than many civilizations that lasted three times as long. I'd be fine with like.... 500 years. I'm absolutely okay with native American nations and etc but having colonial nations as cavemen feels weird, that's all. I get that they include places because people from those places play the game and want to be included and I think it's fair. Taear fucked around with this message at 18:08 on Dec 2, 2018 |
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2018 18:04
|
|
|
Taear posted:I mean that's a bit of a weird thing to say when in the modern day you can communicate with people in a way that was never possible before. Of course they're going to have more global influence when it doesn't take 6 months to take your caravan to "distant Cathay" or etc. So you think the game should end around the 15th or 16th century and include no technology, units, or ideas from past that point, gotcha. The Total War or Age of Empires series may be more to your liking. It's just as weird having so many nations that no longer exist in the modern world being able to research flight, land on the moon, and build battleships and submarines. I've kinda hoped for a while that Firaxis would troll players by putting in a completely fictional civilization that ostensibly doesn't exist yet. Hello, Lunar Coalition or whatever. Cythereal fucked around with this message at 18:14 on Dec 2, 2018 |
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2018 18:08
|
|
|
It's really dumb when people debate the real historical qualities as justification for which fictionalized nations should be put into a boardgame.
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2018 18:13
|
|
|
Cythereal posted:So you think the game should end around the 15th or 16th century and include no technology, units, or ideas from past that point, gotcha. Not really, those civilizations could have "stood the test of time" in the way that other names have carried on for so long. Whereas American cavemen is as weird as Lunar Coalition cavemen.
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2018 18:19
|
|
|
The Brazils and Swedens and Canadas and such are in the game mostly to draw in more game purchases from those regions. Civ VI's player numbers haven't seemed great compared to V so I can easily imagine that being at least one major reason for them opting for more "safe" choices like that.
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2018 18:19
|
|
|
I'm glad to see more of the British Empire get represented. Hopefully we can get South Africa and Belize in next. Maybe Bernard Montgomery as an alternate German leader.
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2018 18:22
|
|
|
i will own you, rome, as australia and there is nothing you can do about it
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2018 18:23
|
|
|
Kanfy posted:The Brazils and Swedens and Canadas and such are in the game mostly to draw in more game purchases from those regions. Civ VI's player numbers haven't seemed great compared to V so I can easily imagine that being at least one major reason for them opting for more "safe" choices like that. That probably is the reason although who knows how closely it tracks. I would imagine that the game would sell pretty badly in the US if the US wasn't in it but I don't think other places would mind quite as much as they're used to it. It's a shame that these are our last civs though.
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2018 18:37
|
|
|
England, France, Spain, Portugal, Netherlands, Germany, Denmark, Norway, Sweden, Poland, Austria, Hungary, Rome, Greece, Russia, Canada, USA, Scotland, Australia, Brazil, New Zealand, Belgium, Ireland, Northern Ireland, Wales, South Africa, Belize, Pitcairn Islands Arabia China India Native America Zulu (DLC)
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2018 19:33
|
|
|
Byzantine posted:England, France, Spain, Portugal, Netherlands, Germany, Denmark, Norway, Sweden, Poland, Austria, Hungary, Rome, Greece, Russia, Canada, USA, Scotland, Australia, Brazil, New Zealand, Belgium, Ireland, Northern Ireland, Wales, South Africa, Belize, Pitcairn Islands "White people history is the only history" - Sid Meier, probably From a game that brings you Austria, Germany and The Holy Roman Empire.
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2018 19:41
|
|
|
are there really any big names we're missing that should've gotten in over canada?
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2018 19:46
|
|
|
Brother Entropy posted:are there really any big names we're missing that should've gotten in over canada? Hannibal.
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2018 20:03
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 8, 2024 02:08 |
|
|
Brother Entropy posted:are there really any big names we're missing that should've gotten in over canada? The Inca and Ethiopia, just offhand.
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2018 20:06
|
|