|
What is the most powerful Civ for a fast next-next-next culture or science victory? Korea is good but science victory still requires quite a lot of building too. Sweden is really good for a culture victory, might even be the best overall, that automatic theming bonus is nuts.
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2019 08:28
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 26, 2024 10:04 |
|
|
Heer98 posted:Have any of you had loading a savegame hard crash your computer before? It seems to happen to me like... 1/10 times. My recent game stopped working, where the game simply fails to finish loading. That's as bad as it's been.
|
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2019 08:37
|
|
|
TjyvTompa posted:What is the most powerful Civ for a fast next-next-next culture or science victory? Honestly, Mali is good for any victory, you just buy the victory type you want.
|
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2019 14:25
|
|
|
The Incas are probably really good too? No bonus to science itself but if you're near a bunch of mountains, you'll get a ton of production and food.
|
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2019 15:55
|
|
|
Chronojam posted:My recent game stopped working, where the game simply fails to finish loading. That's as bad as it's been. New expansion has added a hard crash to my machine I did not have before (several year old handbuilt power rig- no crashes on anything else). Usually late game/session. Maybe a memory leak/resources sort of deal? In any event a reboot/relaunch fixes things, aside from the lost turn.
|
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2019 16:56
|
|
|
TjyvTompa posted:What is the most powerful Civ for a fast next-next-next culture or science victory? Australia if it gets the tiles it wants produces so much that it can probably do anything. I had 4 national parks in a golden gate bridge city. The desire for appealing tiles plays into culture victory. The thing with culture victory is that faith and or techs play a huge part in it. Tile tourism can eclipse great works. The unique improvements that give tourism seem to be red herrings though.
|
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2019 17:56
|
|
|
Weirdly the game keeps re-installing old mods, like Better Report Screens and the old version of Concise UI. I need a modpack just to arrange my modpacks...
|
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2019 19:19
|
|
|
highmodulus posted:New expansion has added a hard crash to my machine I did not have before (several year old handbuilt power rig- no crashes on anything else). Usually late game/session. Maybe a memory leak/resources sort of deal? In any event a reboot/relaunch fixes things, aside from the lost turn. I have the same, I think it's a Direct X issue as WoW has the same problem for me, other games don't.
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2019 07:03
|
|
|
Marmaduke! posted:Weirdly the game keeps re-installing old mods, like Better Report Screens and the old version of Concise UI. I need a modpack just to arrange my modpacks... Same here. I think uninstalling mods in the game interface doesn't properly clean up the folders so they reappear whenever Steam feels like it. Deleting the appropriate folder in the corresponding workshop subdirectory seems to work though.
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2019 03:27
|
|
|
I think it might be from my saving create game setups in previous versions, maybe it saves the selected mods too? I'll have to see if they keep reappearing now I've set my options again. Due to the way I play (streaming through nvidia, before Google started trying to make it cool!) I can't access the folders to delete stuff so hopefully this will work. Sometimes I have to load and reload 5 or more times to get the game going, setting up my graphics (so many clicks and scrolls, terrible interface making the basics so much harger than they need to) and as much as I like it, it does make it drag...
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2019 11:50
|
|
|
Advice needed: just finished a space race with Gorgo and a domination game as Mali before that. Now I'm looking at Cultural and Diplomatic victories. I don't have any of the standalone Civs like Australia. I'm looking at France for Cultural but not sure who would be good for a Diplomatic Victory so if y'all can give me a top 3 choices that would be swell. Then as relates to the various victory conditions themselves how do you achieve them? I was dancing between Diplomatic and Space with Gorgo in my last game and I got to about 7 VPs when all the civs started voting against me hard and cost me two points towards the win and then I hit space before I even came close to getting there. What are some tips to help get VPs? I had the Statue of Liberty but only managed to get 1 point from Emergencies because they just weren't really happening and I didn't see any other competitions; is the only other way to get them from winning them during world congress votes because that's what I was doing but it seemed drat slow. Regarding the "new" cultural victory....how do I do that? Build all the cultural buildings + parks? Focus on great works? How to I make my tiles appealing? So many things to juggle with this one. Help appreciated.
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2019 22:55
|
|
|
I'd try Sweden for diplo victory
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2019 23:15
|
|
|
Tile appeal is improved by mountains and forests next to them. Some improvements like Sphinx and city park will improve nearby appeal too
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2019 01:44
|
|
|
Byzantine posted:The thing I don't get is why we already have Victoria leading England but they keep adding territories of her empire as separate "civilizations". A nation-state is the exact same as a civ like the Maori, or so video gamies would have me believe. Additionally, Vickie lost 2 of the territories from this game during her time, which is something. I suppose that could be replicated by having mini-games of Colonization set in Civ.
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2019 22:28
|
|
|
Diplo victory is basically impossible unless: -You're playing against civs who keep voting for themselves even when you're one vote from winning. I've no idea what AI routine governs this, but I've won two diplo victories, both through Eleanor voting for herself rather than against me. -You've narrowed down the playing field enough that there are only two or three opposing civs left, who lack the combined diplo favor to outbid you. For the first, go with a civ that gets bonus envoys, since city states are the biggest source of diplo points. Georgia is the best at this, but something like Hungary or either Greece could also do. For the latter, go with whatever military civ you prefer, possibly also Hungary. For tourism, you want to focus on culture buildings and the improvements that give tourism based on appeal. You can build woods with the Conservation civic which give +1 appeal to all adjacent tiles (+2 for unchopped woods) and City Parks with the Liang upgrade that gives +2 to all adjacent tiles, which can help you build seaside resorts and national parks. Most civs have some kind of bonus towards tourism: -Brazil and Russia get a decent chunk of bonus great people points towards great works -Canada can build national parks without spending faith on naturalists -A lot of unique improvements add either culture (which gives tourism after discovering Flight) or appeal. -In particular, the Mapuche Chemamull gives 75% of the output of a seaside resort and culture instead of gold, but can be built anywhere, while the Persian Pairidaeza gives +2 appeal to adjacent tiles and a bit of culture. It's entirely possible to build absolutely breathtaking natural parks in any dump, so long as they're ringed by city parks and Pairidaeza. -Again, warmongering will let you take over other civs' great works, wonders and resort and park spaces, while also eliminating their accumulated culture from the pool of civs you need to impress.
|
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2019 16:37
|
|
|
Zulily Zoetrope posted:Diplo victory is basically impossible unless: That's how I've done it three times. I murder my rivals, make friends with the city states to use the social policy that gives influence for being suzerain, and then after systematically exterminating most of the world, declare myself king. It's a pretty hilarious dynamic but realistically the only way to win
|
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2019 17:52
|
|
|
Zulily Zoetrope posted:Diplo victory is basically impossible unless: That's a shame. I hope someday they'll program it to where the AI isn't so cutthroat about diplomatic victories and will actually create a lasting alliance that eventually votes for you or at least doesn't vote against you.
|
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2019 18:11
|
|
|
PaybackJack posted:That's a shame. I hope someday they'll program it to where the AI isn't so cutthroat about diplomatic victories and will actually create a lasting alliance that eventually votes for you or at least doesn't vote against you. I've won several diplo victories against all AIs on standard size maps, it's not that bad. You just need to focus on culture/envoys and make sure to be suzerain of as many citystates as possible. Try to get Apadana and build lots of wonders in that city. If you are 1 point away from winning you can spend 0 points and just lose 1 point from the vote and then the next vote you go all-in on getting 2 votes and win.
|
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2019 18:59
|
|
|
A simple solution imo is that AI's who are allied with you will never vote against you. That way you need to actually use, y'know, diplomacy in order to get a diplomatic victory.
|
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2019 21:25
|
|
|
One thing missing from this is the ability to buy promises for future votes from other civs. You could do that in Civ V: Brave New World. Or am I missing how you do it?
|
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2019 21:53
|
|
|
I wish there was a way to get other Civs to stop warring with your City States.
|
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2019 22:02
|
|
|
Fojar38 posted:A simple solution imo is that AI's who are allied with you will never vote against you. That way you need to actually use, y'know, diplomacy in order to get a diplomatic victory. A human player wouldn't play that way, though. If you vote for your ally to win, you lose the game.
|
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2019 22:04
|
|
|
Gort posted:A human player wouldn't play that way, though. If you vote for your ally to win, you lose the game. This essentially eliminates any kind of victory aside from domination since players will always be directly competing with other players in ways that preclude any serious cooperation. But I don't think that really matters since the vast, vast, VAST majority of Civ players play exclusively against the AI.
|
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2019 22:08
|
|
|
Gort posted:A human player wouldn't play that way, though. If you vote for your ally to win, you lose the game. Kingmaking is a part of any game and honoring those alliances and promises is what makes you a good ally and person that makes the game interesting. I'll totally vote for an ally if they were actually honoring their promises and had been diplomatic through the course of the game. I really dislike that you can take away diplomatic victory points with the votes, you should always be progressing a victory condition and zero sum is terrible game design. If you don't want player X to have the points then you should be forced to vote for player Y or Z instead. This of course also brings up another point of whether you actually want the AI to act like a human player.
|
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2019 22:16
|
|
|
rantmo posted:I wish there was a way to get other Civs to stop warring with your City States. there is always a way to stop the AI from doing things you don't like  firaxis needs to decide if they're making a wargame or if they're making civ. if they're making a wargame then it's fine for AI players to behave like petulant backstabbing bastards who can't even honor an agreement for 90 turns. but if they're making civ they need to make AIs that respect the rules of the game. of course none of this matters because starting with 5 the AI as been 90% arbitrary and based pretty much purely on random seed anyway Fur20 fucked around with this message at 22:22 on Mar 22, 2019 |
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2019 22:18
|
|
|
The gap between what motivated pure plays (openai / deepmind) can do with AI vs game companies shipping the same utility AI they've done for a decade and making 0 attempt to improve it is real clear these days Turns out, yeah, doing good AI is relatively hard and interestingly enough it's 1000x harder if you are simply taking the profits from your game and putting it in marketing / your bottom line and aren't bothering to fix or improve it lol. Like imagine if they dedicated to AI development allll the resources spent animating dozens of dumb cartoony leaders that give you tepid burns and interrupt your gameplay so you can marvel Firaxis lovely art + animations. let's talk about walls
|
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2019 22:32
|
|
|
There are questions to be asked if people actually want to play against a deepmind-tier AI. I suspect most people would get frustrated pretty quickly considering a sophisticated enough AI with enough info learned would win pretty much every single game. The balance for making a good AI isn't "make it behave exactly like a human player." The balance is "challenging but fair"
|
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2019 22:42
|
|
|
rantmo posted:I wish there was a way to get other Civs to stop warring with your City States. Levy them and surround the city state with your troops so that they can't attack it lol
|
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2019 22:43
|
|
|
Fojar38 posted:There are questions to be asked if people actually want to play against a deepmind-tier AI. I suspect most people would get frustrated pretty quickly considering a sophisticated enough AI with enough info learned would win pretty much every single game. I actually really enjoyed watching Civ V multiplayer online, precisely because the human opponents were challenging and the games were interesting. It obviously was a different beast with simultaneous turns and often a lot of first clicks to move your units to attack sort of stuff going on, but nonetheless I think actually good, challenging, ai which didn't rely on stacked yield bonuses would be well received by players. Some players. Especially those like myself, who want a fair challenge but absolutely do not want to endure other people and lengthy multiplayer games. No doubt there is a subset of players who just want to click end turn until they win, while Tamar shuffles her industrial age archers pitifully about. But I think there is maybe more support than in the last few years, especially with the number of "gently caress you, you lose" XCOM type games around
|
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2019 22:53
|
|
|
Fojar38 posted:There are questions to be asked if people actually want to play against a deepmind-tier AI. I suspect most people would get frustrated pretty quickly considering a sophisticated enough AI with enough info learned would win pretty much every single game. This is some weird thing Sid came up with a long time ago and I humbly submit that he may have gotten it wrong. Look at it this way: Some people play to mess around and don't want the strategy videogames they play actually pushing them / losing to the AI. In that case it seems pretty easy to kneecap the working AI and let those players enjoy the Civ simulation and building game while the players that want a challenge can get one. As opposed to the current implementation, shipping AI that is brain dead so that only the Civ simulation and building players can enjoy it and the players that want a challenge move on to other franchises.
|
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2019 23:01
|
|
|
Fojar38 posted:Levy them and surround the city state with your troops so that they can't attack it lol I do this (or similar) sometimes, problem is the AI doesn't seem to ever declare peace with city states once they're at war. One time a third civ cancelled my lordships over a city state I was protecting, so all my protective troops were kicked out and their invader could finish the job. I suppose if two human opponents colluded like that, I'd have to applaud their ingenuity...
|
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2019 23:37
|
|
|
Ham Sandwiches posted:As opposed to the current implementation, shipping AI that is brain dead so that only the Civ simulation and building players can enjoy it and the players that want a challenge move on to other franchises. see though the problem everyone has been having since civ 5 is that the AI isn't even satisfying to play against in a sim/builder setting because it's just a psychopathic schizoid computer that's out to irritate the player because "that's how humans would play!" a real human player would've quit when their opponent got Scientific Method in 1000AD. a good sim AI has strong diplomacy and the ability to acknowledge and respect deals, pacts, etc. a bad sim AI will offer you wild, nonsensical, and often one-sided deals (except for maybe literally historically insane leaders); settle a city next to your capital that can only ever utilize like 5 tiles after you told it not to settle near you (except for age of discovery civs and america because that's in character); and surprise declare war on you when your military strength is 1,000 times greater than theirs (except montezuma or opposing-religion isabella, either of them doing this is fine because that's in character, it's just what they do). the modern AI isn't just bad for wargamers, it's a lovely time for everyone. Fur20 fucked around with this message at 00:29 on Mar 23, 2019 |
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2019 00:15
|
|
|
Fojar38 posted:This essentially eliminates any kind of victory aside from domination since players will always be directly competing with other players in ways that preclude any serious cooperation. Yep, Civ is a wargame. Military trumps everything else. I would rather they finally make a decision - is single-player Civ a game where you're supposed to be competing with AIs who are playing the same game as you? If so, it makes no sense for AIs to ever do anything to help you achieve your victory conditions. They might help you take down another player who is closer to winning than either of you, but there should definitely never be a situation where they vote for you to win, and any alliances should be temporary affairs which will end the moment they make you more likely to win than your alliance partner. Or is single-player Civ supposed to be a game where the AIs act like leaders of countries? Are they supposed to know about winning and losing, or are they just supposed to react to your actions, being nice to you if treated well, and maybe trying to conquer you if you're weak? In this case, it doesn't make a lot of sense for them to really be playing by the same rules as you, which could be a good thing for the game if they actually embraced it. Currently civs just sort of meander through the game, without much of a plan. If you freed their AI from having to play by the same complicated rules as the human player, you could script things a lot better. Want Attila the Hun to have a barbarian horde in the early game? Just give him one. Don't just raise his "aggression" stat to 8 and hope it happens. It feels like the designers of Civ don't really think about questions like this and instead just focus on making something Civ-like. I think the game could be better if they picked one approach.
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2019 00:55
|
|
|
PaybackJack posted:That's a shame. I hope someday they'll program it to where the AI isn't so cutthroat about diplomatic victories and will actually create a lasting alliance that eventually votes for you or at least doesn't vote against you. Play Alpha Centauri.
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2019 01:34
|
|
|
Fojar38 posted:There are questions to be asked if people actually want to play against a deepmind-tier AI. I suspect most people would get frustrated pretty quickly considering a sophisticated enough AI with enough info learned would win pretty much every single game. That's what difficulties level are for. Prince should be the best "fair" AI that can exist. Then it goes up from there. It's ok that not everyone can beat deep blue at chess.
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2019 01:38
|
|
|
PaybackJack posted:That's a shame. I hope someday they'll program it to where the AI isn't so cutthroat about diplomatic victories and will actually create a lasting alliance that eventually votes for you or at least doesn't vote against you. They had this in Civ4/BTS. If you shared a religion with a civ from the Ancient/Classic era you were basically buddies for the rest of the game. Also you could release/create vassals who would have huge diplomacy bonuses to you.
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2019 01:40
|
|
|
mitochondritom posted:I actually really enjoyed watching Civ V multiplayer online, precisely because the human opponents were challenging and the games were interesting. It obviously was a different beast with simultaneous turns and often a lot of first clicks to move your units to attack sort of stuff going on, but nonetheless I think actually good, challenging, ai which didn't rely on stacked yield bonuses would be well received by players. Some players. Especially those like myself, who want a fair challenge but absolutely do not want to endure other people and lengthy multiplayer games. I don't think you understand what a "deepmind-tier" AI would be. It wouldn't be a fair challenge, it would be an impossible challenge that is better than any human player. You wouldn't win, ever. The people you liked to watch play multiplayer wouldn't win, ever. Maybe the best Civ player in the world could eke out a victory every so often, but unreliably, dependent on getting lucky starts. And it wouldn't be cheating either, it would simply be better than you. People do like hitting their heads against walls, but that's only because they imagine that they'll eventually clear the wall with enough practice. Deepmind-tier means it's beating professional players who devote their lives to the game. You won't win. Ever. Does that sound fun to you?
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2019 01:42
|
|
|
Clarste posted:I don't think you understand what a "deepmind-tier" AI would be. It wouldn't be a fair challenge, it would be an impossible challenge that is better than any human player. You wouldn't win, ever. The people you liked to watch play multiplayer wouldn't win, ever. Maybe the best Civ player in the world could eke out a victory every so often, but unreliably, dependent on getting lucky starts. And it wouldn't be cheating either, it would simply be better than you. If they ever develop a Civ AI of this caliber I welcome it, as long as it doesn't take 2 hours per move. Also not every AI in the game needs to have the same Magic AI. Different difficulty levels can make more AI's more or less challenging, including straight up handicapping them.
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2019 01:48
|
|
|
Gort posted:A human player wouldn't play that way, though. If you vote for your ally to win, you lose the game. Of course they would. It means the game ends, everyone can go do something else and social behavior has been reinforced. That guy wouldn't, but nobody really likes that guy be he artificial or biological.
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2019 01:54
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 26, 2024 10:04 |
|
|
If a human player thinks he can win, he won't vote for another player. If he can't win, he will absolutely vote for his ally.
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2019 01:56
|
|