|
Goa Tse-tung posted:of course not, are you high? Maybe I'm high, maybe I'm not but I checked google images in case my memories were fogged and I still stand by my opinion. Prettiest Civ game maybe.
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2022 10:40
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 25, 2024 01:31 |
|
|
One thing I fondly remember from Civ 2 is being able to take cities with naval units. I did that a lot. Just floating by a city and seeing it has one wounded garrison unit... well, I ain't busy, I could eat a city
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2022 13:38
|
|
|
Brawnfire posted:One thing I fondly remember from Civ 2 is being able to take cities with naval units. I did that a lot. Just floating by a city and seeing it has one wounded garrison unit... well, I ain't busy, I could eat a city You can do this in Civ 5 + 6 as well though?
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2022 13:44
|
|
|
I really haven't played those. I'm probably stuck at IV forever. But I thought modern games had some weird thing where land units "embarked" and just sort of floated across the sea? Was I mistaken? That turned me off during previews because I'm a naval nerd but I don't know if that's still a thing
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2022 13:56
|
|
|
Brawnfire posted:I really haven't played those. I'm probably stuck at IV forever. Yeah, 5+6 do that thing, it's true. I agree with you, though. I sometimes play Civ 4 too and I enjoy the logistics part of building enough transport ships for naval invasions.
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2022 14:07
|
|
|
Embarking isn't perfect but I would take it over having to deal with transport ships any day, and I am glad modern strategy games entirely forgo the latter.
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2022 14:10
|
|
|
From a game perspective I definitely prefer embarking but if simulation is what you want out of a Civ game, getting frustrated with the logistics of transport capacity and then losing an entire army because something bad happened to your boats is most definitely the more realistic mechanic.
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2022 14:15
|
|
|
John F Bennett posted:Yeah, 5+6 do that thing, it's true. I agree with you, though. I sometimes play Civ 4 too and I enjoy the logistics part of building enough transport ships for naval invasions. My last game I had the industrial capacity of an entire continent's worth of cities but somehow only one city on the "Mediterranean" that was my closest access point to the Khmer I wanted to invade. I ended up spending hundreds of thousands of gold to build a fleet of transports with in a hurry just so I could actually get the dozens of patiently-waiting marines to their beachheads.
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2022 14:17
|
|
|
TipTow posted:From a game perspective I definitely prefer embarking but if simulation is what you want out of a Civ game, getting frustrated with the logistics of transport capacity and then losing an entire army because something bad happened to your boats is most definitely the more realistic mechanic. Exactly this in my mind, transports suck rear end and that's exactly the texture I crave in a game.
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2022 14:19
|
|
|
There was this great postmortem done by a senior Civ4 dev on a lot of their decisions and him philosophizing about game theory. Was a great watch, and one of the things he touched on was transport ships, how hard they where to code the AI for, and how humorously the players learnt to exploit that.
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2022 14:45
|
|
|
Imagine the AI trying to deal with transports and one unit per tile in Civ5/6. 
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2022 15:11
|
|
|
Im weird in that I prefer transport ships any day Not only because I like to play the logistics game, but also because, at late game, is far less work and annoyance than individually moving dozens of units across the sea Poil posted:Imagine the AI trying to deal with transports and one unit per tile in Civ5/6. Is not like the AI can do anything right in those games so probably it would not make too much of a difference
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2022 15:20
|
|
|
Elias_Maluco posted:Im weird in that I prefer transport ships any day And of course it's easier still if you have naval (and air, if necessary) superiority in the area and can just select their destination point and have them sort it out themselves.
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2022 16:10
|
|
|
homullus posted:Less work? I think I can get behind that. Far less work? Shuffling them all around taking their turns to get lined up with the transport, and then similarly micro-managing where each lands along the coast, is a big hassle compared to their essentially being on land the whole time, even when they are on water. Maybe not far less but still less and you dont have of worry about protecting them individually or them losing their way because some unit moved into their destination etc I wish we had land transport units too, like in that Warhammer civ-like game
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2022 16:30
|
|
|
That's less of a transport vs no-transport argument and more of a 1UPT being disastrous thing. Units cancelling cross-map orders since someone stood in their destination tile for a turn is infuriating. The first time I saw auto-canoe was on some RTS and it blew my mind. Not sure if I liked it, as every prior RTS had staple transports, but it sure as poo poo made moving maxed out blobs across a small puddle much easier.
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2022 16:38
|
|
|
The best feeling in the world tho is rolling up on a heavily-fortified island city, blasting it with destroyers, pulverising it with bombers, then just sending in transports stacked with marines secure in the knowledge that the city is yours by turn's end.
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2022 18:09
|
|
|
I think for the best solution for transports in a game like 5 or 6 would be some kind of logistics resource. Build ports or similar activities to get logistics. Your units can embark, but only up to X units at a time, where X is your logistics threshold. This way you have imaginary transports that still represent actual transport ships because they are now an actual resource while also not being a micro-managing nightmare. It abstracts out all of the nonsense while still having cost/benefit calculation. You could even provide more depth by deciding how many logistics points are going to be used when this particular units embarks. Is this unit going to use 1 logistic point to float over on a lifeboat, or is going to use 3 logistic points and board a floating fortress to make sure it gets to its destination? Of course, using logistics points only for transport would be dumb, so they'd have to used for some other use as well, but you get the point. My philosophy is that everything should have a cost, and nothing should be annoying.
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2022 19:26
|
|
|
That resource could represent supply lines. Expend enough logistics you can mount a larger military expedition further into enemy territory with fewer support costs.
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2022 22:39
|
|
|
Elias_Maluco posted:Maybe not far less but still less and you dont have of worry about protecting them individually or them losing their way because some unit moved into their destination etc well yeah civ 6 has poo poo pathing and having non-poo poo pathing would alleviate a lot of that better strategy games have things like zones of control that let a single unit/fleet cover a group of embarked units; it's not an issue with the concept of embarkation itself
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2022 22:53
|
|
|
I like embarking units but i loathe 1upt, so i play non naval civ4 maps. though old world handles naval crossings really well, but then again Old World handles everything really well.
|
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2022 05:06
|
|
|
Got the game on sale. Any of the DLC content worthwhile if I'm not interested in any of the civs? I got the Rise and Fall and Gathering Storm. How does DLC in multiplayer work?
|
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2022 18:32
|
|
|
Jack Trades posted:How does DLC in multiplayer work? The host's dlc will be active (with regards to the extra game modes and stuff). You can only select civs that you own, and others may select civs they own, independently of one another.
|
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2022 20:20
|
|
|
I also bought the game on sale. Should I just be doing the “Play Now” mode as a newbie? Or scenarios maybe
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2022 16:55
|
|
|
Orc Priest posted:I also bought the game on sale. Should I just be doing the “Play Now” mode as a newbie? Or scenarios maybe Personally I think getting an OP civ (like Korea) and playing on the lower difficulty levels is a better way to learn the game
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2022 17:02
|
|
|
Speaking of Korea, I was playing Civ 4 last night and fighting a war against Korea gently caress HWACHAS, gently caress
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2022 17:04
|
|
|
Is the OP up to date on AI being dumb and single-player being bad, or did they address that at some point since?
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2022 17:48
|
|
|
Jack Trades posted:Is the OP up to date on AI being dumb and single-player being bad, or did they address that at some point since? They did address it several times but AI still be dumb
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2022 17:52
|
|
|
I think the AI was an almost decent for a time, right before the "season pass" DLCs Than it became total poo poo again and they never fixed it
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2022 17:54
|
|
|
btw if you're new the AI is still hard on the upper levels, it takes some time to get yourself optimized
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2022 18:11
|
|
|
Goa Tse-tung posted:btw if you're new the AI is still hard on the upper levels, it takes some time to get yourself optimized Truth. It took me a while to shift my brain from thinking in terms of tile improvements to thinking in terms of maximizing district adjacency and regional effects when it comes to optimizing my civ. I highly recommend Germany as a beginner civ.
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2022 18:36
|
|
|
Germany, Rome, Korea are all good beginner civs. The first two are good generalist civs, Korea is busted with science.
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2022 18:46
|
|
|
If we're recommending Korea as a terrain dependent science civ then I'd also recommend Pericles for getting a feel for the culture game.
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2022 18:54
|
|
|
I recommended Korea because it was my first and I won a science victory in Prince in just my second game. Is an easy civ But yeah, maybe something more generic would be better
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2022 18:56
|
|
|
Rome is the best generic civ to start with imo
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2022 18:57
|
|
|
I feel Rome's not a good beginner choice; it's a collection of small bonuses that are largely lost on the new player. Having a firm direction to play into helps a lot for optimizing play imo. A great example was Civ5's Venice: Despite basically being a civ with more cons than pros, many people including myself won their first deity game with Venice since it taught focused strategies very well. Now that I think about it that's kinda a common theme with civ games isn't it? So many of the factions available at launch are very wishy washy compared to the flashy stuff that comes later to sell DLCs.
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2022 23:46
|
|
|
That's a good point, especially considering how opaque so many of the mechanics are. Free monuments in every city are great, but may obscure where your culture is coming from, so if [hypothetical new player] started with Rome then switched to, say, Korea, they very well may be  about why they're getting boatraced in the civics tree the second go-around.
|
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2022 01:33
|
|
|
Serephina posted:I feel Rome's not a good beginner choice; it's a collection of small bonuses that are largely lost on the new player. Having a firm direction to play into helps a lot for optimizing play imo. A great example was Civ5's Venice: Despite basically being a civ with more cons than pros, many people including myself won their first deity game with Venice since it taught focused strategies very well. I mean if you want focused strategies, spamming legions and using legions to chop more legions is a pretty focused and specialized strategy? I take your point but I just think that's an interesting complaint to make specifically about them because one of their big cornerstone strategies is actually very specialized and no one else can do it I think they're good because they have strong bonuses from the free monument and cheap aqueduct which you're never going to go too wrong with building a ton of which can lead into learning about aqueduct/industrial zone shenanigans, they have a great unique unit which comes at a time where you should be a lot of times trying to do a classical era war, etc. I dunno. This guy goes into some thoughts about Rome in this instructional playthrough and I agree with a lot of what he says (or at least I think this is the video he talks about why they're a good intro civ) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NEsmanUoO2g Stefan Prodan fucked around with this message at 03:47 on Apr 1, 2022 |
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2022 03:45
|
|
|
Sorry I'm not gonna sit through an hour-long video. My point wasn't that Rome isn't strong or has unique strats, but rather that sitting down spoiler-free for your first game it might be too subtle of a civ. Free roads are strong, but not if you're shuffling units in a very deliberate way. Free monuments are amazing, but are invisible. Why are trade stations good again? An unspoilered player is more likely to preserve&improve resources than know to gear towards a chop-spree at a particular point. It's hard to gently caress up Rome, but a new player might feel lost; comparatively, Germany and Korea very forcibly hit you over the head with what you're supposed to be doing. "This thing right here, see it? Use it. Win."
|
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2022 06:34
|
|
|
I've got some Deity wins and I still don't understand trade stations
|
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2022 06:50
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 25, 2024 01:31 |
|
|
On the other hand, on lower difficulties if you play Rome and rush Legions you can easily kill off whatever neighbors you have on the same landmass and from there have pretty much free reign to gently caress around and stumble into a win no matter what you do. Bonus points if you play with secret societies and go voidsingers, because then your free monuments start giving you faith, and by the time you can actually use it to crank out units you have a shitload of it.
|
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2022 08:17
|
|
