Register a SA Forums Account here!
JOINING THE SA FORUMS WILL REMOVE THIS BIG AD, THE ANNOYING UNDERLINED ADS, AND STUPID INTERSTITIAL ADS!!!

You can: log in, read the tech support FAQ, or request your lost password. This dumb message (and those ads) will appear on every screen until you register! Get rid of this crap by registering your own SA Forums Account and joining roughly 150,000 Goons, for the one-time price of $9.95! We charge money because it costs us money per month for bills, and since we don't believe in showing ads to our users, we try to make the money back through forum registrations.
 
  • Post
  • Reply
blackmongoose
Mar 31, 2011

DARK INFERNO ROOK!

Jastiger posted:

Thats another thing I was going to mention, they need to not be afraid of letting you get powerful. This is something Beyond Earth did right, I think. Even in our current time of 2016, a few acres of Iowa farmland can potentially produce enough food to feed a town for quite a long time. Even 50 years ago it would have taken far more land to do that. Why not let us do that in Civ? Sure a farm in 900 AD can produce 1 food, but by 1950 it should be producing like 6 food, not just 2 or 3 as it is now. Its like they didn't want players getting too much yield or too much damage from their tiles and units whereas Civ BE let you do that and it was awesome. You're in the modern age, stuff moves faster, there is no reason it should take as long in 2010 to build a road as it does in 1800, nor should it take as long to move the same tiles. I think it opens up a lot of different strategies when you increase yields, units, and even tiles.

The other nice thing about large tile yields is that it potentially lets you have a larger number of specialists which is both appropriate for giving a feeling of a more modern city and also gives you new city managenent choices in the late game that are as interesting and relevant as the choice of tiles early game. Of course, you'd have to have tech and buildings ramp up specialist production at a similar rate as tile production, but that seems fairly reasonable.

Adbot
ADBOT LOVES YOU

blackmongoose
Mar 31, 2011

DARK INFERNO ROOK!

Jastiger posted:

Sounds like a good opportunity to force players to actively continue to improve their cities instead of building walls and saying fogettabadit for the next 1000 years.

This is literally what Civ 5 does with Walls->Castle->etc. all the way up to I believe Military Base, each of which gives massively larger bonuses to city strength. The idea seems to have been that greatly increasing unit power would effectively make older buildings like walls obsolete and require the powerful new buildings without needing to explicitly set a trigger. The problem was that by that point you could either wreck the AI totally well short of your cities or else were totally buried under AI bonuses so increased city defense didn't make much difference. It was a good idea though I think, and would work better with an improved combat system.

blackmongoose
Mar 31, 2011

DARK INFERNO ROOK!

Poil posted:

I'll have you know Germany has over 4000 years of history. :pseudo:

Who did it steal them from?

blackmongoose
Mar 31, 2011

DARK INFERNO ROOK!
Sumeria's leader should really be Saddam Hussein tbh

blackmongoose
Mar 31, 2011

DARK INFERNO ROOK!

TooMuchAbstraction posted:

I remember founding cities in mid-lategame in Civ4 and having them be reasonably productive. Generally that involved either a good site on an island, or needing a forward operating base for warfare.

Of course it's not worth it in Civ5, where city growth is glacial and the game artificially penalizes your tech/culture rate based on how many cities you have. But it doesn't have to be that way.

As you noted, the only reason you'd do this in Civ4 is because it was in an inaccessible spot (an island) or for reasons unrelated to production. Otherwise you would have settled it earlier. That's because the basic formula of Civ means that you should always build cities until whatever limiting mechanism makes them unproductive. If the limiting mechanism is only the opportunity cost of building a settler instead of something else, you get ICS. If it's the many penalties of Civ V, you get a much more limited number of cities. Either way though, you should always expand up to that point as fast as possible. Therefore, if you're settling a city late game it's because:
a) Technology has unlocked a reduction in the penalties for founding a city, so you suddenly can afford a new city.
b) Technology has improved the production of cities so that the benefit of founding a new one is worth the penalty.
c) You have been voluntarily crippling yourself by waiting to found a city you could afford.
d) You could afford a city but have no room to build it.
e) You need a city for other (likely military or strategic resource) reasons and those reasons justify the penalty.

E is a pretty game-specific factor that doesn't come up much, and designing for players to voluntarily cripple themselves isn't usually a good idea. Making bad tiles productive could help with case D where someone is trapped in the Arctic, but that's also a pretty edge case. Case A is how I wish they would design the game with progressive reductions to the penalties as tech (or social policies) advance allowing you to slowly ramp up city numbers, but snow tile production doesn't affect it much (allows more choice of sites for the later cities potentially). In order for Case B to be true, you'd have to give massive bonuses to the tiles and make them better than grassland/plains/mountain tiles, which I don't think people would like.

Ultimately, I don't think it makes much of a difference if they give snow tiles production late game or not because it's not likely to factor much into city location decisions so it's pretty much a non-issue.

blackmongoose
Mar 31, 2011

DARK INFERNO ROOK!

Peas and Rice posted:

Whenever I consider playing BE again I just boot up Alpha Centauri and play a real game. :smugdog:

Doesn't it slow down your real game to have AC running in the background though?

blackmongoose
Mar 31, 2011

DARK INFERNO ROOK!

Stalin after WWII, Bismarck after Franco-Prussian war, etc.

blackmongoose
Mar 31, 2011

DARK INFERNO ROOK!

Niwrad posted:

I'm a little surprised the Dutch keep getting in the game. Nothing wrong with them, just that it's not big enough that you'd think it'd warrant entry into every game.

Well, obviously you'd want to include the largest Muslim country of the early 1900s

if you're confused look up the Dutch East Indies - on a serious note, they were a major player in the 17th and 18th centuries between owning Belgium and being a major colonial force

blackmongoose
Mar 31, 2011

DARK INFERNO ROOK!

Bread Pudding posted:

I would play the poo poo out of Caesar 3 : Civilization Edition.

CivCity: Rome is actually a reasonably good game and it's very sad they never bothered to make sequels because a few improvements to the core gameplay would have made it top tier. I still like it better than the randomly-pathed walker versions of the city building games though.

blackmongoose
Mar 31, 2011

DARK INFERNO ROOK!

Gort posted:

There's a really good 4X called Predynastic Egypt that does it this way. It has a free demo and is £7 for the full game so you should definitely check it out.

There's also a sequel called Egypt: Old Kingdom or something similar and a similar style game about Ancient Greece from the same publisher. I like them a lot but the one weakness is that playthroughs start to feel really similar after the first few, especially when you know all the major challenges in advance.

blackmongoose
Mar 31, 2011

DARK INFERNO ROOK!

Pattonesque posted:

I would love to learn about the main exports and imports of Ethiopia

Imports: Guns
Exports: Dead Italian invaders

blackmongoose
Mar 31, 2011

DARK INFERNO ROOK!

Crazy Ted posted:

There really are some absolutely hilarious and hard-to-get achievements in Civ VI. I think there's still a few from the standard, non-scenario game that only 0.1% of players have been able to get.


Yeah, there's a couple that are definitely there more for the amusement value than to actually be achieved (I like the ninja turtles and 99 luftballons ones). Scrolling through them all can get pretty amusing and it's also interesting to see the stats (most common victory is science followed closely by culture, most common civ to win with is Rome followed by Germany, most common map size and type in victories is standard and continents, and the easiest civ-specific achievement is apparently Sumeria's - most difficult is probably Russia given that they've been in since the beginning of the game and still only 0.3% of players have gotten it).

blackmongoose
Mar 31, 2011

DARK INFERNO ROOK!

QuickbreathFinisher posted:

Yeah no they really said gently caress Georgia with this one. Hope they either add another Tamar personality like teddy/Catherine, or just patch in some kind of advantage. I can see her being fun but I have no idea how to get there when none of her poo poo has anything to do with each other, or with her bonuses.

Also I want them to add Armenia or Lakota (with tribal permission). What are some of everyone's dream civs that haven't been included yet? Or dream leaders for extant civ 6 civs?

I think Rome should get one of the late stage despots as an alternate. Plus maybe like an Inuit or Etruscan or an Australian Aborigine group or Haiti or Cuba or something. Iceland? Albania? Mexico? Yugoslavia? Just spitballing. No idea how any of these would work or even if they would be appropriate in some cases.

Adding a Sassanid Persian leader like Khosrau would be neat to have a more econ focused Persia. HRE-era Austria focused on city states would be a nice addition - I know they made Germany kind of represent the HRE as well, but it's not the same. It's also odd that there's no Eastern Roman/Byzantine Empire representation. Serbia could work but I'm pretty sure they don't want to touch the issues that would bring up with a 10 foot pole. Goths could use some representation. There's obviously a ton of options for additional Chinese leaders. I'd love to see some of the various empires of the Indian subcontinent get separate representation but it seems like we're stuck with "India" standing in for all of them which sucks.

Adbot
ADBOT LOVES YOU

blackmongoose
Mar 31, 2011

DARK INFERNO ROOK!

Rimusutera posted:

Belisarius feels like he suffers from a case of not actually being the Emperor though. Heraclius would be pretty sick though, based on what I know about him/ what you mention.

Heraclius would be alright, but my vote is always for peasant Emperors which means that since Justinian has been done to death it's time for Basil I to get some recognition.

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • Post
  • Reply