|
Personally I would probably be happy with "dumbing down" type changes that make grognards cry hot tears of impotent rage.
|
#
¿
May 14, 2016 03:22
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 24, 2024 19:02 |
|
|
Shibawanko posted:I like the graphics. I hope they cut down on needless bullshit like leaderheads and just keep it simple and laptop friendly. I take your point even if I don't agree with it--Elizabeth is always England's leader because she was by any measure England's most successful ruler, it would be preposterous if she weren't England's default leader--but... Robespierre? Seriously? He "ruled" for like 5 minutes, if you can even call it that. On the other hand there's the clamoring for leaders to be represented in the game who were terrible rulers. Even if any serious representation of him weren't verboten, Hitler was a short lived brutal dictator who left Germany in smoldering ruins to actually be divided into two countries for the next 50 years. It's a Good Thing to have several options for leaders for at least the big nations, but they should at least be historical figures who were actually successful rulers and not, y'know, the complete opposite of that.
|
|
#
¿
May 16, 2016 14:57
|
|
|
lol, Gerald Ford. I guess there's no point arguing about it since I can't even comprehend the mind of a person who actually thinks Gerald Ford being a Civ leader would be cool.
|
|
#
¿
May 16, 2016 15:06
|
|
|
Israel in Civ is probably the only thing even less likely to happen than Hitler in Civ.
|
|
#
¿
May 17, 2016 14:30
|
|
|
I know I'm literally the only person in the world who thinks this, but I think Civ 1 got unit stacking right and every system since has been inferior. Stack as much as you want, roll one die to decide who wins, if your best defender loses then you lose the whole stack (except in cities or fortresses) so stack your entire army on one tile at your peril. Maybe lay on some kind of battle fatigue system that reduces the victorious unit's strength until it goes home to rest. But Civ 2 introduced hit points on units, which have been around ever since and were a step backward IMO because it made battles too predetermined. I liked seeing a spearman miraculously kill an attacking cannon unit every once in a while.
|
|
#
¿
May 17, 2016 19:38
|
|
|
The biggest combat fuckup in Civ V was having ranged units operate differently from melee units, rather than just having unique attributes (good against spear/bad against horse/etc.)
|
|
#
¿
May 18, 2016 01:19
|
|
|
Methanar posted:Is civ 6 finally going to be better than civ 4? In the minds of the Civ 4 True Believers it is impossible for anything to ever be better than Civ 4. I think both games have their plusses and minuses and still play both, myself, but you have to admit no Civ inspired passionate loyalty the way 4 did. I don't think there's anyone in the world that will fight to their last breath to defend Civ 5 the way Civ 4's fans do.
|
|
#
¿
May 18, 2016 02:27
|
|
|
Harmonia posted:This tidbit is interesting: Another way to phrase it: Cottages are back baby!  (I'm beginning to wonder exactly to what extent they're going to turn city maintenance into a SimCity minigame though)
|
|
#
¿
May 18, 2016 22:08
|
|
|
The historical model for nukes was the first nation to develop them got to use them to devastating effect, once, and then MAD mode takes over as soon as another nation got them soon after. It would be cool if Civ modeled this.
|
|
#
¿
May 20, 2016 14:12
|
|
|
Whether to optimize the game design for single player or multiplayer is an important and unavoidable decision. If you optimize for multiplayer then AI civs should behave as much like humans as possible: win or die trying. if you optimize for the single player experience then you're better off programming the AI civs for a rich roleplaying experience for the player, IMO. And yeah, in Civ 5 "diplomatic victory" was really economic victory, the goal was to amass enough cash to buy off all the city-states.
|
|
#
¿
May 20, 2016 16:04
|
|
|
Panzeh posted:Yeah, honestly tactical combat and logistics in and of itself are just not things I desire in a civ game. Spoken like a filthy casual. We don't want your kind here. 
|
|
#
¿
May 23, 2016 23:40
|
|
|
The Human Crouton posted:I want larger maps and and platform that can handle more civs at once, because I want a world where you don't have to directly be involved with each other civ if you don't want to. Having some regional powers, and giving their opponents weapons might be fun. God, the delay between turns beyond the early game was bad enough with 12+ civs in Civ 5, no thanks to even longer delays.
|
|
#
¿
May 24, 2016 16:57
|
|
|
I assume that on one of the lategame techs Sean Bean will be killed mid-narration, like Joseph of Arimathea.
|
|
#
¿
May 27, 2016 04:24
|
|
|
If it's that unenjoyable you can just use Really Advanced Setup to remove Boudicca and Haile from your games. I've been blocking Hiawatha and Kamehameha and Maria Theresa from my games for years now because gently caress that endless city spamming and buying city states poo poo.
|
|
#
¿
May 28, 2016 22:06
|
|
|
RagnarokAngel posted:But having people not desiring to win fleshes out the world a bit and makes it feel more...I dont know, I don't want to say real because civ is at its heart a board game and is not trying to be real, but it does inject some politics into the game you couldn't get with just pushing around the 8th places person. Right but the only way to enforce the existence of city-states (rather than them all being instantly conquered by the first real civ that finds them) is the jarringly gamey mechanic of making everyone else in the entire world permanently ripshit pissed off at anyone that conquers a city-state.
|
|
#
¿
May 30, 2016 05:03
|
|
|
Aerdan posted:I'm of the opinion that they decided against multiple leaders because the UA system really doesn't allow for it. Washington and Teddy Roosevelt, while they lived in very different times, were both kinda isolationist, for instance. Then, too, many civilizations just don't have a second iconic leader that would be distinct enough to qualify for their own UAs. So, rather than waste time trying to figure out how to make it work, they decided to pick just one. IIRC Civ 2 just straight up had one male and one female leader for each civ. (Wasn't Eleanor Roosevelt the America leader there?) In a way I'm kinda surprised they never came back to that. Rexides posted:It's one of the things I absolutely don't care about because after the game starts, it doesn't matter if the civ you picked had one or a billion alternative leaders. I'd rather focus on systems (and visuals!) that enhance the core game rather than giving me more options to fiddle with on the Setup Game Screen. So maybe it's just that the non-technological techs like Philosophy, Drama, etc. were removed from the Technology Tree proper and attached to culture points instead? Eric the Mauve fucked around with this message at 15:29 on May 30, 2016 |
|
#
¿
May 30, 2016 15:26
|
|
|
MMM Whatchya Say posted:I'm just hoping it helps Civilization's long running issue of science being the only thing worth investing in ever That's pretty much it, isn't it? In Civ 1-4 trade was everything because trade converted to science. In Civ 5 food is everything because food = population = science. I can't perceive any way to change it so that science isn't everything, without radically overhauling the fundamentals of the game. But that's probably just because I'm not creative enough. Even so, the Civ VI designers have to toe a fine line between better balancing the game and messing too much with proven success.
|
|
#
¿
May 30, 2016 15:44
|
|
|
A civ splitting in two is a thing that was super rare but could actually happen in Civ 1.
|
|
#
¿
May 30, 2016 17:03
|
|
|
I mean Civ 1 had all kinds of random and frequently detrimental events, but that stuff was quickly dropped from the series and never revisted so it's pretty clear it's not wanted.
|
|
#
¿
May 30, 2016 17:33
|
|
|
Yeah because the game being hard coded to make your life miserable if you dare to conquer anything in a Civilization game wasn't bad enough already in Civ 5. More seriously though, I don't think trying to be more like a Paradox game is a good direction for Civ to go.
|
|
#
¿
May 30, 2016 17:45
|
|
|
The Human Crouton posted:Anyway, my main gripe with V is the end game, three civ slog. Especially since one of the three endgame civs is always Hiawatha.
|
|
#
¿
May 30, 2016 17:59
|
|
|
TooMuchAbstraction posted:Playing-to-win also means that diplomacy with the Civ5 AI was impossible, because the AI always hated you and wanted to see you suffer. Whereas in Civ4, when an AI offered to make a Declaration of Friendship with you, you knew it actually meant something. Civ4 politics generally stabilized into 2-3 power blocs where everyone in the bloc liked each other and hated everyone outside of it, while Civ5 politics is this stupid crab bucket thing where anyone who's apparently doing too well gets yanked down by everyone else. This is mostly because of the ridiculously over-the-top warmongering penalties though. Hopefully they realize that was dumb and tone it way down for Civ 6. "You took two cities from Alexander so I'm going to passionately hate your guts forever now, even though I've always hated Alexander and you've always been a bro to me" is stupid, stupid, loving stupid. Speaking of dumb here's a question that may be dumb: Would it really be impossibly difficult to do both, and give the player the choice as to whether he'd rather the AI civs play to win or play to be interesting?
|
|
#
¿
May 31, 2016 02:21
|
|
|
Jastiger posted:All the CIv 4 chat makes me wish my DVD drive worked so I could reinstall it. So tempting. Yeah Civ 4 is stupid cheap during steam sales. I got it on Steam like 3 years ago for 5 dollars. StashAugustine posted:For some reason I am hilariously bad at Civ 4. I've read up on the strategy and I still can't get past the medival era without getting boxed in, having an awful economy, losing a war badly, or some combination of the above. At even Prince difficulty Civ 4 is a bitch to learn how to play right and the AI is pretty ruthless about wrecking you with a deathstack in the lateearly/earlymidgame. It's definitely the deepest game in the Civ series but accessibility is not one of its virtues. The learning curve is pretty steep. I think way back when Firaxis first announced Civ 5 would be basically a reboot of the series that was one of the first things they cited as to why. Eric the Mauve fucked around with this message at 04:16 on May 31, 2016 |
|
#
¿
May 31, 2016 04:14
|
|
|
Jastiger posted:yeah it just causes me to take 4d8 damage if I buy a game online that I already own on CD, ya know? Its why I don't have Age of Empires or Baldurs Gate updated versions. Tell you what, next Steam sale you buy me a $10 game (or $5 if it's that cheap) and I'll buy you Civ 4, would that improve your Redundancy Resistance enough to survive?
|
|
#
¿
May 31, 2016 04:23
|
|
|
Phobophilia posted:And in the end, the war was worth it, because in this game, land is power. My economy is a wreck, if someone invaded with a stack of rifles, I'd be toast, but if I can recover, I can easily win the game. This kind of dynamic play is what is missing from Civ5. Yeah and in Civ 5 population is power, there's nothing at all to limit population growth within individual cities (only at the empire-wide scale), and the fewer cities you can cram your population into, the better. It was a pretty drastic change.
|
|
#
¿
May 31, 2016 05:08
|
|
|
I'm not really sure how they could have hosed the worker AI up so bad in Civ 5, given how simplistic tile needs are. I mean this hierarchy is a simplification but not much of one: 1. Unimproved resource tiles? Improve them. 2. Build farms on every tile that can take a farm. Grassland tiles get priority, then river tiles get priority. Chop down forests on grassland or plains tiles, unless you're early game Boudicca. 3. Jungle tiles? Trading post. 4. Swamp tiles? Clear 'em, then build a farm. 5. Mines on unrivered hill tiles (or lumber mill if they're hill + forest). (X. When new cities are built devote a worker to building a connecting road.) I mean there are some edge cases and exceptions but that's pretty much it, and I can't imagine it's that hard to program the AI to go through that decision tree. It appears the Civ 5 AI has some misguided idea of keeping a city's tile yields balanced in some way, but the results are almost random. It's almost like the devs never realized that the way they designed the game, food is everything, and so didn't program the AI to prioritize food over almost everything else, as human players do.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 1, 2016 15:09
|
|
|
Jay Rust posted:Personally, a much more complicated late game would make me lose interest pretty fast. Like, having six different kinds of battleships, each with different specializations, isn't super compelling to me. No, you're not. The Something Awful Games Forum selects members mostly from way out on the far  side of the scale, ultra-complexity is what most of us want but most of us are like in the top 10 or 15 percent of Civ fans in that regard (and let's not even talk about the most avid Civfanatics posters).I'm pretty sure my own ~Civilization Opinions~ are considered filthy casual by goon standards but complicated by general Civ buyer standards.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 1, 2016 22:04
|
|
|
If I may insert a controversial opinion, the snowball effect isn't THAT huge a problem, it can be a good thing for the endgame being mostly the player enjoying the fruits of having played the early/midgame well, and you definitely want to avoid going too far the other way with rubber band mechanics and turning Civ into Mario Kart where the first two-thirds of the game is irrelevant.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 1, 2016 23:21
|
|
|
MMM Whatchya Say posted:If they're balancing them more it sounds like it could be better than civ v. Like, if culture is as valuable a road to invest in as tech that would be great stuff Hard to see how it possibly could be though, those who invest in tech will invade and crush those who invest in culture with superior teched armies.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 2, 2016 21:39
|
|
|
Prepare yourself for an Unpopular Opinion: Religion should never have been introduced to Civ as its own mechanic in the first place and it's a better game without it.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 5, 2016 20:21
|
|
|
JeremoudCorbynejad posted:What didn't you like about Civ4's implementation? The only criticism I've seen is that it wasn't interesting enough, but I've not seen anyone claim it was a poor mechanic so I'd be interested to hear your take on that. I apologize in advance for not having a more interesting answer, but... I didn't object to the implementation, in 4 or 5. Religion's just an extra system to have to pay attention to that doesn't really add anything new or interesting to the game; it's just bonuses in the same old categories. Civ 4 uses it as an important element governing formation of diplomacy blocs, but it's a clunky way to do it and diplomacy should be more dynamic and centered around an AI civ looking around and thinking, "Who do I like? Who do I hate? From among those I don't feel strongly about, who does it make sense for me to buddy up to?" Religion was put into Civ because ~realism~ (look how crucial religion has been to the development of human civilization all throughout history, how can it NOT be in the game?!) but, well, it's easily abstracted/assumed that each individual Civilization comes packaged with its own religion, that it wants to spread the same way it spreads its culture, government, etc.: expansion and conquest. I don't think adding religion as something you can put effort into spreading WITHOUT expanding or conquering is a meaningful addition to the game; it's a meaningless sideshow and a waste of developers' time and players' time. Now that it's in the game though, it ain't coming out, I get that. There would probably be a player uproar if Firaxis announced there won't be a religion mechanic anymore.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 6, 2016 02:53
|
|
|
The Human Crouton posted:The lack of control is that your citizens can become a different religion than you want them to be. You can't just make a royal decree that everyone follows your religion. Right, thank you for putting that so succinctly. That's what's wrong with religion as a mechanic in Civ, IMO. The whole point of playing Civ is that you're effectively a god. You as leader ARE the civ's religion, the way the game is designed, and having a "your citizens can tell you to gently caress right off because of actions opponent civs take and/or random chance" mechanic violates that.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 6, 2016 04:31
|
|
|
I think Civ 1 is very underrated even today, and still play it from time to time. There's something to be said for its elegance relative to the ultra-complex Civ 4. edit re: the post below me: Doing caravans the way BNW does them and not including the obvious feature to attach a military escort to them was dumb as hell and suggests the designers didn't think their systems through at all, and didn't give a poo poo when many players pointed out this obvious missing feature after BNW was released.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 10, 2016 16:50
|
|
|
The AI civs in Civ 1 definitely weren't trying to win either. Their programming was much more simple (just a sliding 1-3 scale in 3 categories: Peaceful-Aggressive, Civilized-Militaristic, Perfectionist-Expansionist) but Civ 5's AI personality setup, while much more complex, more closely mimics Civ 1's than any of the intervening games do. Ironically, the complexity of Civ 5's personalities combined with the nonexistent diplomacy make AI civs MORE samey than they were in Civ 1. ("Trying to win" basically means "goes out of their way to gang up on whoever the leader is", which is what humans do. IMO singleplayer Civ is better if the AI civs don't do that and roleplay their personalities instead.)
|
|
#
¿
Jun 10, 2016 17:03
|
|
|
Internal trade routes produce magic food out of thin air for your capital and food is science and science is The Only Thing
|
|
#
¿
Jun 10, 2016 17:10
|
|
|
Sometimes reading this thread makes me feel like the title should be "Civilization VI: My Opinions On How Civilization Should Be More Like a Paradox Game"
|
|
#
¿
Jun 11, 2016 14:33
|
|
|
They're going back to the Civ IV font? The font was the worst thing about Civ IV.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 15, 2016 19:06
|
|
|
I'm all in favor of having 150 civs/leaders in the game, but the ability to manually pick which ones to include and exclude as potential AI opponents should be baked into the game and not require a mod. It's not that hard to have the best of both worlds: Here are a million civs, those of you who only want to play with the 25 or so that your high school history book covered can just turn the rest off, go wild.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 17, 2016 00:16
|
|
|
I dunno, so far it sounds kinda like it's going to be the super standard Only Right Thing to make these three specific units and merge them together. Which is really just unnecessary busywork that could and should be abstracted into just making one unit. Keeping an open mind until we have real information though.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 20, 2016 03:02
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 24, 2024 19:02 |
|
|
It kinda sounds like Firaxis is trying to have its cake and eat it too at this early stage of the PR process, by way of threading the needle between saying "pssst, stacks are back!" to the Civ 4 fans while also signaling "don't worry, stacks are still gone forever, we're just adding optional bonuses for units you can build!" to the Civ 5 fans. It'll be interesting seeing which way Civ 6 actually ends up, once they finally show us the actual game. My money would be on the latter.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 20, 2016 15:34
|
|