|
sarmhan posted:Civ 4 religion wasn't very interesting either. It was a rather convulted way of maybe getting a bunch of gold. Civ V's religion has way more going on, although as with everything I'll be interested to see how they tweaked it for VI. Phobophilia posted:Civ4 religion was a diplomatic tool in SP. It was a cool way to form blocs and alliances. Civ5 religion was just a big perk tree and just a pile of gold, if you were lucky and the AI Boudicas didn't roll their belief pick on tithe. Civ4 religion was pretty deep in single player. It is an interesting diplomatic tool, but it also had a huge place in cultural victories because of cathedrals giving 50% culture. Typical strat would be to get as many religions as possible to build a bunch of temples so you could stack cathedrals in your 3 culture cities. Religion was also deep in the civic system, with Organized Religion/Theocracy/Pacifism all providing very powerful bonuses if adopted. Going religion first also let you bypass monuments for early border pops, and maybe get a shrine for gold. Civ5 religion is way less interesting given that it's just a carbon copy of the policy system, with the same process of filling a bucket to select a bonus. That's without even considering how OP some of the bonuses like Desert Folklore or whatever are, or thinking about late game religion where you have to generate ever more faith just to keep the dominant religion.
|
#
¿
May 15, 2016 21:51
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 25, 2024 00:25 |
|
|
Budzilla posted:Just like Civ4 and Civ3. What the hell is this? Conquests was an absolute disaster. It destroyed the corruption mechanic (both in calculating the costs, and with the civil engineer specialist), added awful OP lethal bombardment, broken rear end Statue of Zeus needing Ivory (a luxury resource that would only have like 4 copies in the world, because of the civ3 map gen) and giving the ridiculously powerful Ancient Cavalry Same thing with BTS. Do you remember how colony expenses were calculated at release? Do you remember how awful the poison well or civil unrest spy abilities were? How the game was completely broken on Epic difficulty? How broken Corporations (Sid's Sushi especially) were? Statue of Zeus (increasing war weariness to the point that the game wasn't fun). Civ4 at release was buggy (memory leaks) and had overly powerful units (redcoats, cossacks, and catapults could still kill at release), but it was a hell of a lot better on release than either of those expacs.
|
|
#
¿
May 15, 2016 22:01
|
|
|
Node posted:what the gently caress is this The Canadian Thinker. It says it right there in his post!!! What the hell is wrong with you?
|
|
#
¿
May 16, 2016 02:36
|
|
|
shadow puppet of a posted:I'm sorry if you are so bent on having leaders be uberman gods shot from low camera angles that you'd not want to see a world leader bumble around and mix up their trade deals to comedic effect. I'd rather not have the leader be a bumbling retard. It'd be funny to play Dan Quayle as a mod but stupid otherwise. If you're gonna use the worst leaders then why have the Civs have traits and UUs/UBs that are meant to represent the best of their civilization? Why not give them nega-traits that represent the worst? Like Russia loses 15% production because they're all alcoholics and 15% gold because of corruption? That doesn't sound like fun.
|
|
#
¿
May 16, 2016 15:26
|
|
|
shadow puppet of a posted:Even in the Civ world it should be possible to elect a bad leader once in a few hundred turns under the Freedom ideology. You know, that thing that seems to constantly happen to civilizations throughout the course of history. Agreed. And that should be reflected through a civics system like in Civ4 or smac
|
|
#
¿
May 16, 2016 21:56
|
|
|
Yinlock posted:yeah I just always thought it was weird that Canada/Australia got jack poo poo so consistently throughout the series. I think that, it actually makes a lot of sense that Canada/Australia have gotten jack poo poo so consistently throughout the series.
|
|
#
¿
May 17, 2016 02:45
|
|
|
TooMuchAbstraction posted:It really feels like you ought to just be able to say "keep the people from revolting, otherwise build science buildings first, then buildings that give hammers, then buildings that give gold" and the governor would almost always do the right thing. I don't feel like choosing which building to build is a hard decision, in other words...so why are AI cities always so lovely? You can already do this with the build queue... The real microing doesn't come from what buildings you choose (which is less of an obvious decision than you're making it out to be) and more from managing citizens, which already has governor options for like, max food, max production etc.
|
|
#
¿
May 17, 2016 21:12
|
|
|
JVNO posted:I'll take 'pain in the dick' over 'completely unengaging warfare' any day. Stacks are in no way disengaging unless you're playing against a complete moron, in which case, yes, you can walk your doom stack up to your opponent and knock over their cities one by one. But as someone that has put a lot of hours into pitboss games against other players, and games on the harder difficulties, I can tell you that this isn't really the standard case and will get you wrecked. What would be preferable would be some kind of army system where you lock a collection of units into a single unit with a single strength rating that gets bonuses depending on the unit composition. (which is what I hope they do) Where you can lock 1 spearman, 1 archer, and 1 horseman together and have a balanced army, but if you lock 3 archers and 1 spear together and have it fight an army based on 3 horseman and 1 archer (and let's just say this game has a rock paper scissors of spear > horse > archer > spear) then the first army will get destroyed. What would be nice about this system is that it still gives you the flexibility to separate units from the army and have them do their own thing, like flanking or whatever.
|
|
#
¿
May 17, 2016 21:18
|
|
|
Proposition Joe posted:I also think that certain civilizations could have more than one leader to choose from but not have more than one unique ability to keep track of, just have the leader represent some changes to the AI or even just purely cosmetic depending on what's going on with the diplomacy in this game. This is just common sense. Leaders will all have different traits but the people and the culture that make the civilization unique would be pretty constant.
|
|
#
¿
May 18, 2016 01:14
|
|
|
xgalaxy posted:Nah. The biggest fuckup was having an AI completely incapable of dealing with the new movement and stacking mechanics. It was a traffic jam cluster gently caress. That's a symptom. The cause is 1UPT. 1UPT isn't necessarily a problem, but when implemented improperly, as in Civ5, it can have far reaching effects that negatively impact the rest of the game, from tile yields, cost of production, cost of techs, AI, etc.
|
|
#
¿
May 18, 2016 01:34
|
|
|
Ratios and Tendency posted:Are the CiV expansions worth checking out if I really disliked the basic game? No. The basic mechanics like global happiness et al are still there. Things are added, like Religion and Ideologies, but they're basically an extension of the Social Policy system.
|
|
#
¿
May 18, 2016 01:44
|
|
|
Phobophilia posted:Civ5 also has different justifications as to why you go to war. In Civ4, you go to war in the order in which you could economically integrate your opponents into your empire, in Civ5, you go to war to win. This makes Civ5 more turtley, if you can peacefully settle 4-5 cities, you can sit back, keep your borders fortified, and tech to an overwhelming advantage over someone who could only peacefully settle 3 and had to conquer someone else. Sure, a warmonger could win by constantly knock over opponents until they reach the frontrunner who hadn't snowballed out of control, but there is no impetus for the frontrunner to actually expand by warfare. In Civ4, everyone, even the peaceful expanders, were constantly eyeing your neighbours for weakness, which made the midgame interesting, and would constantly shift the balance of power. Weakness was death, and a huge investment for the victor, which in turn invited predation. This is my main problem with Civ5 that I hope Civ6 fixes. There's basically no actual reason to go to war in Civ5, it's so punishing on every level, from integrating cities, to increasing the cost of social policies and techs, and decreasing global happiness. Civ is a 4x game, and one of those x's is meant to stand for expand. A 4x that so thoroughly discourages expansion is insane to me.
|
|
#
¿
May 18, 2016 04:54
|
|
|
Failboattootoot posted:Because expansion isn't actually fun to some people, which is why civ 5 tried to strike a balance between wide and tall. They failed to some degree since ICS dominated vanilla civ5 and then 4 cities dominated BNW but that's why the effort was made. If someone doesn't find expansion fun, they shouldn't be playing a 4X.
|
|
#
¿
May 18, 2016 16:26
|
|
|
Jastiger posted:I'd pick Russia JUST to do this. I'd research all the attrition techs, build the Colosseum (which doubled attrition) and watched enemies melt in my territory. Russia is one of the worst civs in RoN specifically because you could build like 4 supply wagons and be immune.
|
|
#
¿
May 25, 2016 18:01
|
|
|
TooMuchAbstraction posted:What, really? Then why is it that I never seem to run into a food cap for my cities outside of the very early game, while in Civ4 making certain there was enough food was a constant struggle for any city I wanted to grow big? If you didn't even know how much food a citizen cost in Civ5, then I'd have to chalk this one up to you being a complete retard.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 2, 2016 06:37
|
|
|
Gort posted:OK, so science is one bucket you fill up for bonuses, culture is another. Yeah its kinda dumb. I don't really see the point in having two tech trees if they aren't going to be mechanically different from each other, other than the resource you use to fill the bucket. That's a big complaint I had with Religion and Ideology from Civ5, both were basically just another Social Policy tree, put there to give the illusion that more is going on now.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 6, 2016 00:12
|
|
|
Clarste posted:I assume the idea would be that you could focus on one or the other tree and end up with a totally different style of gameplay depending on what kinds of techs you have available at any given time. As opposed to classic Civ where just shooting up the single tech tree as fast as possible would make you better at everything at once. That's better solved by just making a more balanced tech tree with multiple branching paths that are viable for different strategies. Civ4 does a decent job of this, though certain paths are a little weaker (Aest-Lit-Drama-Music, Myst-Med/Poly-Priesthood/Mono are both fairly weak, even with the wonders and the first-to techs) but that's something that can be fixed by changing the tech costs and buffing some of the techs. I'm not saying they should straight up use Civ4's tech tree, but a lot of the changes they're making (using culture instead of beakers to unlock techs in a separate tech tree, and freebie bonuses for doing actions associated with certain techs) feel like a very backwards way of giving the player more options with the tech tree, instead of just creating a balanced and branching tech tree (I know this is a simple request) from the get go.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 6, 2016 00:31
|
|
|
The Human Crouton posted:Religion didn't do anything in Civ 4. All I remember is that every religion did the same thing: give you some gold and let you see more tiles. The base religious system in V is great. The fact that the AI can spam missionaries doesn't change that the idea was fundamentally sound. What a loving ignorant post.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 6, 2016 17:39
|
|
|
Jastiger posted:I laid out my position on religion earlier but I really want to reiterate, I think they missed a key thing when they didnt' give religion any NEGATIVE connotations. It should be useful early on and become almost problematic later on. That'd really change the dynamic I think. Sure your Holy Warriors are loving everyone up, but its 2012 and now no one wants to be your friend and its seriously hurting your happiness and science. Mechanics that punish the player (outside of the implicit punishment that comes from suboptimal play) aren't very fun or interesting. There's a reason why they have golden ages and not dark ages. I don't want to play Civ3 Pollution-style whack-a-mole.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 6, 2016 17:52
|
|
|
TooMuchAbstraction posted:You could get dark ages in Civ4. I mean, they weren't called dark ages, but you could find yourself with your economy in the shitter, running only 10-20% science with the rest going towards maintenance costs and keeping your citizens happy. If you replace "Dark Ages" with "organic failure state" then that's fine. You should be allowed to mismanage your empire, and suffer the consequences for it. It just needs to be more subtle than "oh you invested in religion? Well then gently caress you buddy" like some atheist version of Yeah, exactly. This is also a problem I have with the tech bonuses in Civ6. From what I've seen, it looks like they're all something like "build an improvement" or "build a worker" or something that you ALREADY want to do anyway. Its like a lot of the quests in Civ5, where you'll get improved City State relations for hooking up your Gems. But you were already going to do that because it provides happiness and increased tile yield, so you're basically getting improved relations for free. The game itself already incentivizes good play, you don't need arbitrary free bonuses to further incentivize it.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 6, 2016 21:10
|
|
|
Gort posted:Civ 4 was panned similarly to Civ 5 until it got its two expansions. What the gently caress? No it wasn't.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 24, 2016 17:25
|
|
|
MMM Whatchya Say posted:Civ IV was a better game on release than Civ V was, but they both took expansions to get to their completed form. I sincerely don't understand this line of reasoning for Civ4 BTS. That was a horrible expansion, introducing a ton of broken features like espionage, corporations, colonies, the apostolic palace etc. The only 'nice' inclusions were just the new civs. Everything else was just a shitshow.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 24, 2016 17:32
|
|
|
The Human Crouton posted:Wonders on tiles is awesome. It prevents the rush for the exact same wonder in every single game because only a certain percentage of civs will have the ability to build it because of tile restrictions. what the gently caress
|
|
#
¿
Oct 27, 2016 05:58
|
|
|
restricting wonders to certain civs based on completely random map gen is awesome because... ?
|
|
#
¿
Oct 27, 2016 05:58
|
|
|
Impermanent posted:There's no other victory type where you would be focused on building wonders at that phase of the game, though. For domination obviously you would want to be building units / nukes. For science you're putting spaceport districts up and making GBS threads satellites. If you haven't won via religion at this point you've transitioned to a different victory condition. By the time you're in the late-game any time spent building a wonder for a non-cultural victory is completely wasted, and would be unless that wonder were game-changingly powerful, at which point that wonder winds up being mandatory for that victory, which shuts out players from pursuing those other tactics. Culture has so many wonders for it because it's a given that cultural victory focused players will be competing for them / sniping each other for them. For the other victories they would be distractions. Do you not remember the Space Elevator, Pentagon, Three Gorges Dam, Kremlin, and other such wonders in Sid Meier's Civilization IV?
|
|
#
¿
Oct 27, 2016 06:03
|
|
|
The Human Crouton posted:It makes every game different instead of 100% of all games acting out in the exact same way. The game is about adjusting your strategy to your environment now instead of always having to build X wonder if you play as Y civilization. In the old way, the completely random map generation didn't matter, which made completely random map generation pretty pointless. if the same wonders are getting beelined every game, thats a fault of balance, not restriction. the solution is to balance the op wonders, rather than isolated them to those lucky enough to get the opportunity to build them. this is just common sense think back to civ3 conquests. a wonder was introduced (statue of zeus) that had the ability where itd spawn a very powerful unit every 10 or so turns. it was a cheap wonder, so the units spawned easily paid back the cost of hammers invested. the wonder required ivory to build. in civ3, luxuries were often clumped, so even if there wete multiple copies, most of the time only one civ would have ownership. this meant, by the luck of the draw, only a couple civs would have access to an insanely powerful wonder. no competition. its as broken as youd expect nothing in this game is like that, but the entite philosophy that "the map forces ypu into a certain wonder" is as flawed as "you play this civ so you always need this wonder" your strategy should be the one dictating things. the map should play a role but it shouldnt really force anything
|
|
#
¿
Oct 27, 2016 06:42
|
|
|
Aerdan posted:Stop trying to make doomstacks happen again. They're not gonna happen again. The actual problem with 1UPT is that its a chore to direct a carpet of unitd, each individually. It is not fun to use. The constant traffic jams in peace time and in war time are frustrating and do not feel very tactical. It needs to be removed.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 8, 2016 16:28
|
|
|
Rexides posted:
You want to remove choice and consequence from this strategy game?
|
|
#
¿
Nov 8, 2016 17:18
|
|
|
The best way to deal with units, imo, is to have unlimited stacking, but allow the units to 'lock together' and combine their strength into one value, so it attacks as one unit, removing the most annoying part from each system: having to move a carpet of units individually having to attack with each individual unit from a stack this of course will still allow for different unit types such that an army consisting of combined arms is superior to one that consists solely of one unit
|
|
#
¿
Nov 8, 2016 17:22
|
|
|
Elias_Maluco posted:Agreed. But it would be even better with an stack limit (like 8, for ex.) Why. Now instead of having a couple large armies, you'll have a carpet of 8 unit stacks.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 8, 2016 17:47
|
|
|
Elias_Maluco posted:Because if units stack with no limit and the stack strikes as 1, it would be possible to make invincible stacks of doom For both sides, and 'invincible' is a misnomer, and units will still require gpt to maintain.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 8, 2016 17:55
|
|
|
nessin posted:That image shows a stack that will roll over that city. so yeah they can march right in because you don't have a doomstack and roll over that city in one or two turns. No it doesn't and no it didn't,
|
|
#
¿
Nov 8, 2016 18:50
|
|
|
Efexeye posted:6 is easily better at release than 4 and 5 were, but like with every other Civ game, you can't judge it until at least 2 expansions are out Even with the memory leaks, 4 was miles more playable than this game is.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 21, 2016 17:50
|
|
|
beefnoodle posted:Is there a mod to prevent AI "conversations" from popping up full screen? I second this. I am getting absolutely loving tired of the AI sending me some useless bullshit message like how my navy isn't big enough or how they're in awe of my scientific achievements every 10 loving turns. It adds nothing at all to the game.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 18, 2017 18:10
|
|
|
John F Bennett posted:[GENERAL BALANCE CHANGES] this is completely retarded
|
|
#
¿
Jul 29, 2017 22:38
|
|
|
Ratios and Tendency posted:I really don't like any of the scaling costs of settlers/districts/builders. they honestly have enough 'costs' associated with stealing an entire tile and enough choices/restrictions with regards to placing them strategically that you don't NEED them to increase in costs. you don't NEED them to be that expensive. you shouldn't have to place them asap to 'lock in their cost'. its moronic. settlers I can understand the scaling costs because thats the way this game limits expansion (same as happiness in 5, maintenance in 4, and corruption in 3/2/1) but its not the best solution. probably the simplest in comparison to the other games, and I guess the best thing I can say about it is that its better than happiness and corruption
|
|
#
¿
Jul 30, 2017 00:01
|
|
|
Jastiger posted:Culture flips are the best part of civ 4 hands down. They were annoying and the way that culture was calculated was obfuscated and unnecessarily convoluted. I love Civ4, way more than 5 or 6, but the culture wars were one of the less well thought out parts to it.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 18, 2017 17:00
|
|
|
ibntumart posted:That's right, I forgot about the siege engines. Stacks were so magical. They need to bring back stacks. Managing a giant carpet of traffic jammed units is a chore.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 18, 2017 17:00
|
|
|
Deltasquid posted:Because it reduces combat to "whoever can pour the most dudes into a stack faster than the other guy wins" and at that point you might as well have the computer measure your own production against the enemy's production to determine the winner instantly. It was boring in civ IV, it is boring in stellaris now, and just because it's easier to program doesn't mean it's more fun to play with. This isn't true. Civ4 had a very tactical system of combat that required intelligent maneuvering, positioning, and use of terrain. Against the AI it could be pretty brain dead, but against other humans its''challenging and interesting, which isn't really something that can be said for Civ5 combat. The biggest flaw of Civ4's combat system is that units attack individually, and throwing 100 units into 100 units just takes too long. If it had a moo2 style of locking units together into army groups, it would make for a much more interesting system of management.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 18, 2017 18:34
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 25, 2024 00:25 |
|
|
Mymla posted:1UPT is very good, the only problem with it is that the AI sucks, but that can be solved by writing better AI. 1upt isn't very good on its own. It needs maps and units specifically designed to work with 1upt. Civ5/6 doesn't have this. Both games have smaller maps, leading to larger traffic jams, and the units simply do not have the speed to move around each other. Think of other 1upt games. Panzer General had hundreds of hexes just for London, whereas the entirety of England is basically two tiles. Most units in Advance Wars can move 4 tiles at a time. And even then, traffic jams were actually pretty frequent in both games. It isn't like it can't work, but its not an ideal system of gameplay and you need to warp the rest of the game to fit around it, which just doesn't work in civ.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 18, 2017 18:38
|
|