|
I'd make each unit assign it's supply to a city. Two things could stress a city's ability to supply a unit: distance from the city or too many units supplied from one city. The former can be removed with appropriate technology and the latter just by developing cities. You could also have a buildable supply unit that functions as a mobile city, but depletes after X number of turns. TooMuchAbstraction posted:EDIT: something I've often wondered about is why you aren't allowed to spend production on upgrading a unit. If I want to park a unit in a city and dedicate that city's productive output into getting said unit a poo poo-ton of promotions, why can't I? Obviously the hammer cost of promotions would need to be balanced, but you're spending production on non-economic means, and you can still lose the unit and thus all the hammers you spent on making your super-unit. I think it's to simulate the effect of being in combat. Barracks, etc give experience bonuses, but only being "under fire" can really season a unit.
|
#
¿
May 23, 2016 22:20
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 26, 2024 06:36 |
|
|
Yeah, supply is something that should probably be abstracted- given you generally have 1-20 years between turns, you'd think they would have figured it out. It's also sort of built in with the healing rules. If you don't bring enough armies to a fight you either have a gap in the fighting where you're healing very slowly or have to bring over another wave of armies. Really, if you wanted to model supply, have a supply unit that allows units in its radius to heal more quickly. Or military units it's attached to, depending how VI winds up modeling the support unit stuff.
|
|
#
¿
May 23, 2016 22:52
|
|
|
That sort of fog of war originally came from the old game Merchant Prince/Machiavelli. Game looks good- glad so much stuff seems done so far ahead of release.
|
|
#
¿
May 26, 2016 00:42
|
|
|
I like the idea of farms and mines slowly giving way to specialized districts as you need less of them to support the city which starts sprawling out. It sounds to me like tile improvements are going to change more often, whereas in V you'd build a farm and it would sit there for 3000 years uninterrupted.
|
|
#
¿
May 28, 2016 00:47
|
|
|
Rexides posted:I know that it's barely an excuse for the game itself, but you can play a map with zero city states. We tried it once with a friend, and I have to admit I kinda enjoyed not having the pressure to bribe every single CS into worshiping me. I do this nowadays. Great merchants can't do trade missions with no city states and certain civs are gonna be useless. It also fucks up the diplomatic victory option. There's fewer avenues to resources as well. All that said, the game really focuses more on the civs than the city states, so it's an interesting change.
|
|
#
¿
May 30, 2016 04:06
|
|
|
Rexides posted:Maybe that's the point of 4X, reach a level of power that makes everyone else's efforts pointless, and either keep playing just to gloat over your puny opponents, or start a new game. The mechanical victory conditions are there just to pin down a logical end to the game if you feel you need one. Gripping end-game battles are for level-based games. Early in the genre you would get a conquest victory only when you conquered everyone and everything. Later the designers realized it wasn't that great and let you do some percentage of the map or capitals or something like that and it became more bearable. Throwing in fun stuff like revolutions or Antareans made it less of a cakewalk as well.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 30, 2016 00:02
|
|
|
I refuse to play unless they put the great California Republic in as a civ with Emperor Norton as the leader.berryjon posted:Emperor Norton. Beaten
|
|
#
¿
Jul 15, 2016 06:02
|
|
|
Psychotic Weasel posted:On an unrelated note, I'm also glad that the devs have the option to re-roll your start right in the menu again. It saves a lot of time when you don't have to exit and go through all the options again when the RNG just doesn't want to cooperate. You can do this in Civ V, actually, but only on the first turn.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 4, 2016 05:16
|
|
|
Powercrazy posted:It's totally fine for Snow tiles to be worthless, especially early game, along with Swamp and Desert. I've always thought that they should make tiles be more productive as you progress technologically, so you could eventually found viable settlements in previously uninhabitable places.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 16, 2016 01:11
|
|
|
Regarding mid/late-game city founding, there could be an "immigration" (population) bonus that comes in later eras for founding cities that could be increased by natural wonders or luxury resources inside the city zone. Combine that with late game techs that increase yields or available buildings/districts for tiles and it might make it worthwhile and not too onerous to keep track of. Rushing buildings in new cities with gold was, from a game perspective, generally never as good a use of the money as rushing buildings in larger cities, but you could have some sort of "manifest destiny" civic that reduced the cost of rushing buildings in small cities. Or steal a page out of the original Colonization's book and have civics or a wonder that auto-builds certain things at different population levels.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 16, 2016 04:12
|
|
|
SniperWoreConverse posted:Why? I still play on prince. Because higher populations means more tiles worked, so buildings with percentage increases are higher, and those that give "+1 for every 2 pop" also give better yields. That's only from a powergaming perspective. Obviously, things are situational strategically and what not.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 16, 2016 08:22
|
|
|
I don't preorder, but it's a decent package. Little knickknacks also don't do much for me, but at least these seem like good quality stuff.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 25, 2016 03:09
|
|
|
Scientific advancements should spawn randomly, being weighted towards larger/more developed civs, then spread on a civilization level by distance and speed up as technology progressed. You could have techs appear in more than one place at a time, of course. This would also allow for "backwards" civs that are geographically isolated. It would make espionage interesting- if you have some key tech you could assign a shot to "protect state secrets" or if someone has something you want you could target them specifically. In the later game you could build things to help techs spawn in your civ or even research specific techs (that still will only have a certain chance to appear). Glass of Milk fucked around with this message at 03:16 on Sep 28, 2016 |
|
#
¿
Sep 28, 2016 03:13
|
|
|
Well hopefully it would be something like, "A new code of conduct for your nation's mounted warriors has developed, interspersing martial valor with honorable action. The result is Chivalry, and we may now train powerful and noble Knights."
|
|
#
¿
Sep 28, 2016 04:03
|
|
|
StashAugustine posted:This is basically what Crusader Kings does except techs are hilariously low impact with a few key exceptions And the techs spread by province which sort of makes sense but is also infuriating when it works against you. An abstraction would definitely benefit Civ in that regard. It would definitely make the science victory condition more interesting if you had to steal and plunder your way towards required techs to build a spaceship.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 28, 2016 08:24
|
|
|
That's pretty good. I don't like to preorder generally but Firaxis usually doesn't do anything too egregious with their preorder bonuses. I wish we knew more about the DLC, because it might make the deluxe edition worth it. I don't care about maps or scenarios, but I will want all the civs if the game is good.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 29, 2016 03:13
|
|
|
Game is $45 on GMG with voucher code VIP3. I don't think it will be more than 25% off before launch- likely as good as it will get.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 30, 2016 06:58
|
|
|
Peas and Rice posted:Quoting for new page. The vip3 code only takes off an additional 3% on top of the 22% discount they're offering (you have to have a gmg account for the 22% discount). So it's $45 for the standard edition and about $60 for deluxe
|
|
#
¿
Sep 30, 2016 17:53
|
|
|
It was a mistake to preload, because now I've got the icon on my desktop and I keep clicking it.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 18, 2016 04:01
|
|
|
So it seems like spending money is a thing you do more often this time, both for buying stuff and getting tiles. Do builders increase in cost, or is that just settlers? I feel like I should be making more of them for regular tile improvements, not just resources. Game is very fun. I'm pleased with the level of complexity.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 21, 2016 09:04
|
|
|
I really wish the UI would let you see the tile yields for cities when you zoomed in on them. And better unit hotkeys. Otherwise, it's a fun game. I've totally outperformed the AI to the extent that when Philip declared war on me, my small group of field cannon decimated his antiquated invasion force.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 22, 2016 09:17
|
|
|
I wish the spaceport wasnt considered a district, because having one that takes 20+ turns to build near the end of the game sucks.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 24, 2016 03:17
|
|
|
The culture and tourism stuff is really weird. There doesn't seem to be an easy way to check what kinds of things you need to trade for and they're represented by thumbnails of the art/sculpture vs a readable icon. It looks like some kind of late 90s encyclopedia or something.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 24, 2016 07:24
|
|
|
I won my first game with a science victory with Roosevelt on Prince. City placement is really key, but i was able to basically buy all the city center stuff at will at the end of the game. I had 4 cities for most of the game; meanwhile Rome had upwards of 20 cities. I got into a brief war with an outclassed Spain in midgame, but nothing else despite having an advanced but relatively meager military. It was fun, but the endgame was a lot of clicking end turn while waiting for spaceship parts to finish.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 25, 2016 07:08
|
|
|
You could make tall empires viable by either giving bonuses to districts at higher population levels or allowing additional structures at that higher pop levels
|
|
#
¿
Dec 18, 2016 21:48
|
|
|
Come on firaxis, put the dlc on sale.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 22, 2017 23:07
|
|
|
Melee units should just have support slots for medic, ranged and siege. Medic helps heal every turn, siege helps attack cities, ranged does a little bit of damage before the start of combat. Later on add anti air as an additional slot if you want. So build robust units with a bunch of support stuff slowly or lots of base units.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 27, 2017 03:08
|
|
|
homullus posted:Several games (great ones, classics like SMAC and MOO) have had this modular design and I have strongly disliked it every time, because making military units is so much more laborious. Unless you're only ever building one kind of unit (which only happens at the end of the game), the interface has to account for all the different things you could build. Pikeman, pikeman + medic, pikeman + catapult, pikeman + sapper, pikeman + sapper + medic, ad nauseam, for every loving tier of technology. Yes, you can have the interface save your "favorites", but you still have to scroll through all those options to make the favorites, and still have to scroll through all the favorites, unless you take even more time to prune that list as you go. And you have to name them so you know which is which. And then there's the question of upgrading those individual components. It's a mess and it's misplaced depth. I agree. I never really futzed around with the minmaxing in SMAC. I envision it working here as the support unit being a separate thing you buy and build and then it moves around like a great person until you attach it to a unit- decent movement, doesn't violate 1upt, can't attack on its own, and once you attach it it's consumed into the unit. Then it auto-upgrades once you reach the right technology. Unit customization is a cool thing, but it tends to either go unused because using the best technology is so much better or there is a "best spec" that winds up becoming the default. For civ it should always tie into the idea of deciding what to produce when, I think. Glass of Milk fucked around with this message at 06:45 on Aug 30, 2017 |
|
#
¿
Aug 30, 2017 03:30
|
|
|
Civ 6 isn't an upgrade over 5, but 5 wasn't a big upgrade over 4 (arguably) until a couple expansions in. There are some improved mechanics (districts, City states) and some problems (ai, culture). To me, 6 isn't as much of a revolutionary change as 5 was to 4. Because of that, the general gameplay remains pretty similar, especially in terms of victory conditions. There's still hexes, there's still basically 1upt, there's still great people and religions with missionaries and all that stuff. The problems can be fixed by expansions, but how long we have to wait for that will kind of determine the game's success.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 5, 2017 03:51
|
|
|
I don't know if it's still true, but when the game was released if you were close enough to another civ at higher levels you could immediately dow them and steal their extra settlers.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 5, 2017 08:32
|
|
|
It's been a problem since 4. I would guess it has something to do with the number of cities increasing, because nothing else really makes sense. I never played a one city challenge though, so I guess that might be the best test.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 14, 2017 16:51
|
|
|
XCOM is a better game, but is ultimately derivative of enemy unknown. Does firaxis even have a social media presence? I really get the sense that 2k has poisoned their culture to be about the bottom line vs fixing/finishing their games. That seems to be the case for most large studios- ME Andromeda is not getting poo poo made for it after flopping.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 16, 2017 03:19
|
|
|
I always hated city states in 5. I never felt comfortable killing them because of the diplomacy hit and happiness problems. I'd prefer a "minor nation" mechanic where the nations included have a couple cities but don't really expand and nobody cares that much if you steamroll them. Or you can trade with them early on before you meet any of the regular nations.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 29, 2017 03:23
|
|
|
silvergoose posted:Just play Imperialism/Imperialism 2 for that, though. God drat the second one is 18 years old. It was my go to for many years for dosbox on my work PC. Borsche69 posted:honestly if you want something like that then the way Civ4 does it would probably be the way to go. If you leave barbs alone long enough they'll start forming cities. Like, if you play an islands game you can generally find an island or two where the barbs have 3-4 cities with roads and improvements and infrastructure. You would basically have the game say that, hey, this collection of cities is large enough and close enough together that it could form its own civ. Sure, but I'm talking about codifying that mechanic into the game with actual civs. And there's no guarantee that you'll find that in Civ 4 anyways. By the time you discover the island nation of pirates it's usually not worth it to fight them. I just kind of hate the city state mechanics as a diplomatic endgame anyways. In V it just felt like you were buying friends, especially if you were going for a diplo victory. In VI the bonuses really seem to lend themselves to spreading your envoys or whatever around and only focusing on some when you're in a tug of war with another major civ. It doesn't really help that they're shoehorned into categories of resources they provide. I feel like it should feel like the city states/minor nations have differing value in the world beyond whatever resource they provide. Sort of like, "Hey we care more about what Canada has to say than Liberia." Maybe Canada has more cities, a great port and/or a bigger army or a special resource or something, but are otherwise relatively static. You want to make an alliance with Canada more than Liberia, which is a bit more dynamic and interesting than, "I'm focusing on religious city states so I can pump out missionaries."
|
|
#
¿
Oct 1, 2017 01:32
|
|
|
Bring back the palace building I say!
|
|
#
¿
Oct 6, 2017 03:05
|
|
|
I hate theological combat in every goddamned game that it's in. You should be able to kill missionaries with soldiers to deter them from coming in your lands.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 11, 2017 04:56
|
|
|
Well there's room for tall development vs wide development. Civ VI is really the first game in the series where I don't think you can't actually build every district/building in every city eventually. That leads to gameplay where wide development is better- you need a bunch of cities to diversify your resource (culture/religion/etc) generation. I think generally wide is best or at least default. V went for tall preference, but that's mostly because of the insane penalties for expansion. Tall is also problematic in a 4x game where you are taking over cities as part of war. Ideally, tall development should have the intrinsic advantage of multipliers at the highest levels- think the production of one NYC vs several Des Moines'. In other words, tall development should be attractive because of built in advantages that are comparable to the advantages of building wide, so that both methods are ideally balanced.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 13, 2017 16:42
|
|
|
The problem I've generally had with "wide" expansion in the past is that it can skew towards infinite city sprawl where the point is just to put as many cities as possible as close together as possible, with no regard to terrain or strategy. To VI's credit, I think the district and luxury systems help prevent this. There are sometimes situations when you're forced into going tall- stronger neighbors or terrain limitations. The former isn't such an issue since the ai is so brain dead, but if you're trying for a peaceful victory condition it doesn't help to have to switch to producing armies, even if it makes for an interesting game decision.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 14, 2017 03:01
|
|
|
I always thought religions should start outside of the player's control and grow organically. You can adopt a religion and gain it's bonuses and make declare war on heathens, proselytize and whatnot, or change religions to conform to your cities majority opinion or try and gain the different/better bonuses of a minority religion. You could choose how much you support the religion- heavy support gives you the most bonuses, but increases unrest in cities without that religion and friction with civs with other religions, while more religious freedom makes people generally happier, but without the religion specific bonuses that can be helpful.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 30, 2017 03:29
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 26, 2024 06:36 |
|
|
I didn't enjoy galciv3. Not sure why, 2 grabbed me pretty well but I wasn't feeling it. I started a game with the new patch and there's some improvements. I'm really of the opinion that it should be easier to discern a leader's second diplomatic trait earlier in the game, though.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 4, 2017 03:51
|
|