|
Tulip posted:Liberty is mostly good as a spoiler to humans, but otherwise the opening of the game is a no-brainer repetitive task. Could you go over what's a good opening because that's the part I stress out over the most and keep restarting...
|
#
?
Jul 25, 2013 22:46
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 29, 2024 11:11 |
|
|
Jastiger posted:Has there been any announcement of any kind of patch or some such in order to maybe tweak some of the tech trees or whatever? What tweaks do you think are needed?
|
|
#
?
Jul 25, 2013 22:46
|
|
|
This all got away from the guy's initial question on where to buy BNW cheap if possible. I only knew about that GreenManGaming coupon that expired.
|
|
#
?
Jul 25, 2013 22:49
|
|
|
KingKapalone posted:This all got away from the guy's initial question on where to buy BNW cheap if possible. I only knew about that GreenManGaming coupon that expired. It moved on because the question was answered you idiot. The sales are over. Pay up $30 or wait for the next sale on Steam/GMG/Whatever.
|
|
#
?
Jul 25, 2013 22:52
|
|
|
whalestory posted:Could you go over what's a good opening because that's the part I stress out over the most and keep restarting... For emperor or below. Scout - Shrine - Monument - Steal a worker from a city state - granary or whatever it doesn't matter just build things that are useful. Edit: I'm pretty sure this still works in BNW but lock your food tiles in and put production focus on. When you grow you'll hit a production tile that will put a couple extra production in because hammers get worked on the turn of the growth, unlike food. I stopped doing this because I constantly forget to lock a new food tile in after growth and gently caress myself over. It's what I get for wanting to finish games of civ in 4 hours. Bashez fucked around with this message at 23:01 on Jul 25, 2013 |
|
#
?
Jul 25, 2013 22:54
|
|
|
I think they could tweak some really minor stuff. Maybe improve the explanation of tourism and culture victories. Change the interface layout of the trade routes so it isn't a chore to scroll through. I know you can order it highest to lowest, but sometimes you don't want to trade that one cuz you're going to go to war or whatever. Maybe make Liberty a bit more on par with Tradition. Same with Piety. Reformation is powerful, but its kind of underwhelming, and you have to take the whole tree just to get to the only really good one, Reformation. I feel like Piety and to a lesser extent Honor are out-of-the-way trees designed to help specialize, especially short term/early game, and I don't feel like it does that enough. Give swordsmen their city attack bonus or some other reason to make them over pikemen. Contemplate changing the way siege units work as far as starting with Cover/Cover 2/Siege/Siege 2 so they aren't just weaker Composite Bowmen. I shouldn't be skipping the entire siege line until Artillery because bowmen are literally better in every way. Maybe tweak some UU/UA/UB in some of the ways discussed in this thread (and others). The major thing I would look at is the way city states work. As someone mentioned earlier, diplomatic victory is basically throw around a lot of cash and thats that. It always seems one civ gets all the CS's bought up and there isn't anything anyone else can do about it unless they have gobs of money. Maybe have proximity and have religion/culture/tourism play more into it so a big ole bag of money doesn't undo the work you may have done cultivating a relationship. This way diplomatic victories aren't so assured for early allies of CS's and can change hands if you work at it from a different angle than money. Make it run faster like it did with that last patch. Add more map types and customization options. I want a Continents map with more than 2 sizable continents and I don't want all CS's out on islands. I guess that is a lot of stuff, hehe. But it's all patchable and aren't major re works of systems. Just a few nudges here and there. I'm sure we can all pick apart any list, but the fact that there seems to be a lot of things, mostly minor, that people would change, I don't see why a patch wouldn't be incoming.
|
|
#
?
Jul 25, 2013 22:55
|
|
|
Chomp8645 posted:Tom Chick sounds like an rear end in a top hat and his review is full of hyperbole. That said he is correct when he says that combat AI is atrocious and that several things introduced by the expansions should have been in the game in the first place.
|
|
#
?
Jul 25, 2013 22:57
|
|
|
Jastiger posted:Make it run faster like it did with that last patch. To be honest, I'm not sure they can make it run faster at this point. Trade routes added a ton of computational complexity, especially because they're recalculated every turn for display in the trade route overview screen even if you aren't selecting a new route that turn. Maybe there's a couple tricks they haven't tried to save on calculations, but this is a problem that grows exponentially with every city added and as trade routes increase in distance.
|
|
#
?
Jul 25, 2013 23:04
|
|
|
I think the part that I dislike most about Liberty is that it doesn't allow you to purchase great people in the Industrial age. This means that your second tree can't easily be Piety, Patronage, Honor or Exploration (unless you're going low-faith, but wide empires tend to not do that), and by the time Rationalism is able to be completed for scientists you've sacrificed a lot of ideology policies to get that outlet. I don't value the Aesthetics or Commerce great people as highly as Engineers or Scientists, but Commerce seems like the clear fit with Liberty due to its happiness booster (one of the best in the game). That feels inflexible to me. By contrast, Tradition leaves you very open. You're free to take the first 3 policies in Rationalism without pressure to finish the tree while also adding to your ideology and spending accumulated faith rather than waiting around until turn 300. e: I guess technically you could do Piety with a reformation belief to purchase post-industrial units or schools, that could work. TheGame fucked around with this message at 23:15 on Jul 25, 2013 |
|
#
?
Jul 25, 2013 23:11
|
|
God I fucking love Diablo 3 gold, it even paid for this shitty title
|
Bashez posted:They did this with BNW, I can't imagine them thinking something's seriously wrong. I thought what they did was a whole lot of positive stuff and am pretty happy with it overall. Germany and Japan are supposed to be getting changes (and I think America too.)
|
|
#
?
Jul 25, 2013 23:17
|
|
|
SirKibbles posted:Germany and Japan are supposed to be getting changes (and I think America too.) I like Germany. Just roll around slaughtering barbarians while you get a huge army that costed you nothing and can be used to trash an AI expansion city and not care if you lose some units.
|
|
#
?
Jul 25, 2013 23:23
|
|
|
FISHMANPET posted:The tourism/culture think makes perfect sense in real world terms. The Louvre has a bunch of stuff in it, and people go visit it to see it. People will go see places that artists and musicians lived, it's not literally about going to see the work of art or read the book or hear the music. Eh, I think there's some weird logic with attaching the current great works system to tourism. I can kinda sorta see where he is coming with that one point, but it's just a matter of semantics. What it boils down to is that "tourism" is a dumb label for the mechanic since the mechanic is actually simulating overall cultural influence and not just tourism. And that's such a petty complaint it isn't even worth mentioning in a review. Bashez posted:They did this with BNW, I can't imagine them thinking something's seriously wrong. I thought what they did was a whole lot of positive stuff and am pretty happy with it overall. Are you saying there's nothing left to improve? Because while BNW was mostly positive there re still a lot of really major flaws with the game and it's really far from perfect. Poorly balanced UAs, really badly balanced combat mechanics, and the absolutely atrocious AI in every single category are three things I'd like to see improved in patches. Unfortunately they're probably only going to bother with the first thing. Dr. Video Games 0031 fucked around with this message at 23:37 on Jul 25, 2013 |
|
#
?
Jul 25, 2013 23:34
|
|
|
Religion needs a slight revamp I think, I regularly skip it even in culture games and don't really miss it. I'd also like a "Spread your religion to me please!" diplomacy option. In fact I'd like more diplomacy options in general. Kanfy posted:What tweaks do you think are needed? The major one would be to move Civil Service a bit forward in the tree and give a promotion bonus (City Attack seems to be the most popular) to Swordsmen to make them relevant.
|
|
#
?
Jul 25, 2013 23:40
|
|
|
Bashez posted:They did this with BNW, I can't imagine them thinking something's seriously wrong. I thought what they did was a whole lot of positive stuff and am pretty happy with it overall. There are a few minor things they could still fix, or at least it seems so. The AI could use some tweaks like not deciding you're a warmonger when it's the one who asked you to start the war with them, or being better at picking religious beliefs.
|
|
#
?
Jul 25, 2013 23:40
|
|
|
BadLlama posted:I like Germany. Just roll around slaughtering barbarians while you get a huge army that costed you nothing and can be used to trash an AI expansion city and not care if you lose some units. Plus, AI Bismarck seems to do well in 90% of my games that he's in. Which is most of them, for some reason. Dude's pretty good at fighting. And TBH I don't think the cut to upkeep is anything to scoff at; remember that the Zulu UA only applies to melee units.
|
|
#
?
Jul 25, 2013 23:41
|
|
|
Saying the AI needs some "tweaks" is putting it very, very lightly.
|
|
#
?
Jul 25, 2013 23:42
|
|
|
Guildencrantz posted:Plus, AI Bismarck seems to do well in 90% of my games that he's in. Which is most of them, for some reason. Dude's pretty good at fighting. And TBH I don't think the cut to upkeep is anything to scoff at; remember that the Zulu UA only applies to melee units. Yeah having a 25% larger army at the same cost is pretty good on its own. Don't think it includes planes and ships though right?
|
|
#
?
Jul 25, 2013 23:44
|
|
|
Guildencrantz posted:Plus, AI Bismarck seems to do well in 90% of my games that he's in. Which is most of them, for some reason. Dude's pretty good at fighting. And TBH I don't think the cut to upkeep is anything to scoff at; remember that the Zulu UA only applies to melee units.
|
|
#
?
Jul 25, 2013 23:47
|
|
|
Hieronymous Alloy posted:Why not free Hagia Sophia? Eh no particularly reason, if you can swing it do it. I've gotten it sniped from me while doing it and there's nothing more frustrating on the planet than having a wonder at [1] and then not getting it. Plus doing it requires that you have Theology, which i might not have if i need to scramble for Iron Working and Construction first. Bashez posted:This plum doesn't make sense. If you need to construct a 5,000 hammer military it will take a 250 production/turn civ 20 turns to do it whether it's from 10 (25 ppt) cities or 2 (125ppt). Liberty has an eventual growth advantage because it's much faster to get 2 cities to 8 pop than 1 city to 16 pop, even with +15% growth. A well constructed Liberty empire will get really, really big for this reason, so that half-forbidden palace really matters, long run more than the trade connections. You're right about the production thing, i'm overstating the value of having more places to buy units and the value of your cities spending fewer population on marginal tiles (which is mostly compensated for in tall cities by all the buildings that you just flat skip in wide cities). I'm just basing this on experience where i was able to outproduce my human enemies so badly in military matters (but never on Wonders!) that i could keep several cities off military production while they couldn't. Oh and something important: try to build lots of coastal cities, do harbors rather than roads for connections. With Meritocracy and Naval Tradition, Harbors are gold negative +2 happy buildings.
|
|
#
?
Jul 25, 2013 23:47
|
|
|
Tulip posted:Liberty has an eventual growth advantage because it's much faster to get 2 cities to 8 pop than 1 city to 16 pop, even with +15% growth. A well constructed Liberty empire will get really, really big for this reason, so that half-forbidden palace really matters, long run more than the trade connections. But it's still faster to get 2 cities to 8 pop under tradition than it is under Liberty precisely because of the 15% growth bonus. Running Tradition doesn't necessarily mean running tall.
|
|
#
?
Jul 26, 2013 00:09
|
|
|
Dr. Video Games 0031 posted:Are you saying there's nothing left to improve? Because while BNW was mostly positive there re still a lot of really major flaws with the game and it's really far from perfect. Poorly balanced UAs, really badly balanced combat mechanics, and the absolutely atrocious AI in every single category are three things I'd like to see improved in patches. Unfortunately they're probably only going to bother with the first thing. The only thing he mentioned specifically was tech trees, which is what I was commenting on.
|
|
#
?
Jul 26, 2013 00:30
|
|
|
Yeah even going wide I go with tradition, since it gives the first four cities a decent start in border expansion and growth, they can serve as the core of a greater empire. I tried to open with piety in a game and boy I felt like I was floundering. The opener is much poorer during the early game than either tradition or liberty. 50% build reduction on shrines and temples is nice later in the game, but at the very start, you're either building or already built a shrine by the time that's available to you. At best you might save 1 or 2 turns. Either that or you haven't built a shrine at all yet in which case why are you going piety? And with no boost to your culture you kind of stall out on culture points too. Best to fill out one or two tradition policies then go piety if you're thinking of going hardcore into religion, imo. Holy warriors is still a great unit spamming ability for a conquest game and the policy that reduces faith prices is golden.
|
|
#
?
Jul 26, 2013 00:40
|
|
|
Kanfy posted:What tweaks do you think are needed? Fixing Venice's broken UA.
|
|
#
?
Jul 26, 2013 00:43
|
|
|
DirtyOldDishrag posted:Fixing Venice's broken UA. What do you mean? Btw, has anyone tested Venice plus gifted conquistadors? I had a CS give me several, but I didn't want another city.
|
|
#
?
Jul 26, 2013 00:45
|
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:What do you mean? Recapturing a previously-owned puppeted city state from the AI should return it to its original puppet state instead of granting full access to build order and ability to purchase tiles, unless I'm misunderstanding Venice's "may not annex" UA. e- Also, according to another player's experience: "Take an opponent's city through standard military action as Venice. Select the 'raze the city' option. Then, go into the new city's panel and stop the city razing. The city will be under direct rule." Little things like this ought to be fixed too. DirtyOldDishrag fucked around with this message at 01:00 on Jul 26, 2013 |
|
#
?
Jul 26, 2013 00:55
|
|
|
DirtyOldDishrag posted:Recapturing a previously-owned puppeted city state from the AI should return it to its original puppet state instead of granting full access to build order and ability to purchase tiles, unless I'm misunderstanding Venice's "may not annex" UA. He means because Conquistadors double as settlers, not trying to retake cities.
|
|
#
?
Jul 26, 2013 00:58
|
|
|
Turn 263, finally scoop up the last ancient ruin on the map, and get 60 faith towards establishing a religion I'm no longer eligible to found  Was hoping to get another scout->archer, oh well.Has anyone had problems with the Great Wall not disabling with Dynamite like it should? Last game when I tried to invade the guy with it I was still getting the double-movement penalty even though it was well into the modern era, made it pretty hard to march under his withering bomber fire.
|
|
#
?
Jul 26, 2013 01:06
|
|
|
I really couldn't care less about the UA's being "balanced". This isn't Starcraft. There are too many civs for it to be possible, anyway. Just go balls to the walls and give me crazy UA's that break the game in an interesting way, like Venice.
|
|
#
?
Jul 26, 2013 01:09
|
|
|
Muscle Tracer posted:He means because Conquistadors double as settlers, not trying to retake cities. He was responding to the question about what was broken about Venice's UA.
|
|
#
?
Jul 26, 2013 01:10
|
|
|
Mr. Pumroy posted:Yeah even going wide I go with tradition, since it gives the first four cities a decent start in border expansion and growth, they can serve as the core of a greater empire. Piety i find nearly impossible to open with, but then again i'm a weirdo who typically is looking at a game over screen by turn 60 if i go Tradition.
|
|
#
?
Jul 26, 2013 01:16
|
|
|
Tell me if this is crazy or not, but would the unit dynamics in this game be better if Swordsmen/Longswordmen didn't require a resource and Spearmen did? Say Spearmen required Bronze and Swordsmen were resource-free but equal in strength to Spearmen, you'd probably be inclined to build almost entirely swordsmen in your army, though you'd probably build spearmen if you had access to bronze as they are cheaper and gain an anti-mounted bonus. And you'd be more likely to build horsemen if swordsmen were the common infantry unit because you'd have a better chance of actually doing damage. Taking that further, suppose Longswordmen (without resource and dropping the strength to match pike's 16) and Pikemen (with resource) were switched in the tech tree (and if you want, rename Longswordsmen the "Levy" since it's now unlocked by Civil Service and rename the Steel technology that now unlocks pikemen something like "Drill"), now the go-to unit for the medieval era for civs not teching down the military line is a unit without any bonus against mounted units, making Knights and their unique variants very scary things, scary enough that you might want to tech down to to Drill and acquire some Iron so you can build Pikemen and defend against the knights chewing up your levies. It'd need balancing in view of how the uniques that replace those different kinds of units work, but overall I think these changes would actually create a proper balance between the units instead of every civ without unique swords in the ancient/classical era basically ignoring iron and building spears and pikemen as the melee unit, forcing every civ without a unique horse to ignore horses, meaning everyone ends up with a bunch of archers and a few spears and no interesting interactions in combat.
|
|
#
?
Jul 26, 2013 01:28
|
|
|
Bashez posted:For emperor or below. Thanks  But what about tech choices? I keep reading about going pottery --> writing --> calendar --> philosophy or something like that and it seems kinda weird...
|
|
#
?
Jul 26, 2013 01:47
|
|
|
whalestory posted:Thanks It really depends on what you want to do and what luxuries you've got. You want your luxury tech up when your first worker comes out and I like to get philosophy around the time I plant my 4th city. I find I tend to have enough money to buy the library in the 4th while cities 2-3 finish slow building it which means you can grab the NC in your capital without slowing down your expansion too much. The other thing to think about is what wonders you're after, if you want Petra you need to go straight for it after getting writing because the AIs love it and in the early game they've got the advantage. Other than that the only thing you need to research is construction for bowmen, bowmen and walls are what get you through the early game on the higher difficulties. If you notice the sneak attack coming you can try to bribe the attacker into going after someone else, 1-2 luxuries and some GPT is usually enough to deter them but if you don't have any military they'll probably be too interested in you to be deterred.
|
|
#
?
Jul 26, 2013 02:01
|
|
|
Reveilled posted:Tell me if this is crazy or not, but would the unit dynamics in this game be better if Swordsmen/Longswordmen didn't require a resource and Spearmen did?  I have no words to describe how poorly this fits into Civ. It's theoretically workable from a balance perspective (I'd have to crunch unit stats and tech orders to be sure), but it completely ignores the historical elements that Civilization tries to play up. Iron replaced Bronze in warfare for a reason. Spearmen formed the bulk of historical armies for a reason. The tech tree and unit accessibility reflects this. Why shouldn't civs without unique iron units or horse units ignore them? If they were so good that you wouldn't want to, that disadvantages anyone without access to those resources. If the complaint is that you don't see enough unit variety in the early eras, that's probably because there wasn't a whole lot of variety in historical armies at the scales Civ is played at. A single Roman Legion is thousands of foot soldiers, with a few squads of cavalry included. That's not a separate Horseman unit in Civ terms, a Horseman unit is like a thousand or more men operating under their own banner. The numbers are fuzzy and inexact, but every unit in Civ5 is essentially an entire army by itself.
|
|
#
?
Jul 26, 2013 02:21
|
|
|
^^^ good points. Counterpoint: swordsmen suck and shouldn't be in the game in their current form. I get iron working sometime in the renaissance when I decide "I'd really like workshops soon" because it's otherwise a lovely, garbage tech only good for a coastal production city to get the Colossus.
|
|
#
?
Jul 26, 2013 02:23
|
|
|
isndl posted:
In what way does it fit poorly? You should be able to punish players for having an army of 6 bows and 2 of the basic melee unit that doesn't take a resource. The problem is you can't build cavalry because the basic melee unit cuts them to shreds and Swords are not enough of an upgrade over spears to be able to butcher their way through the spears and get to the archers. If I've got horses and iron my army should be able to beat someone who has 0 strategic resources but as it stands if you don't have an early game UU the first time you use a strategic resource is iron for siege weapons or frigates. In civ4 you had to fight to get that copper and iron because an army with strategic resources would trounce one without them, in civ5 the best army is archers + spears. e: Swordsmen should be able to absolutely destroy spears, I'd love to see them get a +50% vs melee units promotion or something along those lines. uPen fucked around with this message at 02:34 on Jul 26, 2013 |
|
#
?
Jul 26, 2013 02:31
|
|
|
Verviticus posted:^^^ good points. Counterpoint: swordsmen suck and shouldn't be in the game in their current form. I get iron working sometime in the renaissance when I decide "I'd really like workshops soon" because it's otherwise a lovely, garbage tech only good for a coastal production city to get the Colossus. Yeah the problem is there's no reason to get swordsmen or longswordsmen unless you have a unique unit. This has a side effect of making mounted units worthless because of the prevalence of spearmen/pikemen. Tulip posted:Historical accuracy isn't a really good argument in Civ games, and the unit balance is so bad that ancient and classical starts are basically just kind of dumb. It's not whether or not it's accurate, it's whether or not it's fun. Also archers and specifically composite bows make siege units useless. SirKibbles fucked around with this message at 02:35 on Jul 26, 2013 |
|
#
?
Jul 26, 2013 02:31
|
|
|
isndl posted:
Historical accuracy isn't a really good argument in Civ games, and the unit balance is so bad that ancient and classical starts are basically just kind of dumb. It's not whether or not it's accurate, it's whether or not it's fun.
|
|
#
?
Jul 26, 2013 02:33
|
|
|
Verviticus posted:^^^ good points. Counterpoint: swordsmen suck and shouldn't be in the game in their current form. I get iron working sometime in the renaissance when I decide "I'd really like workshops soon" because it's otherwise a lovely, garbage tech only good for a coastal production city to get the Colossus. They really ought to have an innate bonus vs. infantry and/or an innate Cover bonus, to make them something you would actually build. Then you would actually see the rock/paper/scissors dynamic, with armies consisting of swordsmen/spearmen/cavalry with archers/siege weapons supporting, rather than the current mass of archers and spearmen. e: this seems like it would be an easy thing to mod. Has anyone tried toying around with this?
|
|
#
?
Jul 26, 2013 02:35
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 29, 2024 11:11 |
|
|
What upgrades should you aim for for anti-aircraft guns/SAMs? I'm talking something that just rolled off the production line and has a few upgrades from buildings, and you want it specifically to be good at shooting down planes. I'm baffled that there's no upgrade for combat strength against air units, unless it's buried in the tree somewhere. Re:swordsmen. Their shtick should be taking out spearmen. Not at all historically accurate, but the fact that spears have literally no counter until they get turned into anti-tank guns in the atomic? era is loving stupid. But paying resources to have an edge against the guy who pumped out a billion of the free unit that obsoletes your horses instantly makes sense to me. Varjon fucked around with this message at 02:45 on Jul 26, 2013 |
|
#
?
Jul 26, 2013 02:41
|
|
