|
Thing is though, the USSR was a concerning threat due to their vast military and opposing ideology. If the US controlled Berlin that would still have been the case. Whereas the Civ 5 AI would be hostile to them if they had Berlin, and nice to them if they didn't. The AI is far too concerned about how you got your power in this game and not concerned enough with how powerful you are. This results in warmongering-yet-not-any-real-threat-to-your-chances-of-winning nations getting dogpiled while Venice and Austria can take over ten city states and win a diplomatic victory with nobody trying to stop them.
|
#
?
Oct 2, 2013 13:27
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 30, 2024 20:07 |
|
|
Gort posted:The AI is far too concerned about how you got your power in this game and not concerned enough with how powerful you are. This results in warmongering-yet-not-any-real-threat-to-your-chances-of-winning nations getting dogpiled while Venice and Austria can take over ten city states and win a diplomatic victory with nobody trying to stop them. Can't say this to be true, in my Brazil game I was going for a DV for the achievement and 10 turns before the leader vote came up had several civs declare war on me for no apparent reason (among them were some I had DoFs and Research Agreements with) but they didn't try to invade me and instead went for the nearest city states I was allied with trying to conquer them. (this was on Emperor)
|
|
#
?
Oct 2, 2013 14:48
|
|
|
Gort posted:Thing is though, the USSR was a concerning threat due to their vast military and opposing ideology. If the US controlled Berlin that would still have been the case. Whereas the Civ 5 AI would be hostile to them if they had Berlin, and nice to them if they didn't. Yes but what if you teamed up with someone and rather than just cut your common foe down to size you just annihilate them? That might be disconcerting, both in a game and "real world" context. Taking a city doesn't seem like it'd affect you too much if they're lowering the penalty (And there's now more ways to offset it.) It's if you go on a genocide that can be problematic.
|
|
#
?
Oct 2, 2013 15:29
|
|
|
Dr. Video Games 0031 posted:We're using the beta patch. Right click the game in steam, go to properties, go to the beta tab, and put in publicbetaplease as the password and it gives you access to the public beta. Firaxis says the balance changes are final, they won't make any other alterations to it. The beta is for bug finding and fixing. Thanks and I agree. It does seem like the last time they'll touch Civ 5. It's disheartening because I was hoping to see more tweaking of the Civs. Its obvious that some need a bit more messing with concerning the special abilities and the way tourism operates. My biggest let down is the diplomatic AI. I'm glad they tweaked it a bit, but I don't want to see denouncements by weak civs against stronger ones, or refusing to give me 30 gold to avoid annihilation or to save some podunk city. I'm not a programmer, but it doesnt' seem overly difficult to make the AI more likely to be afraid of a nation that is triple everyone elses score with a massive military. Instead, we get denouncements and threats of war from civs that are clearly outmatched, or are too far away to do anything. Oh well I'll keep playing because the game is still fun:D
|
|
#
?
Oct 2, 2013 15:54
|
|
|
That's fine from a roleplaying perspective, but from a "I'm actually playing this to win" perspective, I really couldn't care less if Genghis Khan conquers a city state I'm not allied to. Or if one guy sixth place on the scoreboard wipes out the guy seventh place on the board. My focus will be on the person most likely to win, and in most cases the link between warmongering and likelihood of victory is tenuous at best. Let's take two scenarios. One start gives you plenty of room to build your four cities, you go Tradition and do well. The next game you get forward-settled on and only have room for two good cities, so you conquer one from Polynesia and a nearby city-state and stick with that. Let's say all other factors are equal for the sake of argument. In both scenarios you've ended up with the same empire, but one empire is a diplomatic pariah which will get dogpiled and embargoed and the other is a saint. The AI should target their rivals who may beat them at the game, not those who go to war.
|
|
#
?
Oct 2, 2013 15:56
|
|
|
Hey, any time they're not spending on Civ V is time they're spending on making Civ VI!
|
|
#
?
Oct 2, 2013 15:58
|
|
|
Gort posted:That's fine from a roleplaying perspective, but from a "I'm actually playing this to win" perspective, I really couldn't care less if Genghis Khan conquers a city state I'm not allied to. Or if one guy sixth place on the scoreboard wipes out the guy seventh place on the board. My focus will be on the person most likely to win, and in most cases the link between warmongering and likelihood of victory is tenuous at best. I dunno I would be concerned about the guy who obsesses about conquest because it means he's inevitably going to come after me and I'd wanna cut that off at the pass.
|
|
#
?
Oct 2, 2013 15:59
|
|
|
I need to doublecheck this on my Germany game, but apparently the Hanse also gives bonuses to Food and Science just like Production. Pretty sure this was unintended though, so enjoy it while it lasts!
|
|
#
?
Oct 2, 2013 16:02
|
|
|
From a pure competitive perspective, it would make sense if the AI hated anyone with a higher score than them, and liked anyone with a lower score. That's such an obvious and simple solution, that I'm sure they've tried it. They most likely abandoned it because it would be even more annoying to players, who would be upset about being punished for winning. It all goes back to the design decision in Civ5 that the AI shouldn't be purely competitive, nor purely realistic, but rather FUN to play against.
|
|
#
?
Oct 2, 2013 16:06
|
|
|
Probably because the score becomes a pretty meaningless judge of who's "winning". It's not a bad guideline I guess but someone who isn't in first place can still win quite easily. Edit: Also one of the biggest complaints in vanilla, justifiably, was the "trying to win the same way as us", because it was frustratingly arbitrary.
|
|
#
?
Oct 2, 2013 16:08
|
|
|
Gort posted:That's fine from a roleplaying perspective, but from a "I'm actually playing this to win" perspective, I really couldn't care less if Genghis Khan conquers a city state I'm not allied to. Or if one guy sixth place on the scoreboard wipes out the guy seventh place on the board. My focus will be on the person most likely to win, and in most cases the link between warmongering and likelihood of victory is tenuous at best. I agree with this and I would love it if the AIs played like actual players who are out for a win. The AIs simply do not have their priorities straight. The devs can't be relied upon given their vision but hopefully it can get modded.
|
|
#
?
Oct 2, 2013 16:10
|
|
|
RagnarokAngel posted:Probably because the score becomes a pretty meaningless judge of who's "winning". It's not a bad guideline I guess but someone who isn't in first place can still win quite easily. Even if they managed a perfect system for it (such as percent of various victory progress as shown in the victory screen), it would be just as annoying. People don't like to be punished for winning.
|
|
#
?
Oct 2, 2013 16:11
|
|
|
RagnarokAngel posted:I dunno I would be concerned about the guy who obsesses about conquest because it means he's inevitably going to come after me and I'd wanna cut that off at the pass. Interestingly the non-warring is probably more dangerous since he didn't spend turns on military and conquest and instead boosted his science and economy.
|
|
#
?
Oct 2, 2013 16:11
|
|
|
KKKlean Energy posted:I agree with this and I would love it if the AIs played like actual players who are out for a win. The AIs simply do not have their priorities straight. That sorta goes against Sid Meier's philosophy that single player shouldn't replicate multiplayer. If people wanted to simulate playing with people, they would. Single player should be similar to roleplaying, in that each character should have a personality and a unique challenge to overcome (In Civ 4 for example, Caesar you had to deal with his conquest, Isabella her religious fanaticism, etc.) and not just "playing to win". I'd argue Civ 5 doesn't really accomplish this either, but it's better than it used to be. I think what you're asking is the exact opposite of what Civ was intended to be. Poil posted:Interestingly the non-warring is probably more dangerous since he didn't spend turns on military and conquest and instead boosted his science and economy. And now it's a pinata 
|
|
#
?
Oct 2, 2013 16:19
|
|
|
I agree that the AI shouldn't be after whoever is winning. I think it would make sense for say, a Gandhi or Pocatello to be pretty chill with you being elected Diplomatic leader. It could make getting them on your side even more important! The issue I'd have is that they just seem disproportionately hateful or likeable based on either ideology or how much you hate someone else. I don't like having to deal with rear end in a top hat 5th place Civ demanding things of me, or me not being able to retaliate for their spying/religious spread/city founding without being called a warmonger. Especially when it comes to war, I think the AI should take a look at WHY. If I keep busting spies from one Civ everyone should know about it and if I go to war with that Civ it should be "Ok", not penalized.
|
|
#
?
Oct 2, 2013 16:25
|
|
|
RagnarokAngel posted:That sorta goes against Sid Meier's philosophy that single player shouldn't replicate multiplayer. Pretty much, yeah. I can hardly fault the devs for having their vision, and am grateful that the modding tools exist to change it. I think most people want the Civs to act like Civs, hence all the personalities - so I'm sure I'm in the minority with my particular wishes. I'm just hoping the mods in question appear at some point because I haven't the time to do it myself 
|
|
#
?
Oct 2, 2013 16:35
|
|
|
Speedball posted:Hey, any time they're not spending on Civ V is time they're spending on making Civ VI! If previous three Civ games are any indication it's going to take at least one expansion to fix the most glaring flaws. I'd rather see them release one more expansion, keeping the team polishing Civ5 instead. In reality this is most likely the last major Civ5 patch though. Zilkin fucked around with this message at 17:58 on Oct 2, 2013 |
|
#
?
Oct 2, 2013 17:51
|
|
|
RagnarokAngel posted:That sorta goes against Sid Meier's philosophy that single player shouldn't replicate multiplayer. If people wanted to simulate playing with people, they would. Single player should be similar to roleplaying, in that each character should have a personality and a unique challenge to overcome (In Civ 4 for example, Caesar you had to deal with his conquest, Isabella her religious fanaticism, etc.) and not just "playing to win". You're making the false assumption that AI is only used in singleplayer. Every MP game I have ever played had AIs in it, simply because they make things a bit more interesting. Ideally we would end up with a tick-box marked "cut-throat AI" where the AIs loathe anyone who looks like they're getting too close to winning and don't really care about someone ten thousand miles away conquering a city-state. I've played one game since the beta patch hit and the AI basically just sat there like a lemon and let me peacefully win by culture. I didn't get attacked once. That's not really roleplaying, that's "not knowing how to win the game", which is not where you want your AI to be.
|
|
#
?
Oct 2, 2013 17:52
|
|
|
So, those who've tried it: how are Sun God, Earth Mother and God-King?
|
|
#
?
Oct 2, 2013 18:07
|
|
|
Gort posted:You're making the false assumption that AI is only used in singleplayer. Every MP game I have ever played had AIs in it, simply because they make things a bit more interesting. Ideally we would end up with a tick-box marked "cut-throat AI" where the AIs loathe anyone who looks like they're getting too close to winning and don't really care about someone ten thousand miles away conquering a city-state. That behavior seems the opposite of what the patch wanted, so maybe there's just some beta bugs? The notes specifically mention an increase in early aggression from the AIs and becoming more resilient against accepting deals that would aid a culture victory.
|
|
#
?
Oct 2, 2013 19:25
|
|
|
Speedball posted:So, those who've tried it: how are Sun God, Earth Mother and God-King? Sun God is fantastic for jungle starts. Easily a top tier pantheon. Your early game growth will be insane. You need to buy/steal some workers to keep up.
|
|
#
?
Oct 2, 2013 19:36
|
|
|
Speedball posted:So, those who've tried it: how are Sun God, Earth Mother and God-King? I played a game where I wasn't going for a religion, got a pantheon from meeting city-states, and chose God-King because I didn't have any circumstances where other pantheons would have done much. It's not overly impressive, but I think it was designed for a scenario like mine, and it was pretty cool to get so many small bonuses.
|
|
#
?
Oct 2, 2013 20:00
|
|
|
Speedball posted:So, those who've tried it: how are Sun God, Earth Mother and God-King? Sun God is loving amazing as is earth mother (as if salt needed another buff) god-king is meh though.
|
|
#
?
Oct 2, 2013 20:09
|
|
|
My interpretation of God-King is that it's a pantheon for if you stumble into a pantheon but don't care about having a dominant religion.
|
|
#
?
Oct 2, 2013 21:43
|
|
|
Will there be any problems in loading a multiplayer game from before the patch?
|
|
#
?
Oct 2, 2013 23:07
|
|
|
Fojar38 posted:My interpretation of God-King is that it's a pantheon for if you stumble into a pantheon but don't care about having a dominant religion. It might be a good all-rounder for Venice to have.
|
|
#
?
Oct 2, 2013 23:23
|
|
|
I was goofing around with different starts to test the new pantheons and I got Indonesia in it's own pocket continent (plus two city-states) surrounded by salt. It's now 600 BC and I have 7 cities on that island, including a lovely one in the snow for quick access to an iron deposit, plus another one next to Germany giving me sweet nutmeg and some boring generic spices. Currently there's about 10 Kris Swordsmen heading towards Berlin, and Bismarck himself helped me raise that army before I had access to my own iron:  I'm around 10 happiness with no colosseums/circuses yet, most of it from trade deals with Portugal (friends), China (who asked me to attack Bismarck and I was planning to do that anyway) and Shaka who is... slightly concerned about my warmongering. For religion I got the obvious Earth Mother, Tithe and Cathedrals. I'm thinking about taking Peace Gardens too since most of my cities are next to rivers or a lake and they will get a Candi sooner or later. This is by far the best start I've ever had on Immortal. I don't want to go to sleep now. 
Ulvino fucked around with this message at 00:07 on Oct 3, 2013 |
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2013 00:03
|
|
|
Indonesia is so good for happiness. It's worth going out of your way to colonize even useless landmasses. The city is basically free and and you get 3 resourcesthat everyone will trade for. The UA might as well read "You get +24 happiness once you discover astronony. "
|
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2013 00:10
|
|
|
The Human Crouton posted:Indonesia is so good for happiness. It's worth going out of your way to colonize even useless landmasses. The city is basically free and and you get 3 resourcesthat everyone will trade for. The UA might as well read "You get +24 happiness once you discover astronony. " Hell I even like the randomness of their Kris Swordsmen, and the idea that they can get more faith for religious diversity is pretty neat if you're in a big religion tug-of-war.
|
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2013 00:15
|
|
|
Just as a reminder, the Goonciv group multiplayer game meets again tomorrow at 7PM Eastern, and Krotan, one of our players, has mentioned he wont be able to make the next three sessions. If anyone is interested in taking over for the Aztecs just hang out in the group chat at around that time. I took the liberty of screencaping the latest score and my view of the map, for anyone interested. The game is just entering the industrial era and is very much in flux; despite my high score I'm pretty far behind in tech, so it's anyone's game. 
|
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2013 02:03
|
|
|
This start is either terrible or awesome and I'm not really sure Also, Penis continent  
|
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2013 02:09
|
|
|
I just started playing Civ5 (fully expansioned) for real now, and I'm finding myself getting really bored midway through each game. I find myself enjoying civ the most when I first start: scoping out the land, settling cities, meeting new civs. As soon as your borders are largely realized and your interactions with other civs starts to develop (religion/city-state management/wonder competition, etc.) I start to lost interest. I've started playing on King difficulty with both standard speed and size. I tried quick speed, but found it to be a bit too fast for my liking, yet standard speed really gets to drag on as the game progresses. Is this game really for me? I'm really into it, but I'm finding the randomly-generated terrain/resources and the wide assortment of civs to be my biggest draws.
|
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2013 03:04
|
|
|
Bloody Pancreas posted:I just started playing Civ5 (fully expansioned) for real now, and I'm finding myself getting really bored midway through each game. I find myself enjoying civ the most when I first start: scoping out the land, settling cities, meeting new civs. As soon as your borders are largely realized and your interactions with other civs starts to develop (religion/city-state management/wonder competition, etc.) I start to lost interest. Tried moving one of your units into a hex occupied by someone elses unit? That's what I do when I get bored  If you're doing that and still get bored, then yeah, empire management games might not be for you. Personally I find war gets in the way of building a mega-economy and try to avoid the exciting stuff unless I REALLY need that coal/oil/uranium
|
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2013 03:44
|
|
|
That's the thing though: I love empire-management games. CK2 is perhaps one of the best games I've ever played. Maybe it's just the tedium that gets to me. Like "I got these stables so now my pastures are a bit better" or "I got this point in Liberty so now I build 1% faster." It's that number-crunching, incremental progress thing that wears me down. Whereas things like "I just researched Bronze Working so now I can see iron...oh wow there's some in that place I've been meaning to settle" or "Hmm there seems to be civ borders close to my capital better see who it is...[insert horselord gibberish] oh poo poo Attila I better start building up my army asap" are the kinds of things that just engross me completely. Am I alone in this?
|
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2013 03:57
|
|
|
Bloody Pancreas posted:I just started playing Civ5 (fully expansioned) for real now, and I'm finding myself getting really bored midway through each game. I find myself enjoying civ the most when I first start: scoping out the land, settling cities, meeting new civs. As soon as your borders are largely realized and your interactions with other civs starts to develop (religion/city-state management/wonder competition, etc.) I start to lost interest. That might also be because it's hour six or so. I rarely finish a game of Civ because I'm awful, and want to do it with something else, but when I've had success with these types of games, it's either been to blitz it and play a full game in two days, or purposefully limit my time to an hour or two and jot down a couple of notes of where I was going. Then when I go to sleep I have beautiful dreams of conquering Napolean or nuking the Aztecs.
|
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2013 03:59
|
|
|
Captain Postal posted:Tried moving one of your units into a hex occupied by someone elses unit? That's what I do when I get bored War is my least favorite part of Civ. It's incredibly difficult to get away with not fighting wars in Civ5, but my favorite games are the ones where two powerhouses throw themselves at each other and silently let me get to some other victory condition. I also don't like the fact that the game is best played by quickly settling a few cities and then never doing it again.
|
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2013 04:01
|
|
|
Bloody Pancreas posted:That's the thing though: I love empire-management games. CK2 is perhaps one of the best games I've ever played. Maybe it's just the tedium that gets to me. Like "I got these stables so now my pastures are a bit better" or "I got this point in Liberty so now I build 1% faster." It's that number-crunching, incremental progress thing that wears me down. Whereas things like "I just researched Bronze Working so now I can see iron...oh wow there's some in that place I've been meaning to settle" or "Hmm there seems to be civ borders close to my capital better see who it is...[insert horselord gibberish] oh poo poo Attila I better start building up my army asap" are the kinds of things that just engross me completely. No. I can see your point. The game does kind of lag in the middle, but it gets really fun again near the end. Ideologies really made the game great for me. They force a lot of decision making and jerkfullness in the last third of the game.
|
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2013 05:32
|
|
|
Baron Porkface posted:This start is either terrible or awesome and I'm not really sure
|
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2013 05:46
|
|
God I fucking love Diablo 3 gold, it even paid for this shitty title
|
rypakal posted:I also don't like the fact that the game is best played by quickly settling a few cities and then never doing it again. Yeah its kind of dumb that establishing colonies or settling strategic 1-tile island cities is almost never worth it now. Need happiness/luxuries? throw money at a CS or just use one of the many +happiness generating tenets/social policies
|
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2013 05:50
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 30, 2024 20:07 |
|
|
The Human Crouton posted:No. I can see your point. The game does kind of lag in the middle, but it gets really fun again near the end. Ideologies really made the game great for me. They force a lot of decision making and jerkfullness in the last third of the game. It's a fair point. I think there is a major missing mechanic in the game: IRL between the arrival of caravels and the arrival of factories, there were all sorts of colonial wars being fought which would extend to proxy wars during the cold war, and that definitely feels missing. Colonial wars against city states could be fun if they reintroduced vassalage. I also wish there was no distinction between city states and one city empires; it would be good to be able to ally with someone small, feed them supplies to fight a proxy war against someone else small and grow into a minor empire rather than a CS with 2+ cities. Alternately, having every city at the start of the game capable of growing into a civ would definitely add some dynamism.
|
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2013 06:06
|
|