|
Poizen Jam posted:You misunderstood me- you need every original capital , I stated as such. But capitals AREN'T normally sackable. However since you were playing on OCC one of two things happened, I imagine: a.)The 'original capital' keeps migrating when the actual one burns to the ground (something only possible on OCC and likely overlooked), leading to the inevitable conclusion that you must take every city, or b.) the sackable capital thing wasn't accounted for at all in OCC and a win can only triggered by destroying everything. No, what happened was that Thebes was controlled by an enemy player. Thus the guy playing wasn't in control of every capital, which has been the domination win condition since G&K.
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2014 20:31
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 29, 2024 03:09 |
|
|
I missed the second post about Thebes, my apologies. And the changes to domination only occurred in the final patch of g&k before BNW dropped in pretty sure. I had a few last capital standing games in G&K I'm pretty sure. I stand by last capital standing being better.
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2014 04:15
|
|
|
I'm torn on Domination past and present. The tedious logistical nightmare of moving an army across the entire map makes the current system a slog even when victory is a foregone conclusion. The old one resulted in stupid situations like winning the game while doing nothing because a bunch of hyperviolent AIs all lost their capital. I think some kind of compromise would be best, like controlling 50% of all capitals to include your own.
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2014 05:53
|
|
|
The old system may have led to a few hilariously accidental victories, but the current system is always a boring slog, which is why they changed it in the first place. I could see changing it for multiplayer since humans are far more likely to abuse the system, but I vastly preferred older Domination victories, I usually just get 1/2 the way there and just start a new game. It would have been nice to keep as a check box option like stored social policies.
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2014 07:15
|
|
|
I never do domination on standard sized maps or larger anymore. It’s simply easier to get a tech or diplomatic victory if I’m kicking enough arse that domination victory is within grasp.
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2014 07:24
|
|
|
The simple solution is to set workers to building roads towards the next conquest target while you burn down the current one. Also, maxing out honor is a must if you are going military because getting money from killing units is a huge boon to your war effort. I was running a deficit for most of my warmongering, but the bounties kept me rolling in enough dosh to modernize my army as needed and to buy off the occasional strategic city state. On that point, Gun Boat diplomacy from autocracy is almost OP. 4 Influence per turn means that you will have made back any tribute loss every 4 turns so even if you are demanding money as often as you can, you will still be gaining more and more influence with them.
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2014 11:45
|
|
|
Antares posted:I'm torn on Domination past and present. The tedious logistical nightmare of moving an army across the entire map makes the current system a slog even when victory is a foregone conclusion. The old one resulted in stupid situations like winning the game while doing nothing because a bunch of hyperviolent AIs all lost their capital. Domination victory was a thousand times better in Civ 4 when it was "control 75% of the population and land". Meant you didn't have to do nearly as much tedious busywork once the game had already been decided.
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2014 12:36
|
|
|
Gort posted:Domination victory was a thousand times better in Civ 4 when it was "control 75% of the population and land". Meant you didn't have to do nearly as much tedious busywork once the game had already been decided. This sounds like a pretty safe system, though I'd be tempted to say that total production should be in there too, since it can be easy to control a small empire but out-produce everyone else (and therefore have the capacity to go full-on warring). Then again, if you do have that capacity then maybe you should use it before the domination victory triggers for someone else. It would actually give the AI a chance of winning a domination victory too - at the moment it's nigh-on impossible, mostly because they don't understand how to do it Edit: surely someone has made a "Civ4-style domination victory" mod for 5?
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2014 13:02
|
|
|
Been having a great time with the German barbarian steamroller. Thanks to the Terracotta Army I was able to stomp all over Pocatello without having to build a single unit until he fortified his capital. As soon as I finished I plowed straight into Gajah Mada (who really hates warmongers), and once I'm done with that I'll wipe out Venice, leaving me in control of the continent, in all likelihood before the Renaissance. Then I can meet everyone else, who will all be clueless about my warmongering. I haven't decided how I want to win, but I feel like giving Gunboat Diplomacy a try after what I've heard about it.
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2014 13:12
|
|
|
KKKlean Energy posted:This sounds like a pretty safe system, though I'd be tempted to say that total production should be in there too, since it can be easy to control a small empire but out-produce everyone else (and therefore have the capacity to go full-on warring). Then again, if you do have that capacity then maybe you should use it before the domination victory triggers for someone else. That's not something you can port wholesale into BNW. Civ4 domination wins came down to sweeping through the entire world, dropping the world's population and increasing what you personally control, and claiming a massive amount of territory. This is the hard one. Capturing an entire planet in Civ5 is basically going to destroy you with unhappiness and rebellions. Unlike Civ4 where you can deal with bloated maintenance costs via income that scales with your territory, and you can actually claim that land by running the culture slider. The problem with Civ5 is that the game refuses to give you the tools to deal with world conquest. This is out of some desire to balance "tall" and "wide" playstyles, and due to the inherent risks involved in expansion in any 4X game, it means the optimal way to play has always been turtle up for a spaceship win. All the best victory times you see on Civ5 CFC are space wins, while the best victory times on Civ4 CFC tend to be domination wins.
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2014 13:29
|
|
|
Gort posted:Domination victory was a thousand times better in Civ 4 when it was "control 75% of the population and land". Meant you didn't have to do nearly as much tedious busywork once the game had already been decided. Don't make it just 75% of the land or Hiawatha would win most games on turn 75 without ever firing a shot.
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2014 15:01
|
|
|
Diplomatic and Culture victories seems to happen universally faster than Science victories in the games I play. Is that unusual? Getting tech up to all the spaceship parts seems to take a long rear end time
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2014 15:25
|
|
|
No, not really. I've gotten a Diplomatic win before anyone else even had ideology, a Culture win before turn 140 in Quick (due to Liberty/Piety Tourism abuse), and Domination can be pretty fast on Pangaea maps if you put your mind to it. Just because of its nature, it's always going to take the longest.
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2014 15:32
|
|
|
It's misleading to think of the four victory types as equal. The (sp) game is really a race between the player's three victory conditions (diplomatic, cultural, conquest) and the AI's two victories (elimination of the player, and science). The AI has the advantage on player elimination, since there's many of it and only one of you, but if you can survive to the late-game, you have a very good chance of beating them at diplomatic and cultural, since the AI is extremely bad at both of those victories. If you can't get your poo poo together to win either of those though, the AI will generally hit a science victory at some point as a stop-gap.
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2014 15:39
|
|
|
Boing posted:Diplomatic and Culture victories seems to happen universally faster than Science victories in the games I play. Is that unusual? Getting tech up to all the spaceship parts seems to take a long rear end time I treat the science victory as the new time victory, because it really is inevitable (unlike diplomatic and culture, which in theory can drag on forever if the participants are belligerent and conniving enough). I always disable the time victory for this reason, though it's very rare that nobody's won by 2050 anyway.
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2014 15:43
|
|
|
Diplomacy is generally going to be the fastest lategame victory under normal circumstances. Culture varies a lot and depends on difficulty level somewhat, since the more heavily culture is contested the longer it's going to be.
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2014 16:00
|
|
|
I feel like I am clicking end turn to much in the very early game. Is there anything I should be doing other than exploring with one or two units and ending my turn?
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2014 17:13
|
|
|
I hope you mean manually exploring and not auto-explore, which is crap in the early game (although it's useful for the mid-game to clean up dark corners). Other than that, be sure you get a worker out as soon as possible (and research the techs to give him something to do), but yeah the very early game is mostly about exploration.
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2014 17:26
|
|
|
My first win doing 1 city challenge. Played on emperor as Ethiopia. Random personalities, raging barb, no diplo vic, continents, legendary start. 1 turn before the win  #1 in pop with a single city   Kind of a low score  I started out 20 tiles or so away from the Zulu, met him on turn 8 and he denounced me on turn 9. He waited till industrial era to war dec me. It was shockingly the only war I fought.
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2014 19:50
|
|
|
Funnily enough, the "Population" score in the demographics screen is an exponential function of an individual city's number of citizens. This is actually an improvement over how Civ4 displayed it, previously, the growth bar increased linearly, while the "Population" score increased exponentially. In Civ5, both increase exponentially. This means you can use it to tell if someone is going vertical or horizontal. Someone with a high "Population" but low "Crop Yield" is going tall (small number of large cities), Low "Population" but high "Crop Yield" is going wide (large number of small cities)
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2014 22:16
|
|
|
Phobophilia posted:Funnily enough, the "Population" score in the demographics screen is an exponential function of an individual city's number of citizens. This is actually an improvement over how Civ4 displayed it, previously, the growth bar increased linearly, while the "Population" score increased exponentially. In Civ5, both increase exponentially. This means you can use it to tell if someone is going vertical or horizontal. Someone with a high "Population" but low "Crop Yield" is going tall (small number of large cities), Low "Population" but high "Crop Yield" is going wide (large number of small cities) Low crop yield just means you're losing. You want to be number 1 on crop yield with a standard 4 city tradition build. Crop yield is the stat most closely linked to how well you're doing overall.
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2014 23:13
|
|
|
Yeah, my description had some holes in it. It's not impossible for a 4-city tradition player to have moments where they aren't top in food (compared to someone going super wide with happiness to grow, like the AIs, or early on to someone going Liberty), but otherwise, you always want to be top in food to maintain constant growth of high pop cities. OCC or Venice are special cases of course, your crop yield will be abnormally low but your population score will be abnormally high. But I was being descriptive instead of being proscriptive. So I do agree, standard play is to maximise crop yield no matter what. Only work hammer tiles if you want to push out settlers or wonders or some crucial buildings/military.
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2014 02:12
|
|
|
Boing posted:Diplomatic and Culture victories seems to happen universally faster than Science victories in the games I play. Is that unusual? Getting tech up to all the spaceship parts seems to take a long rear end time I've also experienced it. Although it may be a function of my playstyle, I play conservatively and almost always choose long term over short term. Does anyone else usually only play domination, with the addition of the "Complete DEstruction" option which forces you to kill a Faction's units to wipe them out???????
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2014 02:30
|
|
|
I'm playing as Morocco for the first time, and I can't resist looping Rock the Casbah on iTunes. If anyone else were here they'd be very annoyed by now.
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2014 06:56
|
|
|
AATREK CURES KIDS posted:I'm playing as Morocco for the first time, and I can't resist looping Rock the Casbah on iTunes. If anyone else were here they'd be very annoyed by now. I can't wait to get Brave New World. It's pretty overpriced but it sounds so worth it. Especially since the game gets a tad boring later on.
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2014 07:27
|
|
|
Celery Face posted:The Clash version or the Rachid Taha cover? Thank you, I can now alternate between 2 versions of the song. edit: I'm probably going to suffer my first loss to the AI  . While I was worried about Shaka Isabella decided to come out of nowhere and take my capital. I think I need to play easy-mode civs like Inca or Russia if I want to win on Immortal.
Chamale fucked around with this message at 09:38 on Jan 24, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2014 07:31
|
|
|
Phobophilia posted:Yeah, my description had some holes in it. It's not impossible for a 4-city tradition player to have moments where they aren't top in food (compared to someone going super wide with happiness to grow, like the AIs, or early on to someone going Liberty), but otherwise, you always want to be top in food to maintain constant growth of high pop cities. OCC or Venice are special cases of course, your crop yield will be abnormally low but your population score will be abnormally high. So does this just mean farms everywhere (except for a few hills/production resources)? I only started playing Civ 5 recently and adjusting from Civ 4 hasn't been too hard, but I still think I'm getting some parts of my strategy wrong.
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2014 10:14
|
|
|
Yes, farms everywhere, barely any trading posts. To get the food to grow past the 20s, you can't afford to be working 0 or -1 trading posts, you have to be working +1 or +2 food farms (remember, each citizen innately eats 2 food anyway). These days, you get your gold from caravans, not tiles. Only ever build trading posts in puppetted cities.
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2014 10:42
|
|
|
In decreasing order of precedence: Resources are improved appropriately, except bananas, because I’d rather have 2 science than one food. I consider improving bananas once I unlock Fertilizer. Any tiles next to a river or lake get farmed. Jungles get trading posts. Hills get mined. Any forests that aren’t covered by the above scenarios get lumber mills. Empty plains/grassland tiles are rarely worth bothering to improve. They’re good candidates for great person improvements. I never build trading posts on non‐jungle tiles around my core cities. Puppets get trading posts if I plan never to annex them.
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2014 11:15
|
|
|
Oh yeah, jungles get trading posts, of course. I forgot about that. But it's low priority, it goes below building more farms. I also don't bother plantioning jungle bananas, but for a different reason than usual. Strictly speaking, I'd much rather have +1 to +2 food over 2 science (because food turns into science). I just don't bother improving them because they take so insanely long to improve, that I'd rather my worker be improving other tiles from "crap" to "good" instead of a banana tile from "good" to "slightly better"
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2014 11:40
|
|
|
Bananas can be worth improving if you're going for the Culture from Plantations pantheon, but in most cases the Food from Wheat/Bananas/Citrus pantheon is a better pick, and that one doesn't require a plantation. Most of the time, though, I restart jungle spawn points unless there's enough Bananas and/or Citrus to be worth it. The luxuries you find on jungle tiles are pretty bad except for Citrus, and jungle slows down your early game so dramatically that it's hard to make it out of Medieval at a good pace. You just...have gently caress all production, and jungle takes forever for your workers to remove.
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2014 11:54
|
|
|
Heavy neutrino posted:Most of the time, though, I restart jungle spawn points unless there's enough Bananas and/or Citrus to be worth it. The luxuries you find on jungle tiles are pretty bad except for Citrus, and jungle slows down your early game so dramatically that it's hard to make it out of Medieval at a good pace. You just...have gently caress all production, and jungle takes forever for your workers to remove. In most cases single‐purpose cities are a thing of the past, but I still settle science‐specialised cities in the jungle, especially if I can snag a mountain for an observatory. They have gently caress all production, but as long as I have at least three other cities that are strong in production that’s okay. I just buy science buildings for them and let them slow build gold, happiness, culture buildings and anything I need for a national wonder.
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2014 11:59
|
|
|
Platystemon posted:Hills get mined. I thought it worked out that a forested hill is better off with a lumber mill than a mine? Comparing two mined hills to three lumber mills on hills, you get the same amount of production but the lumber mills produce three food, enough to feed the extra citizen required and offset half of a remaining citizen. A tiny gain, but a gain nonetheless. I think lumber mills also get a boost relatively early in the tech tree, whereas mines get their boost via ideological tenets which come relatively late (I might be wrong on that, though)
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2014 12:02
|
|
|
The proper comparison is 1x 3f farm + 2x 3h mines versus 3x 1f2h lumbermills. Which works out to the exact same yield in the end. Strictly speaking, lumbermills are stronger because they are boosted by Scientific Method (top of the tree, unlocks Public Schools and also boosts Academies, so a tech line you want to prioritise in most games). Mines are boosted by Chemistry (bottom of the tree, unlocks a mediocre unit, so only a priority if you're going for fast dynamite). But the point is moot, more often than not, I'd have chopped all those trees for one purpose or another. Riverside forests always get chopped anyway. And because the purpose of a lumbermill is to create a hammer tile, and a forest hill is going to be a hammer tile anyway, I'm going to be chopping it for the short term boost, turns saved on a build means it'll start benefitting you sooner. Turning it into a mine afterwards doesn't bother me too much, even if I lose out on the 1 food. Non-riverside non-hammer forests I might save for lumbermills, but that's not guaranteed. Besides, I avoid working hammer tiles unless I'm trying to speed some crucial build, so I actually like to specialise my tiles: I'd much have my territory comprised of pure food and pure hammer tiles, instead of having lots of mixed food/hammer tiles. This lets me mix and match my objectives to suit the game. I want to grow as fast as possible? Then hammers are of minimal value, max food everywhere. I want to finish a wonder or a university or a few rounds of crossbows, or my happiness is capped out? Food surplus is of minimal value, max hammers everywhere. But this is going into micromanagement territory. My rule of thumb with regards to forests is: chop if it's riverside, chop if its hilltop, chop if I want to squeeze something out quickly, otherwise lumbermill (but not before farming everything else).
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2014 12:46
|
|
|
KKKlean Energy posted:I thought it worked out that a forested hill is better off with a lumber mill than a mine? Comparing two mined hills to three lumber mills on hills, you get the same amount of production but the lumber mills produce three food, enough to feed the extra citizen required and offset half of a remaining citizen. A tiny gain, but a gain nonetheless. Mines actually get their boost slightly earlier in the tech tree, at Chemistry rather than Scientific Theory for lumber mills’. It’s not at all unusual for me to get Scientific Theory first, but when I do Chemistry is rarely far behind. It’s rather common for me to either steal Chemistry or to research it so I can steal Fertilizer or Metallurgy. Order’s boost to mines (Five‐Year Plan) is in addition to that and makes mined hills yield five hammers to a lumber mill’s three hammers one food. Anyway, I prefer mines for several reasons, especially around my capital. Way too much  incoming.Twenty hammers from chopping the forest is a nice perk. That can be one turn off whatever the city is working on early in the game. Put another way, you’d have to work a lumbermill for ten turns to get that many hammers, and you’d be doing so with a food deficit and at the cost of not doing something else with that citizen. Mining is available earlier in the tech tree. There can be up to a third of the game where I can build mines but not lumber mills, and I’ll take a mine now rather than a lumber mill twenty turns from now any day. They synergise better with farms. I work as many farms as I can because they get the extra yield much sooner than any of the other improvements and food is king. It just makes sense to be working four flood plain farms and three mines for a total of 16 f 9 h rather than three flood plain farms and four lumbermills for 16 f 8 h for the whole of the mid‐game between Civil Service and Scientific Theory. That said, I usually don’t work many mines or lumber mills in the early–mid game anwyway. I get most of my hammers from farmed plains, farmed hills, or resource tiles. That brings me to mines’ real purpose: cranking the production slider all the way up when necessary. It’s very useful to be able to shave turns of a critical item’s build time when necessary. I’ll sometimes even go food negative to work on a wonder or science building as long as I can complete it and go back to food focus before the city loses a population point. Forested hills can be a pain when fighting in my own territory. It’s a minor concern, but it exists. Last but not least, I frequently chop the forests while they’re outside my territory. The algorithm that chooses which tile your cultural borders will expand to next hates forests and doubly hates forested hills. It will take pretty much forever to pick up a forested hill in the third ring and far too long to pick one up in the second ring. Empty sea tiles are prioritised over forested hills, which is just unbearable. If, however, I chop the forest, I can usually get the tile for free, saving me one hundred gold or thereabouts. Platystemon fucked around with this message at 13:01 on Jan 24, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2014 12:56
|
|
|
How do you guys handle citizen management? I usually manually control specialists in my capital, but otherwise just use default or maybe production focus, perhaps locking a couple citizens on important tiles. Do you manually control all citizens? Or just reassess after every build?
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2014 14:20
|
|
|
LogisticEarth posted:How do you guys handle citizen management? I usually manually control specialists in my capital, but otherwise just use default or maybe production focus, perhaps locking a couple citizens on important tiles. Sometimes manual, mostly automatic. It's a question of whether I'm going tall or wide, whether I'm playing competitively, and what victory type I'm going for. Also how much I feel like micromanaging. I'll usually lock a few key tiles and specialists for my core cities then flip between default, food, and production focus as necessary. Workers are usually manually managed until early mid-game. If I'm playing casual with friends and going wide, domination or generic science I can afford a lot more automation Anyone else find it rather stupid you can't lock specialist tiles like you can lock tiles? It can get cumbersome if I want to say, just lock science building specialists but leave the rest automated, I can't do that. It's fully automated, or fully manual with specialists. PoizenJam fucked around with this message at 15:25 on Jan 24, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2014 15:22
|
|
|
LogisticEarth posted:How do you guys handle citizen management? I usually manually control specialists in my capital, but otherwise just use default or maybe production focus, perhaps locking a couple citizens on important tiles. I just got done watching a Beyond the Monument episode about exactly this, and it finally explained to me why production focus is the only right way to micro your citizens. It all ties back to the way a city turn is processed:
Did you notice something there? Any hammers the new citizen generates are applied to the city ON THE TURN the citizen appears. Food won't be collected until the next turn. So if you are microing your citizens, go to production focus and then lock all the tiles you want, even when you're focusing on growth or whatever. You will eek out extra hammers as a result. I am surprised I've played the game as long as I have and didn't know this. Anyone know of a good resource for undocumented mechanics like this one? Unrelated: I missed music chat but I don't think any discussion of good Civ music is complete without mentioning I. Nocturne from the Asia playlist: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7B_ymXxAIy0 It's not a war song, but when it comes on I do take it as an omen from the gods that my victory is favored.
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2014 15:44
|
|
|
LogisticEarth posted:How do you guys handle citizen management? I usually manually control specialists in my capital, but otherwise just use default or maybe production focus, perhaps locking a couple citizens on important tiles. I set the city to Production Focus and manually lock all of the citizens onto the best food tiles. This is preferable because of how the game processes yields on turns the city grows: the process is basically "add or subtract food -> check for growth? -> if growth, add citizen -> add other resources" and since the add other resources comes after adding the new citizen, you'll get a couple extra hammers on turns where your city's population grows if that new citizen is applied to a hammer tile. If you leave it on default focus you'll benefit from this less consistently because sometimes default focus will put your citizen on a food tile, which doesn't give you anything. Every time the city grows, I reassign the new population point as necessary. If I suddenly need production like for a wonder or a military emergency, I'll unlock all the food and re-assign to production. Micromanaging this becomes less important after a while because all of your good tiles are being used, but in the early game doing this can be a nice help. I also manually set specialists everywhere, but that's usually just a matter of setting Great Scientists and forgetting about it.
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2014 15:48
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 29, 2024 03:09 |
|
|
Quick question about cultural victory in BNW. I understand you need to reach 100% Influence with all civs to win, but how is Influence measured? First guess from reading The Internet is [(your civ's total tourism output over the course of the game) - (their civ's total cultural output over the course of the game)] / (their civ's total cultural etc) * 100%. Is that right?
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2014 00:21
|
|
