|
You only start influencing other civs once you've come into contact with them. It's based on your tourism, with modifiers due to trade routes, shared borders, religion, and certain wonders and civ attributes. But you have to beat their accumulated culture from all time, not just from the moment you meet them.
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2014 00:26
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 31, 2024 18:39 |
|
|
It basically boils down to the ratio of your cumulative tourism (to them; it's pairwise) to their cumulative culture. I don't think it's based on the ratio of the difference (your tourism minus their culture) to their culture, the way your formula had it. My guess is that there's a constant or something (maybe varying with game speed) in there too, because even with a lot of +% tourism modifiers, tourism numbers still tend to be smaller than culture numbers. I may be wrong about this, though.
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2014 00:34
|
|
|
Vil posted:It basically boils down to the ratio of your cumulative tourism (to them; it's pairwise) to their cumulative culture. I don't think it's based on the ratio of the difference (your tourism minus their culture) to their culture, the way your formula had it. Tourism output explodes in the lategame, and making it to the Internet pretty much guarantees that your tourism is going to overpower anyone's culture, unless there's a massive runaway civ going culture. Also, there are a lot of conditional tourism modifiers, so even before then you can massively ramp up your tourism against specific civs with open borders + a trade route + a diplomat.
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2014 02:45
|
|
|
Camel Archers require horses, but Horse Archers don’t. 
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2014 02:51
|
|
|
I'm a very casual player. I occasionally fire up a game on a sunday and play on the easier modes so no min-maxing I just enjoy the ride. Lately I seem to always play as england on archipelago. I generally just settle about 3-4 cities and try and grow my territory in between them not allowing other civs to settle within this zone but also not actively conquering people. I was just wandering if any one had any general tips for this style of play?
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2014 09:38
|
|
|
Jippa posted:I'm a very casual player. I occasionally fire up a game on a sunday and play on the easier modes so no min-maxing I just enjoy the ride. Try to get enough ships to arrange them in patterns that spell messages insulting the AI. Basically the AI really sucks at naval warfare, and you should exploit that fact as much as possible.
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2014 11:08
|
|
|
Platystemon posted:Camel Archers require horses, but Horse Archers don’t. Yeah I don't get that. I guess it's to make the UU more appealing, but you wouldn't think it would make much difference to a Civ that can see horses and build pastures right from turn one. Why not just make horse archers stronger or something?
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2014 11:31
|
|
|
Jippa posted:I'm a very casual player. I occasionally fire up a game on a sunday and play on the easier modes so no min-maxing I just enjoy the ride. I'm pretty casual as well, but I've moved to King and I'm winning comfortably (with civs that suit the map etc.) due to the really simple advice from this thread that population is king. Anytime you're not certain what the best action is take an action which will increase your pop.
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2014 12:02
|
|
|
If there is one thing I miss from SMAC is the fact that all the nice tactical toys are open to you 1/2 to 3/4 through the game, while in Civ5 all the cool poo poo is really late game so you often don't have much of a chance to use them as by the point you should be on your way to another type of victory. I just finished a King game as the Shoshone and around 1500 I just took off and established a tech lead that lasted for the rest of the game. At one point I think I had a 24 tech lead over everyone else  . My spaceship could have been launched in the 1970's but I decided to stick around a few more decades to swarm the fascists on the other continent with XCOM squads. When you have 5 cities cranking them out every 2-4 turns there really isn't jack poo poo the poor bastards can do to stop you as they simply can't kill them fast enough (or in this case at all, having at best great war infantry). Don't even need artillery to take a city, you just keep throwing rookies into the grinder  Once you take once city, the air force can join the fun too.I wonder what kind of blasted hellscape would result in a high difficulty game with all victory conditions except domination removed.
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2014 15:44
|
|
|
Does the AI react to the set victory conditions? For example, if cultural victory is the only set condition, does the AI prioritize enhancing their culture over conquest?
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2014 22:54
|
|
|
I doubt it. They barely go after a victory as it is, instead they just bumble along until and wander into one.
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2014 23:17
|
|
|
Meh. I got crushed between Hiawatha and Oda. Oda swarmed me with invulnerable pikemen and Hiawatha with musketmen, crossbowmen and those awful 25 strength elephants a cs kept gifting him over and over. They were just so many I couldn't stop them, just suicide charging into my troops and cities with heavy losses but they kept reinforcing faster than I could kill them. My strength 24 city did an amazing 17 damage to a pikeman on open terrain with no great general, fortifying, cover or shock promotions and a freshly lost city of mine at 18 somehow did 37 damage to my knight. Meanwhile I had a city on a hill with a crossbowman and a composite bowman fire on Oda's knight and it freaking didn't lose 40 damage in total. I could have taken either one of them but not both from different directions. Grumble grumble. While I was expecting Oda to attack with no warning because he is an utter rear end in a top hat, Hiawatha suddenly went from friendly and trading at full price to denouncing to war in less than three turns. Maybe he was mad because of all the extremely politically incorrect comments I made when I last conquered him as the Germans (in my defense, I really hate that city shitter). I wonder how well the game would handle the AI holding grudges from one game to the other. And of course being insufferably smug if they beat you the previous one. It'd be a good motivator for (even) more warfare. Poil fucked around with this message at 00:45 on Jan 26, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2014 23:40
|
|
|
Xerxes17 posted:
If you're setting out to conquer the world you often don't even need post-industrial tech. You archer/cbow rush a few people, and snowball pretty quickly from there since you don't care about warmonger penalties.
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2014 01:15
|
|
|
Xerxes17 posted:I wonder what kind of blasted hellscape would result in a high difficulty game with all victory conditions except domination removed. I did that once with 22 civs on Emperor. I was Mongolia and I got Keshiks around 300 CE, so I had a lot of time to fight before anyone could get an advantage against me. In the end I resorted to nuking my last enemies and quickly paradropping XCOM squads onto their capitals. I've posted about it in the thread a bit, click on my post history. The game lasted 63 hours and 27 minutes.
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2014 01:31
|
|
|
Got into a pangea map with the Shoshone to the west, the Zulu to the north and Rome to the east. I don't think I've ever seen the land around me get gobbled up so fast.
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2014 04:49
|
|
|
It looks like we're getting no more expansions for Civ5. civfanatics link Ga1Friday posted:Hello everyone.  (from Amazon Germany)The thread dug up details of what looks like an upgrade of the Conquest of the New World scenario, "Conquest of the New World Deluxe". Maybe they'll keep patching the game, but when it comes to new content and civs, I guess it's goodbye to Civ5. 
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2014 06:20
|
|
|
Given the hundreds of hours of playtime I've gotten out of it and will no doubt to continue to get out of it I admit I'm not all that sad. I wonder how civ 6 will improve on it?
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2014 06:22
|
|
|
That means it's time for the countdown to Civ 6 guys!
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2014 06:23
|
|
|
Eric the Mauve posted:That means it's time for the countdown to Civ 6 guys!
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2014 06:35
|
|
|
Looking forward to 6. 5 added so much with hexes, self defending cities, no stacks, units not dying after one fight, the totally awesome idea of city-states, and civs finally feeling unique. Building on that is going to make 6 awesome. They have an amazing template now. I want to see it perfected.
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2014 06:38
|
|
|
The evolution between the expansions was amazing too. G&K added so much to vanilla it might as well be a completely separate game, and BNW wasn't far behind (although trade routes totally came from civ 1/2). Definitely keen for the next iteration.
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2014 06:39
|
|
|
Do The Evolution posted:Given the hundreds of hours of playtime I've gotten out of it and will no doubt to continue to get out of it I admit I'm not all that sad. I wonder how civ 6 will improve on it? This is a good question. The only thing I can think of is that playing wide/tall needs to be better equalized as right now going wide is simply impossible. There's also various tweaks that could be done to civilization abilities and policy trees. One thing I can think of is to make it so that only 4 cities/all if less than 4 in total to have a building for national wonders to be constructed.
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2014 06:41
|
|
|
I still think Civ4 was a better game. Not that I don't like Civ5, since I've played a poo poo ton of it. I also still play 4. They're very different games, but I don't like the direction in 5 in penalizing wide empires so heavily.
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2014 06:55
|
|
|
Luceo posted:I still think Civ4 was a better game. Not that I don't like Civ5, since I've played a poo poo ton of it. I also still play 4. They're very different games, but I don't like the direction in 5 in penalizing wide empires so heavily. Plus war is much more fun in 5 and I'm all about killing the poo poo out of poo poo. It's much less frustrating for me with the addition of Advance Wars-style HP, too, so it's like I get the best of all worlds. I piss and moan a lot but truth told my only real complaint about Civ 5 is how Religion works. It's fun, but the AI gets way too much of an advantage in that field. Plus I can't be all peace and love and secularism, it's all holy war all the time. Civ 6, I'd like to see a bit more gamey diplomacy. I really enjoyed that in Civ 4, you could turn your worst enemy into your Permanent Ally with a little luck. Civ 5 is all about getting the most out of your RAs before the world decides it's had enough of your "winning" bullshit. Maybe they'll get Stephen Fry, he's a pretty chill orator. Then they can have him quote some Harry Potter when you research Electricity. Pie-in-the-sky option: Morgan Freeman. Horror option: Nic Cage. Fur20 fucked around with this message at 07:12 on Jan 26, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2014 07:03
|
|
|
The Human Crouton posted:Looking forward to 6. 5 added so much with hexes, self defending cities, no stacks, units not dying after one fight, the totally awesome idea of city-states, and civs finally feeling unique. Building on that is going to make 6 awesome. They have an amazing template now. I want to see it perfected. I'll give you a few of these. Otherwise, Civ5's fundamental problem is that it's a hacked together mishmash of disparate design elements, that were never properly tested in alpha, and had to be constantly altered in subsequent patches that completely overturned older strategies. Like the patching that turned the game from super wide being the One Right Choice to super tall being the One Right Choice. All I hope is that Civ6 is managed by someone who has a unified vision for the game, instead of Civ(X-1) + a whole bunch of things superfluous things - enough alpha testing to see what should be kept and what should be rethought. gently caress it up at this early stage and you can't simply tear out bad design elements later on, but are forced to constantly fiddle with the numbers until you reach a good point. Sulla suspected as much about Civ5's design, and Jon Schafer more or less confirmed it. So I just hope Firaxis takes these lessons to heart and do all this poo poo properly from day 0. (On the other hand, ATG sounds really fun and interesting, the game seems alot more focused and structured than Civ).
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2014 07:10
|
|
|
I'd like to see Civ6 introduce a few more civs that play completely differently, ala Venice in this one. I don't actually like Venice, but I do like the idea of a few civs that play completely differently. People who get points towards golden age exclusively from warfare, etc.
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2014 07:17
|
|
|
The White Dragon posted:This was totally my first thought. The thread title should be Civilization 6: Sucks poo poo, Civ5 + BNW was Way Better. I was guilty of saying this about Civ4 + BTS when CiV first came out, too. To be fair, at launch you weren't wrong and you still had a very good case for Civ IV being better all the way up to G&K when Firaxis got their poo poo together. Honestly, the biggest thing I'd want when they make Civ VI in 2-3 years is "A coherent loving plan and testing from the start" instead of Civ V's slapped together ideas. In the end Civ V became an amazing game, but you honestly don't have to squint real hard to see all the issues that Civ V's poorly laid foundations caused.
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2014 07:20
|
|
|
I am playing on Immortal/epic/huge pangea and England is being a massive jerk. Every single turn she buys a new city state, and unfortunately i can't even do anything about it without going through 2 civilizations. What is even werider i don't even understand how she is buying these city states her GPT shown in the trade window is barely 200. I am even raking in more gold then her. For example Wellington has been my city state forever, and i was sitting at a comfortable ~130 influence, but she just bought him from me in one turn. She currently has 28 delegates, and nobody has even gotten to the atomic era yet 
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2014 07:20
|
|
|
What I want most in CiVIlization is better AI. Most games are played against the AI and a lot of multiplayer games have AI padding out the roster. It would be great if it could compete on a level playing field. The bonuses it gets on higher difficulties are unfun and unbalance many aspects of the game. G&K features the best religion mechanics thus far in the series, but I have hope for improvement in this area. Missionary wars are unfun, Piety blows, and there is a clear best choice of beliefs in most circumstances. The player has precious little control over religion at higher difficulties. The AI flatly ignores demands to cease proselytising even if they claim otherwise, which may or may not be a bug, and besides, passive spread is the greater threat and there’s nothing that can be done about it. I can’t adopt a state religion and feed heathens to the lions in my coliseums. The way religious cities exert constant pressure in a ten‐tile radius over mountains and oceans even if at war is weird and leads to extreme snowballing. If BNW had come before G&K things might be very different. Perhaps miniature trade routes would be automatically generated between border towns of civs with warm relations and religion would spread along them. Brave New World has spies performing too many roles, too. It would be interesting to see completely redone social policies/civics. The current system is by no means beyond hope, but I’d like to see a fresh take. BNW’s system is still shackled by the vanilla culture victory’s requirement of distinct trees with one opener, five policies, and a finisher. Exploration and particularly Commerce feel schizophrenic because they used to be one tree. Ideologies were a good start. Modders can fix Civ V’s simple imbalances. Phobophilia posted:I'll give you a few of these. Otherwise, Civ5's fundamental problem is that it's a hacked together mishmash of disparate design elements, that were never properly tested in alpha, and had to be constantly altered in subsequent patches that completely overturned older strategies. Like the patching that turned the game from super wide being the One Right Choice to super tall being the One Right Choice. This is very true. One of the problems I don’t see mentioned often is that BNW made it so that more cities add very little to culture generation, yet they still carry the 10% policy‐cost penalty as if I could still run artist specialists in every city in my empire. Puppetting a city was intended to be a temporary happiness fix in vanilla, but at some point it became embraced as a strategy to the extent that it’s Venice’s gimmick.
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2014 07:53
|
|
|
I was hoping for an expac that would fix the broken ai but I guess im going to have to wait a couple years now. I just dont find the game as fun when the ai's only advantage is having more of everything, quicker. Just finished my 1st cultural victory on king with brazil...brazil's pretty absurd esp if you get 1st in international games. Dont think im gonna play for a while though because of the ai's glaring flaws.
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2014 08:20
|
|
|
I do agree that civ 5 was slapped together, but I'm glad it was because I felt the same about 3, and loved 4 because it took the ideas of 3 (unique resources, culture), and made them great in 4. I think civ 6 will take good but poorly implemented ideas of 5 and make an amazing game out of them.
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2014 08:21
|
|
|
bef posted:I was hoping for an expac that would fix the broken ai but I guess im going to have to wait a couple years now. I just dont find the game as fun when the ai's only advantage is having more of everything, quicker. Nothing you can do about that. That's more of a problem with our actual technological advancement than with a complex game. We can program an AI to win at chess, but add too many options and each turn will take 10 days in a game like civ.
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2014 08:25
|
|
|
I'd really like for there to be more passive management options available. Half the reason I puppet cities is because I don't care what it's building, it's just there to control territory. I don't want to talk to every leader every turn to see if there's a new deal available for my spare luxuries. I want to know if my scouts are seeing a massive army movement in my direction, but I don't want to have to manually check them every turn. I want to be able to automate workers and assign priority tasks to minimize micromanagement. So much of that kind of stuff could be handled through the advisors, but instead they're just glorified tutorial props.
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2014 08:28
|
|
|
I'd really like them to bring in some kind of limited stacking back into the game. 1upt constrains what you can do so badly. Can't move onto neutral units, can't move onto neutral cities, enormous traffic jams, can't group-select units, can't accelerate the improvement of certain tiles, etc. I really want City States to disappear forever, they were horrendous when first introduced, and only became tolerable later. They're no more than NPCs, follow completely different rules to anyone else, and are little more than loot pinatas. Even now, they'll hog a shitload of resources, and will break your ability to settle anywhere within 3 tiles of their city centre.
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2014 08:28
|
|
|
If they gave the AI a bit better combat strategy the warmonger civs would be a lot harder to play against. Just simple poo poo like holding ranged units back and not dumping units into the water next to a cannon.
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2014 08:32
|
|
|
Phobophilia posted:I'd really like them to bring in some kind of limited stacking back into the game. 1upt constrains what you can do so badly. Can't move onto neutral units, can't move onto neutral cities, enormous traffic jams, can't group-select units, can't accelerate the improvement of certain tiles, etc. I potentially agree with you liking the idea of At The Gates's method(for those of you not in the know, At The Gates is by the same person who designed Civ 5, and it has stacks, but you can only stack a certain amount on each tile dependent on how many resource are available to support the army stationed there.) I think that the limits you don't like in Civ 5 are due to the system they wrote, and that it will be be fixed in 6. And I really love city-states. I think that the Civ series wants to feel like a grand strategy game without actually being one, and even if you don't like how CSes were implemented, the idea has a lot going for it. My opinion is to keep them unplayable, but give them a bit more power and make them a bit more aggressive, and it'll be fun as hell. Maybe they can attack other CSes until they actually sneak up on the actual world players or something like that.
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2014 09:01
|
|
|
The Human Crouton posted:And I really love city-states. I think that the Civ series wants to feel like a grand strategy game without actually being one, and even if you don't like how CSes were implemented, the idea has a lot going for it. My opinion is to keep them unplayable, but give them a bit more power and make them a bit more aggressive, and it'll be fun as hell. Maybe they can attack other CSes until they actually sneak up on the actual world players or something like that. I'm sorry but I disagree. City states are utter poo poo, extremely lazy programming and poorly thought out. I hate them because fundamentally, at the start of a game with perfectly balanced terrain with exactly identical AI and no UI/UA/UB, how can you tell which civs will grow large and which will fail? You can't. But you can tell that the black dashed civ won't grow and will never trade with you. City states should be small civs that realize they aren't in a position to grow and so they start to behave differently with larger civilizations, and the way they were implemented just feels so loving gamey and not at all organic. They're what you do when you can't be bothered to do it properly. If you like them then that's cool, I don't so I turn them off. I will give them credit where due, being able to turn them off for players who hate that bullshit was a thoughtful move. Captain Postal fucked around with this message at 09:25 on Jan 26, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2014 09:18
|
|
|
Captain Postal posted:I'm sorry but I disagree. City states are utter poo poo, extremely lazy programming and poorly thought out. I don't think we disagree. I want them to do more. I love the idea, and I want them expanded in the next game. The idea seems that it is something for other civs to vie for, and I want to see what that evolves into next game. I'd love to see some adjustments like CSes growing until Medieval and then stopping, or something else that was representative of them wanting to win, but eventually accepting their place in the real world. I'm just saying that the idea was brilliant. In Civ 4, there were 8 civilizations, but in civ 5, there are 8 major and 16 bullshit civilizations that the 8 fight over because global politics is high school, which feels more real since there truly are only about 8 nations that matter today, and about 200 city states. I think it's a good addition with a decent first implementation. I'd love to see them expanded, and have them sneak up on the real civs. I actually started writing some code where you would vote for sovereignty on a city-state in the world congress every turn, but I got too busy to finish it(and modding in this game sucks much more than they pretend it does). Overall, I think everyone should appreciate the idea that the civ series finally acknowledged that idea that there are more than 8 nations in the world, and encourage them to keep that idea moving into Civ 6.
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2014 09:37
|
|
|
I totally agree with the concept of more than 8 nations, and that not all nations are big ones. I think it's totally reasonable that small civs don't behave like large civs and have not only different objectives, but different types of objectives. I just hate that the fate of some civs is pre-ordained rather than growing that way due to circumstances and abilities (i.e, AI), and that you can't really interact with them. That is just sloppy. It's too bad you didn't finish your mod, it sounds like it could have been pretty cool. I totally agree with you on it sucking to mod, I gave up on my idea for a logistics mod and just edited XML tech prices Captain Postal fucked around with this message at 09:53 on Jan 26, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2014 09:44
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 31, 2024 18:39 |
|
|
Captain Postal posted:It's too bad you didn't finish your mod, it sounds like it could have been pretty cool. I totally agree with you on it sucking. Thanks. The game is much harder to mod for than they pretend it is(Even on an XML level) because it is based on totally lovely code based on good ideas, and in the end even someone who programs for a living can't waste time looking through poo poo that smarter people than myself wrote on a ridiculously short time frame.
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2014 09:55
|
|