|
I've finally played enough King that I'm comfortable playing Emperor and not getting my poo poo kicked in within 40 turns. On King if I want to build a wonder I will manage it 90% of the time, while on Emperor the AI snags a lot of the wonders that I like. On King since I can almost always just get away with any wonder I just build what I want when I feel like it, which is obviously not very competitive and doesn't require much long-term planning. Is there a babby's first guide to competitive wonders somewhere for BNW? Thanks
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2014 12:44
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 31, 2024 05:58 |
|
|
So what do you guys think will be the selling point innovation of civ 6? My money is on an actual round world.
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2014 13:34
|
|
|
Customizable civilization bonuses, to some extent, would be pretty awesome but I'm not sure how it would be implanted.
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2014 13:39
|
|
|
kanonvandekempen posted:So what do you guys think will be the selling point innovation of civ 6? My money is on an actual round world. Yeah that's my thought exactly. Civ 6 isn't going to sell itself on spergy mechanics alone (that's for the Civ fans), it's going to need something for the never-played-civ-before demographic. Civ 5 had the beautiful graphics on a hex grid and fully-animated leader screens, and I reckon Civ 6 will deploy an actual globe for a map. There's a huge issue with that though - you can't wrap a hex grid around a globe without at least a few (six, I think?) triangular tiles, so it'll take some very special effort. Edit: 12 pentagons according to http://thatsmaths.com/2012/10/18/carving-up-the-globe/ What other games these days use sphere grids? I don't game a lot so I don't know. Microplastics fucked around with this message at 14:23 on Jan 26, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2014 13:46
|
|
|
kanonvandekempen posted:So what do you guys think will be the selling point innovation of civ 6? My money is on an actual round world. One thing that has been sorely overdue for a long time is a proper implementation of nuclear warfare - basically I want the game to pause when nuclear power A attacks nuclear power B, allowing B to launch its own retaliation.
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2014 14:24
|
|
|
Civ 4 tiles had 4 vertices, Civ V had 6, so obviously the main selling point of Civ 6 will be octagons.
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2014 16:24
|
|
|
Poil posted:Customizable civilization bonuses, to some extent, would be pretty awesome but I'm not sure how it would be implanted. I wouldn't like that. Part of the fun of talking about he game is saying "I was playing as the X, and this happened. What should I have done?" Adding customization ruins that because it adds too many options. "Did you choose the horse archer or the elf bat as your ancient UU, and did you choose the +10% seduction bonus for you leader?" Unless you are thinking of something like Master of Orion 2's custom races. Because that was very well implemented.
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2014 16:35
|
|
|
The Human Crouton posted:Unless you are thinking of something like Master of Orion 2's custom races. Because that was very well implemented. Master of Orion 2 is probably my favorite game ever made, and while I love the custom race feature and use it all the time there are certain choices that are miles better than others. It also hurt that the best source of extra points in customization was to take the repulsive trait, which eliminated a huge part of the diplomacy game. Its a neat system, but I doubt they could balance it enough for launch of Civ 6. I'd rather see something like that added as a mod to play with once or twice.
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2014 16:52
|
|
|
I just finished a OCC with Monty (yes I'm playing Prince, and probably shouldn't have gone Monty), and I think I lucked out in that every other civ was really peaceful. Outside of France and Germany exchanging a few cities once or twice, there were no major wars. It probably helped that I went early religion and covered the world in  , and no one outside of one other civ tried pushing back. I actually like the idea of OCC, and it was fun seeing a 60+ pop city working every single conceivable tile and still having fully utilized specialists. There were actually points where I had nothing to build except units. My production was outpacing my science by that much. But there's my problem. I'm still playing on Prince because even when I try to go science, I rarely ever seem to hit a science victory before I have two or three other victory conditions finished. I'm always the tech leader, I do research agreements whenever possible, go rationalism, etc, but even when I'm not doing OCC, I never seem to hit the spaceship techs until after turn 400. Then it becomes a rush to see if I can buy all the parts before turn 500. This game I ended up late-game culture steamrolling, even though I only had one city's worth of artifacts, and I probably could have gone domination if I had the patience/turns, because I was already past turn 400 and just finished the Apollo program, and I could have won diplomatic centuries prior. I feel like I should just say 'gently caress it', bump it up to King, and forget about world wonders save for one or two.
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2014 16:53
|
|
|
I think the best selling points for Civ 6 would be an actual globe(as people have suggested) and a rudimentary casus belli system. Something simple to test it out like a system where you can purposely have another civ give you jerk points and you get to take a certain number of cities depending on how many jerk points they have against you. I'm imagining something like I tell a civ to gently caress off with the spreading of religion, and they have the option of adding a certain amount of jerk points toward me for calling them out with the hope that these jerk points make others hate me, but it also gives me a certain amount of war points against them that have small effect in lower my war monger penalty for attacking them. Basically, I want to be able to assign jerk points and see who is on my side, and who isn't.
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2014 17:17
|
|
|
I’d like to see real alliances in Civ VI rather than the “makeshift” ones that exist now. Makeshift alliances are too fickle, especially in the late game. I want some proper NATO v. Eastern Bloc action, with rogue states and proxy wars.
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2014 17:44
|
|
|
Platystemon posted:I’d like to see real alliances in Civ VI rather than the “makeshift” ones that exist now. Makeshift alliances are too fickle, especially in the late game. About your first sentence: I think the issue is that alliances are fickle in real life, but we notice it more in the game because, as an American, I've spent my whole life as an ally of the UK, but in game terms that's like 20 turns. Alliances should fail when they are not convenient, but the game needs a way to make us feel like we are gaining something temporarily to adjust for the fact that we are immortal in the game. And for your second point: I think they tried this with ideologies, and I hope they will refine them in the next game.
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2014 17:55
|
|
|
While it is a shame there won't be any new expansion or content to Civ 5, I think the game in it's current state is still a fantastic 4x game. I'll wait for 6, no problem. Also I played Pandora for a few days and it is pretty good, so there is that.
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2014 17:58
|
|
|
The Human Crouton posted:About your first sentence: I think the issue is that alliances are fickle in real life, but we notice it more in the game because, as an American, I've spent my whole life as an ally of the UK, but in game terms that's like 20 turns. Alliances should fail when they are not convenient, but the game needs a way to make us feel like we are gaining something temporarily to adjust for the fact that we are immortal in the game. Alliances should last at least for one good war. Elizabeth shouldn’t peace out ten turns into our joint war and then denounce me because I took Berlin.  Alliances could have joint wars, defensive pacts that actually work, their own embargoes, and shared intelligence (including vision). That sort of thing. The Human Crouton posted:And for your second point: I think they tried this with ideologies, and I hope they will refine them in the next game. I’ve never felt that ideologies are particularly important in diplomacy. They’re just one modifier on top of many, and the AI places very little weight on what their friends are following when adopting an ideology. Platystemon fucked around with this message at 18:31 on Jan 26, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2014 18:17
|
|
|
I usually find endgame politics forms vaguely along ideological lines. But then, I'm not usually much of a warmonger. It would be nice to see more in depth politics and alliances though, because even ideologies just give you the fascist bloc, the commie bloc, and the 'murican bloc. (Also, does anyone know of a way to change the titles your policy trees give you by fiddling with game files? Autocrats getting called 'the Terrible' annoys me to  levels. It should totally be 'General', given it's up against presidents and chairmen.)
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2014 18:21
|
|
|
Platystemon posted:I’ve never felt that ideologies are particularly important in diplomacy. They’re just one modifier on top of many, and the AI places very little weight on what their friends are following when adopting an ideology. I've found the opposite because while you can be friends with civs of opposing ideologies, having opposing ideologies actually does hurt you mechanically. It's much more than a diplomatic modifier. Eventually they will be forced to hate you. But I do agree with your first point. If I enter a war with someone, the war should not end until we all agree. Multi-party diplomacy would be a great addition to the game.
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2014 18:22
|
|
|
Civ 6 needs to bring back the throne room.
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2014 18:40
|
|
|
UberJumper posted: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. Does anyone have a suggestion for how to win this? She currently is allied with 18/19 city states. I can't get access to England via the ocean due to the way the map is.
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2014 18:50
|
|
|
If she teched Factories super quick, she might have an ideology pick that gives +relationship with city-states. Otherwise, check her religion and watch the city-state quest completion notifications. Is she sitting at around ~70/60 with each one or more absurd like ~120/60? If you can't blitz her, you'll have to get someone else to do it for you. Bribe people to drag her into a war, preferably more than one, and try to pick up the pieces as they fall. If that's not an option, there's nothing you can do but tech harder to either blitz her later or try and outpace her economically. You can also try using Spies in the city-states, but I feel like that's not an efficient way to use them. Might work if you're desperate though.
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2014 19:08
|
|
|
Captain Postal posted: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. When you're making a game, sometimes gamey design is very clever and useful  Managing full fledged diplomatic interactions with 20+ civs is an interface nightmare and simplifying relations with minor players streamlines gameplay significantly. I agree that there really needs to be more fluidity between civs and city-states--have city-states start out as junior civs and "grow up" if they capture a second city (e.g. have "London" as a city-state in a game without England, which would turn into the English civ when it gains a second city.) This gets you the best of both worlds: you don't have to gently caress with diplomacy for several dozen civs at a time, but you can still have new players emerge organically, most frequently at a time when old civs are dying off (since that's when they're weak and vulnerable to city-state attacks.)
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2014 19:27
|
|
|
isndl posted:If she teched Factories super quick, she might have an ideology pick that gives +relationship with city-states. Otherwise, check her religion and watch the city-state quest completion notifications. Is she sitting at around ~70/60 with each one or more absurd like ~120/60? She is sitting around with something absurd like 100+ for most of the city states, as far as i can tell. She is order which i don't think has any bonus to city states. I have tried and tried to bribe people unfortunately she has the single largest military, and nobody seems to like me because i killed Ramses. Also the only two civilizations around her are Germany and Zulu and they both are just so weak compared to her.
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2014 19:27
|
|
|
UberJumper posted:She is sitting around with something absurd like 100+ for most of the city states, as far as i can tell. If you can't get to a significant tech that grants a big military advantage compared to her (nukes, battleships, bombers, or XCOM; even the Foreign Legions from Freedom) before she can buy a victory then I think I would just start going after the city states themselves. It's going to piss everyone off, but a defending player can absorb a nearly infinite amount of pressure from the AI. Capture what you can reach, put your spies and gold on the ones you can't. If she has any other advantages giving her votes that you can remove go after those as well. I think World Religion and/or Ideology give you a vote or two; if so get them repealed. Bribing everyone to vote for a city state embargo doesn't hurt either.
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2014 19:38
|
|
|
I'd love to see Civ6 sort of meld the good from both 4 and 5. 5 was good for the hexes, breaking up the stack-o-doom, and adding some interesting terrain features. Civ 4 was better with the progression of the tech tree, allowing wider empires, and more variety in civilizations (ie. different leaders for individual civs). I've been playing the Realism Invictus mod for Civ 4 recently, as they just came out with an update back in December. While a lot of the mod is obviously too complicated to make it into a mainstream game, there's some good ideas they implemented that would be a good way to improve the shortcomings I felt that 5 relative to 4:
Civ 5 had a bunch of improvements but also watered down a lot. I wasn't a fan of how religions basically boiled down to "pick which icon you want, now pick some traits". Social Policies are...ok. But you end up with problems like Tradition being the no-brainier optimal pick. I preferred the way civics/policies worked in 4, where certain picks were restricted based on your tech level, instead of just being a linear progression like they are in 5. And I know the way military units are handled in 5 is very popular, but it just made ranged units the clearly superior choice. It also made combat a little more interesting, but way took away from some of the realism, as archers can somehow shoot over hills and what amounts to hundreds of miles of terrain. The way Realism Invictus handles it is by sticking with the Civ4 system of direct attacks, but by allowing other units to provide support bonuses. So if you have a swordsman and an archer in the same stack, the archer provides the swordsman with a "ranged aid" bonus, and the swordsman provides the archer with an "assault aid" bonus. This allows you to mix and match units into combined arms groups. Combined with the overstacking malus, I've found the military part of Realism Invitcus Civ4 to be way more interesting and fun than the checkers-like combat system of Civ 5. The other thing that I didn't like about Civ 5's military end was how there were a bunch of units that were useless, or stuck around with no upgrades well into certain eras. Like having Lancers next to triplanes and WWI tanks. Or Swordsmen being pretty much ignorable, and with it Iron as a resource until later. Civ 4 was a lot better at making you feel like you were actually in a certain era of development. LogisticEarth fucked around with this message at 19:45 on Jan 26, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2014 19:40
|
|
|
Obviously Civ 6 is going to boast vastly improved AI
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2014 19:46
|
|
|
The problem with AI is that if they perfect it, human players will know exactly what it will do at all times since we can assume that the computer will always do the smartest thing. I think that Civ 6 needs to perfect the human heart instead. Give me an Oscar.
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2014 19:49
|
|
|
LogisticEarth posted:
The thing about religions is that--as a company that cares about public relations--you have to tread really lightly around religions, especially in a game like Civ. If the developer determines shoehorned religious characteristics, that can very easily come off as racist or closed-minded. Best just to give the player free run of how to flavor the religion they want.
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2014 19:52
|
|
|
Has anyone played At The Gates yet? Just in alpha right now, but it seems potentially interesting. Also: I would sooner have flaccid religions that I can rename to 'a hella joint' than named religions that give me a malus to growth in favor of production.
Bogart fucked around with this message at 20:00 on Jan 26, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2014 19:57
|
|
|
The Human Crouton posted:Give me an Oscar. Get with the times man, ask for a kickstarter.
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2014 20:05
|
|
|
The White Dragon posted:The thing about religions is that--as a company that cares about public relations--you have to tread really lightly around religions, especially in a game like Civ. If the developer determines shoehorned religious characteristics, that can very easily come off as racist or closed-minded. Best just to give the player free run of how to flavor the religion they want. Fair enough, but I'd rather still see slight differences than the pick-whatever system. Even if it's just that earlier religions spread more slowly, and later ones spread more quickly. I have to imagine that it wouldn't be to hard to find slight bonuses that couldn't be construed easily. I mean you're already treading on that ground by giving civs culturally linked units, buildings, and abilities.
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2014 20:12
|
|
|
Ghost of Mussolini posted:I've finally played enough King that I'm comfortable playing Emperor and not getting my poo poo kicked in within 40 turns. On King if I want to build a wonder I will manage it 90% of the time, while on Emperor the AI snags a lot of the wonders that I like. On King since I can almost always just get away with any wonder I just build what I want when I feel like it, which is obviously not very competitive and doesn't require much long-term planning. Is there a babby's first guide to competitive wonders somewhere for BNW? You should be able to get any wonder you want on Emperor, you just need to plan for it. Some capitals are so production starved that you won't reliably get there but wonder building on Emperor is easy enough that you don't even have to build them in your capital if you got a second city up quick. Early competitive wonders just chop trees. After that just plan out your tech tree so that your building queue is emptying when you get the tech for the wonder you're wanting.
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2014 20:31
|
|
|
Gort posted:One thing that has been sorely overdue for a long time is a proper implementation of nuclear warfare - basically I want the game to pause when nuclear power A attacks nuclear power B, allowing B to launch its own retaliation. What you're describing is "launch on warning", which I think could be an interesting upgrade - but it should have the downside of having a chance of being a false alarm.
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2014 20:41
|
|
|
I've never played Civ 4 or 3. Is there any reason to go back after 130 hours of Civ 5 and try them out? What differences would there be?
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2014 20:43
|
|
|
Farmer Crack-rear end posted:What you're describing is "launch on warning", which I think could be an interesting upgrade - but it should have the downside of having a chance of being a false alarm.
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2014 20:43
|
|
|
ManOfTheYear posted:I've never played Civ 4 or 3. Is there any reason to go back after 130 hours of Civ 5 and try them out? What differences would there be? I can't explain why, but I think Civ 3 sucked. It did, however, introduce culture and resources. Civ 4 expanded on these ideas pretty well. I find it hard to go back to the earlier games after 5, but if you're the kind of person who likes classic gaming, I'd suggest you go to 4 and skip 3. 4 has every aspect of 3 only improved upon.
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2014 20:48
|
|
|
ManOfTheYear posted:I've never played Civ 4 or 3. Is there any reason to go back after 130 hours of Civ 5 and try them out? What differences would there be? Civ 4, definitely. 4+BtS is still a very solid game, especially with mods like Realism Invictus, Rhye's and Fall of Civilization and various takeoffs of it (Sword of Islam, etc), or if you're into massive kitchen sink mods, Caveman2Cosmos. The biggest differences between 4 and 5 are threefold. 1) Leader traits are simplified. Instead of them all being unique (except in RFC), there's a pool of about 8 or 10 preset ones and each leader has two. 2) Squares instead of hexes mean that a zigzag pattern is the most efficient form of exploration and single-tile mountains or lakes are meaningless as obstacles go, as are purely-diagonal mountain ranges. And 3) Unlimited unit stacking means you could have 20 catapults and 30 swordsmen all in the same tile.
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2014 20:50
|
|
|
ManOfTheYear posted:I've never played Civ 4 or 3. Is there any reason to go back after 130 hours of Civ 5 and try them out? What differences would there be? Civ 4 has Fall From Heaven Two
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2014 20:50
|
|
|
Gabriel Pope posted:When you're making a game, sometimes gamey design is very clever and useful I like this idea a lot. I've always wanted to see more fluidity of the nations on map where minor civs can come and go throughout the game and at a time where a vast empire is doing poorly it may start to crumble and other civilizations may emerge from rebelling citites. We started to see that in BNW when a nations ideology is being revolted against, but they just join someone else's empire instead of forming their own. I think that'd give you some new diplomacy options too; do you try and fight for the new civ and go to war against his previous home, or do you work behind the scenes, maybe put spys in his cities that can be set as military advisers and secretly help his units get better.
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2014 21:02
|
|
|
Flagrant Abuse posted:Civ 4, definitely. 4+BtS is still a very solid game, especially with mods like Realism Invictus, Rhye's and Fall of Civilization and various takeoffs of it (Sword of Islam, etc), or if you're into massive kitchen sink mods, Caveman2Cosmos. Kitchen sink mods? What does that mean? James Totes posted:Civ 4 has Fall From Heaven Two Also I don't know what this is.
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2014 21:03
|
|
|
ManOfTheYear posted:Kitchen sink mods? What does that mean?
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2014 21:10
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 31, 2024 05:58 |
|
|
ManOfTheYear posted:Kitchen sink mods? What does that mean? Adding as many features, additional historical items and other assorted crap as possible. C2C definitely qualifies in that regard as it covers the Prehistoric era all the way into some sort of trans-planetary future era with everything in between. Last I checked they were even attempting to implement functionality where you can play multiple maps at once to accommodate stuff like flying to and colonizing other planets. I think it's fun enough to play once, but as it is it's horribly imbalanced, all the future stuff is incomplete, and there are so so so many buildings it's impossible to keep track of. Add to that that because you get so many flat bonuses from all those buildings the actual terrain of your city ends up being completely inconsequential, which I feel runs counter to the whole point of Civ, but hey, your mileage may vary. quote:Also I don't know what this is. It's essentially Tolkien-esque Fantasy Civ 4. I think in many ways it's actually more fun than the base game but again, horribly imbalanced.
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2014 21:11
|
|
