|
Fojar38 posted:This has the problem of "Spearman beats Tank" that frustrated tons of people. Again, SMAC solved that problem handily back in the day, though they did it by adding in a whole host of other problems with how combat was resolved. It was super confusing on how to approach a given combat situation due to all the variables you have to track, and the inherent strength of attack methods over defense methods meant that effective field defense was almost impossible starting midway through the game or so. But, that said, SMAC handled some pretty complex battles, and the default mode was to the death, so none of this 10 turns of fighting the same barbarians stuff.
|
#
?
Jan 27, 2014 23:21
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 31, 2024 15:13 |
|
|
Sir Lucius posted:While at the same time, there's really not much point in making "Civ with better graphics," since Civ 5 already looks great. Making a copy of Civ 5 with less features would also happen since the expansions add so much. I wouldn't mind if they try something new in the spirit of Civ. I feel like something that most people could get behind would be more roleplaying elements in future installments of the series. Even the biggest, spergiest, Deity-playing ubermensches have, in my experience, enjoyed the historical roleplaying element.
|
|
#
?
Jan 27, 2014 23:25
|
|
|
Fojar38 posted:This has the problem of "Spearman beats Tank" that frustrated tons of people. 1. Even in Civ 1 this is something that happened about one time in a hundred. It's not that big a problem. 2. If you're sending tanks into battle against another guy's spearmen, it's a curbstomp war anyway so it doesn't matter. 3. It would not be that hard to ask the RNG to pick a result off a gently sloped semi-bell curve of outcomes, such that it is impossible for (to use your extreme example) a tank to lose to a spearman--but the spearman might get lucky and damage the tank a lot more than the tank was expecting. That would make the game more interesting.
|
|
#
?
Jan 27, 2014 23:45
|
|
|
I bet a squad of spearmen really could overpower a single tank. They could be sneaky and ambush it on unfavorable terrain and somehow get inside of it and poke the driver to death. A group of tanks though? Unlikely.
|
|
#
?
Jan 27, 2014 23:51
|
|
|
Sir Lucius posted:While at the same time, there's really not much point in making "Civ with better graphics," since Civ 5 already looks great. Making a copy of Civ 5 with less features would also happen since the expansions add so much. I wouldn't mind if they try something new in the spirit of Civ. I really don't like Civ5's graphics, no matter how many polygons they cram in, every tile looks the same, and the units and resources and improvements all blend into a blurry mess. When I play, I don't even look at the tiles, I look at tile yields and resource and unit icons.
|
|
#
?
Jan 27, 2014 23:54
|
|
|
I'd like to see some rebalancing of ranged vs. melee, which might actually tie into a more granular hex grid. It just doesn't make sense to me that once archers are gone, that the gunpowder units are all melee, and then your siege takes on the range role, until aircraft at least. With more hexes to play with it may be possible to fix this.
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2014 00:03
|
|
|
Constantine XI posted:I bet a squad of spearmen really could overpower a single tank. They could be sneaky and ambush it on unfavorable terrain and somehow get inside of it and poke the driver to death. The Finnish beat Soviet tanks by approaching their blind spot and throwing bottles of burning fuel onto the air intake. The Polish beat German tanks with smokescreens, cavalry, and satchel charges. When a spearman beats a tank in Civ, it's always a veteran spearman against a rookie tank in terrain that favours the spearman. I figure even an empire that hasn't discovered steel yet can still work out the Molotov Cocktail.
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2014 00:03
|
|
|
I'd like to see some redefinition of teching up in the next generation of civ, personally. I don't know exactly what I have in mind, but I feel like since modern 4X games heavily discourage early rushing, they inevitably boil down to a "tech for more beakers, then tech for whatever late game tech will close the game for you" pattern that gets repetitive. I'd also like to see some form of ICS return, even if it's only viable late game. I enjoy gradually filling up the map with my civilization's color and don't get nearly as much enjoyment out of building 2-4 cities and that's it.
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2014 00:20
|
|
|
KKKlean Energy posted:That's all very well and good but can the AI use it?
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2014 00:24
|
|
|
Constantine XI posted:I bet a squad of spearmen really could overpower a single tank. They could be sneaky and ambush it on unfavorable terrain and somehow get inside of it and poke the driver to death. The treads on many tanks, especially pre-WWII tanks, were alarmingly vulnerable to mechanical failures. Especially if they had been in combat service continuously for a lengthy period; a sharp increase in wear and stress, along with a lack of time or resources to repair things properly is basically a perfect recipe for disaster. A couple hundred Iron Age spearmen could possibly use surprise or other tactics to wipe out or drive off the guards of a stranded tank, and even if there were crew members inside it, they would have to come out eventually. I've actually always thought that this was the reason that steam-powered armored vehicles, despite sounding cool as gently caress, never became a thing. The machining tolerances and metallurgy of the time just couldn't create self-propelled steam engines which both had the horsepower to haul multi-ton weights across open terrain, and were reliable enough to complete at least one engagement without more than half of the units breaking down.
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2014 00:51
|
|
|
I'd like to see Civ3's armies come back, maybe that will help with 1UPT.
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2014 00:55
|
|
|
If there's one thing I learned from watching Indiana Jones, all you need to stop a tank is a good old fashioned rock.
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2014 03:10
|
|
|
Civilization 5: No you see spearmen can actually beat a tank because
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2014 03:14
|
|
|
What actual negative consequences are there for ignoring religion altogether? like 60 less GPT? doesn't seem all that compelling to me.
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2014 04:28
|
|
|
The problem with religion is that A)You will almost never get first pick and this often leads to your cities being converted while you're still stuck with a Pantheon (to say nothing of the religion limit based on the map size) B) Its effects are only really relevant in the medieval/renaissance eras and don't really mean poo poo in the late game C) Everyone will loving hate your guts if you spread it and you can end up in infinite war So most people rightly ignore it.
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2014 04:32
|
|
|
Mr Dog posted:What actual negative consequences are there for ignoring religion altogether? like 60 less GPT? doesn't seem all that compelling to me. Not getting that perfect composition of bonuses and slower faith generation moving into the lategame (for pumping out Great People). You'll still get some benefit from other religions getting pushed towards you, but they probably aren't the ones best suited for your strategy and you miss out on the founder benefit. As a general rule you probably want to skip religion unless you have some sort of circumstance that leads you into it naturally (UA/UB, city-state gifts, Desert Folklore, etc.). Even with favorable circumstances, it's hard to argue that it's worth taking Piety however. The Reformation policy is great, the delay on filling out Tradition is not.
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2014 04:41
|
|
|
What enemy civs do you think would be the most interesting for a 12 player game set on the world map? Just as many warmongers as possible?
darealkooky fucked around with this message at 04:53 on Jan 28, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2014 04:51
|
|
|
Huh, i never knew city states could conquer other city states   Valletta captured Ife before i could, 
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2014 04:57
|
|
|
darealkooky posted:What enemy civs do you think would be the most interesting for a 12 player game set on the world map? Just as many warmongers as possible? Problem with stacking warmongers is that unless you're going Pangea, there's a pretty strong chance of runaway civs getting swole before you have a chance to react.
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2014 05:06
|
|
|
UberJumper posted:Huh, i never knew city states could conquer other city states There's been multiple reports that City-States USED to be a lot more aggressive and able to spread, but this changed over time and over patches. It's a shame. If there's some way to modify that, it'd be nice. The same happened between Galciv 1 and 2. In 1, they were fully willing to grow and colonise and be powers in their own right, though still relatively passive. In 2, they were changed so they basically were free good planets that take a bit of conquering. Bloodly fucked around with this message at 05:39 on Jan 28, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2014 05:29
|
|
|
I was there from day 1 and city states never expanded. Sure, they'd occasionally capture a city from AI civs, but not out of any actual aggression, but because the AI civ's AI would regularly crap out and fail to defend themselves. If anything, city states used to be even worse, the one right strategy back then was to find maritime city states, bribe them with gold, and use that (and not farms!) to grow your cities. That has been rightfully nerfed into the ground, and there are more ways to interact with city states. The problem is that the interaction with city states is incredibly gamey and artificial, just why should a city state like me more because I built the Pyramids or found a natural wonder, it confers zero benefits to them. Even if AI civs are semi-deterministic machines with shiny high-polygon faces, it's still possible for you, the player, to mentally model their internal states. You can see some internal logic behind their decisions. No such exists for City States, and that's what makes them total garbage.
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2014 05:43
|
|
|
LogisticEarth posted:Increased granularity and increasingly complex tactics means more and more problems with AI. Civ is more about exploration and empire management than grand strategy. Splitting up the hexes more sounds like you're trying to turn it into some Paradox-lite game. If the cost of producing military units remains similar and the AI maintains some production advantage, more hexes would help them out. They’d be able to bring more units to bear on a single battlefield. Right now it doesn’t matter if their army is five times as large because most of their units have to sit back and wait for you to kill their friends before they can move up.
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2014 06:21
|
|
|
I just gonna throw out that I always thought that archers being able to attack across multiple hexes was the dumbest thing, mostly because the AI couldn't handle it, but also because it makes no god drat sense in the first place. Like what Sulla said, you get ludicrous situations where archers can fire across the English Channel.
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2014 06:25
|
|
|
Valletta captured a third city state   I wonder if can get them to eat the celts as well.
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2014 06:30
|
|
|
It’s so dumb that when a mercantile city‐state is captured it loses its unique luxury for good. It should at least get it back when liberated.
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2014 06:41
|
|
|
UberJumper posted:Valletta captured a third city state Keep in mind that city-states generally try to raze everything, it's just that they can't raze city-states or capitals. Once I was assigning trade routes only to realize London was in the city-state list. Platystemon posted:It’s so dumb that when a mercantile city‐state is captured it loses its unique luxury for good. They used to leave a copy of their luxury in the ruins of cities they captured, it was great.
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2014 06:47
|
|
|
isndl posted:Once I was assigning trade routes only to realize London was in the city-state list. How much gold did it give? Usually city states give less.
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2014 09:59
|
|
|
Actually the difference in gold for CS and city trade routes is a lot less since the more recent patches. Trading entirely with city states is actually a viable thing now. Also I feel like they really missed an opportunity to add an enhancer belief that dramatically increases religious pressure from trade routes. It would compliment itinerant preachers and religious text by adding a similar enhancer for the other religion spreading mechanic, and would add another viable belief to pick from. Besides, priests and preachers travelling on merchant vessels to educate rural communities and outports and evangelize was a common thing especially in colonial America. Speaking of which I kind of think religious texts needs to be un-nerfed because 9 times out of 10 itinerant preachers is the best choice. It used to be a toss up depending on map type at least.
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2014 11:05
|
|
|
Poizen Jam posted:Also I feel like they really missed an opportunity to add an enhancer belief that dramatically increases religious pressure from trade routes. It would compliment itinerant preachers and religious text by adding a similar enhancer for the other religion spreading mechanic, and would add another viable belief to pick from. Besides, priests and preachers travelling on merchant vessels to educate rural communities and outports and evangelize was a common thing especially in colonial America. Hmm? Religious Texts acts on trade routes. That’s why its absolute power was nerfed. Itinerant Preachers got a stealth nerf in the sense that it’s wasted on cities that are 11–13 tiles away but you were going to send trade routes to anyway. I used to go Itinerant Preachers without question, but now I evaluate the lay of cities nearby and see what’s going to result in more pressure overall. Venice and Arabia in particular usually benefit more from Religious Texts.
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2014 11:20
|
|
|
Platystemon posted:Itinerant Preachers got a stealth nerf in the sense that it’s wasted on cities that are 11–13 tiles away but you were going to send trade routes to anyway. Can you elaborate on this? I thought city pressure stacked with trade route pressure. Am I wrong in this?
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2014 16:51
|
|
|
Ooh, apparently the Berserker (Danish UU) was moved from steel to metal casting. I don't think this was in the patch notes. Did any other civs get undocumented buffs? EDIT: Trade route pressure only happens between cities that don't have regular pressure between them. Otherwise, all trade routes would apply religious pressure.
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2014 16:55
|
|
|
I never understood why some TRs didn't apply pressure. Can city A still pressure city B with a trade route, if B is pressured directly by city C?
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2014 17:07
|
|
|
Making it so that you can use generals to form armies like in CIV3 would be a good way of solving the unit stacking problem, particularly in later eras where simply getting sufficient force on a point is a real bitch. Though admittedly, this is just because I want to form up some Tank Armies 
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2014 17:09
|
|
|
The unit stacking question goes back to a simple point: Civ needs a big "MAP NOT TO SCALE" disclaimer on it. Things make no sense. So the only proper way to look at the stacking question is through the lens of game design and I absolutely think a no-stacking design makes so much sense and is ever so much more interesting, as well as easier to process what's going on in a fight. I absolutely loathed having to mouse over a stack of units and check the heal of each one in order to determine which was going to defend next ("designate defender" UGH) and so forth. This reason alone is why, as much as there are some things about older Civs I miss, I never go back.
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2014 17:28
|
|
|
I always thought it might be tactically interesting if the base hex tiles got sub-divided into something smaller, like 6 or 9. So cities still take a full hex, as do their resources, but units have a much larger playground taking up only one sub-tile. They'd need to have their movement and ranges rebalanced to fit, of course. I can't think of any shape or pattern that would cleanly fit inside hexes though, so I don't know if it's all that feasible..
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2014 17:36
|
|
|
Orcs and Ostriches posted:I always thought it might be tactically interesting if the base hex tiles got sub-divided into something smaller, like 6 or 9. So cities still take a full hex, as do their resources, but units have a much larger playground taking up only one sub-tile. They'd need to have their movement and ranges rebalanced to fit, of course. Seven hexes fit fairly neatly into a hex. 
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2014 17:42
|
|
|
I'm actually warming to the idea of stacks, even though I intensely hated them when I tried giving Civ4 a go. I just couldn't see what was going on, and it drove me nuts. But now wielding a giant army in Civ5 is driving me nuts, so stacks are seeming more and more OK. But stacks need a good interface, because I need to be able to look at a stack and instantly see what it's made of - not just the top unit. This would probably mean a big collection of floating icons. I'm not sure if any of the Civ4 mods or expansions did any of that (I haven't tried them... yet).
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2014 17:46
|
|
|
Ugh I never want to go back to stacks. Did you guys think it was fun when a pile of 50 cats & prats barged into your borders?
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2014 18:00
|
|
|
Putin It In Mah rear end posted:The unit stacking question goes back to a simple point: Civ needs a big "MAP NOT TO SCALE" disclaimer on it. Things make no sense. So the only proper way to look at the stacking question is through the lens of game design and I absolutely think a no-stacking design makes so much sense and is ever so much more interesting, as well as easier to process what's going on in a fight. That's how I like to look at it. Ultimately, it's not a simulation, it's a game. Chess isn't a military simulator, but it's a structure of rules that create compelling strategic gameplay with a lot of parallels to warfare. You don't want to get into the space of "why should bishops have more movement points than KNIGHTS?" In most cases, it's not necessarily a stupid gameplay or balance decision, but just something that doesn't match the theming. Also, queens need a nerf
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2014 18:10
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 31, 2024 15:13 |
|
|
I don't like White's UA of Starts First. Way overpowered.
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2014 18:13
|
|