|
TooMuchAbstraction posted:It helps that processing a turn for a full-sized world takes a second or two, instead of a second or two per civ like it does in Civ5. If you're lucky. It's funny to read this, because I played Civ IV on a cheap laptop growing up, and I play Civ V now on a gaming desktop. I got used to reading a book while playing Civ IV, because in the late game the screen would go black while it processed a turn for a few minutes. The thing I miss most about Civ IV is that you could get a really nice Cold War going. Building nukes was pretty easy and not very limited, and they had long range, so you could end up staring each other down with enough ICBMs to level an enemy city from anywhere. Civilization V nuclear war is just awful because the nukes have too short a range and there's never enough of them for a really destructive exchange. I had a game of Civ IV where the winner was a tiny country that no one bothered to nuke.
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2015 08:18
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 31, 2024 10:27 |
|
|
Chamale posted:The thing I miss most about Civ IV is that you could get a really nice Cold War going. Building nukes was pretty easy and not very limited, and they had long range, so you could end up staring each other down with enough ICBMs to level an enemy city from anywhere. Civilization V nuclear war is just awful because the nukes have too short a range and there's never enough of them for a really destructive exchange. I had a game of Civ IV where the winner was a tiny country that no one bothered to nuke. That actually sounds like a pretty hot war there mate. Can you load submarines with nukes in Civ 4?
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2015 09:11
|
|
|
Civ's never modelled nukes very well. ICBM launches should interrupt the regular turn order and give everyone the chance to also launch their ICBMs at their pre-set targets. As it is, MAD doesn't work as you can get your entire land-based arsenal destroyed on the ground by an enemy first strike.
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2015 11:27
|
|
|
Trivia posted:That's pretty awesome. It was on turn 320 of a friendly game with my girlfriend. Having to abandon a multiplayer game 6+ hours deep on my 'video game day' is most assuredly not awesome.  The worst thing is it was one of the more competitive, fun games we had played. The AI were actually doing pretty ok (first time I've lost my capital to an AI below deity in 500+ hours) because we randomed into a Huge Communitas map that ended up being really low sea levels and really old earth, so they were competitive on the terrain. It was totally salvageable too. Vil posted:Do you have full control of your new capital or do you just have an empire of puppets now? Just puppets. Only puppets. I checked to see if it moved but nope  Edit: if that's indeed a glitch and not intentional I know what might have caused it though. I was using EUI for the first 250 turns. We then tested the goon pack in multiplayer, and after it didn't work, I wiped my directory clean of goon pack and EUI. When I loaded the game again I noticed the build queue was longer than the default game allows, and was initially broken (could not press 'add to queue'). PoizenJam fucked around with this message at 15:17 on Mar 9, 2015 |
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2015 15:11
|
|
|
Gort posted:Civ's never modelled nukes very well. ICBM launches should interrupt the regular turn order and give everyone the chance to also launch their ICBMs at their pre-set targets. As it is, MAD doesn't work as you can get your entire land-based arsenal destroyed on the ground by an enemy first strike. Land‐based? Air units, naval units, and your own nuclear weapons aren’t safe, either. Especially your own nukes. Even a bomb shelter doesn’t protect them, because internally they have 1 HP, and the bomb shelter’s 75% reduction can’t prevent the bomb/missile from doing the minimum one damage.
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2015 23:12
|
|
|
If it popped up a launch control dialog when another nation launches nukes that would be rad as hell.
|
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2015 00:13
|
|
|
Poizen Jam posted:It was on turn 320 of a friendly game with my girlfriend. Having to abandon a multiplayer game 6+ hours deep on my 'video game day' is most assuredly not awesome. It is not a bug. Venice is incredibly vulnerable in MP.
|
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2015 02:46
|
|
|
Today, I learned that if you ask an AI to go to war with you, they can totally do the 'gimme ten turns' thing.
|
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2015 02:50
|
|
|
Gort posted:Civ's never modelled nukes very well. ICBM launches should interrupt the regular turn order and give everyone the chance to also launch their ICBMs at their pre-set targets. As it is, MAD doesn't work as you can get your entire land-based arsenal destroyed on the ground by an enemy first strike. DEFCON integrated into Civ 6. Make it happen, Sid.
|
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2015 02:50
|
|
|
exmachina posted:It is not a bug. Venice is incredibly vulnerable in MP. I know, mainly because you can vote through an embargo on city states then an embargo on Venice making them essentially useless. But it's pretty bullshit that if you regain your capital after losing it you don't regain full control.
|
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2015 02:55
|
|
|
Fister Roboto posted:DEFCON integrated into Civ 6. Make it happen, Sid. Really I want Civ 6 to have better politics/diplomacy options, full stop. And not just bringing the AI's "roleplaying" up to the level it hit in Civ 4. I want to be able to conduct a proper cold war, with proxy states and proxy wars. I want to goad my city-state allies into trying to take over an AI's city-state ally, and I want to be able to send my "military advisor" units into the battle zone to help out (though presumably I wouldn't be allowed to directly conquer the city-state, just kill its units). I want to see otherwise-inconsequential parts of the globe turned into smoking wastelands as a consequence of the superpowers' little disagreements. It doesn't have to be a re-implementation of DEFCON, but the game needs something to keep later eras interesting.
|
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2015 03:07
|
|
|
I wonder if it would be possible to create a mod that allows for a proper DEFCON kind of feeling. Maybe a one-time "Missile Silo" building that somehow launches nukes at other cities when its city gets targeted by a nuke, and has unlimited range. Then you could get that effect like in DEFCON where things are set up, and then when the war goes hot you just watch the doom unfold.
|
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2015 03:38
|
|
|
TooMuchAbstraction posted:Really I want Civ 6 to have better politics/diplomacy options, full stop. And not just bringing the AI's "roleplaying" up to the level it hit in Civ 4. I want to be able to conduct a proper cold war, with proxy states and proxy wars. I want to goad my city-state allies into trying to take over an AI's city-state ally, and I want to be able to send my "military advisor" units into the battle zone to help out (though presumably I wouldn't be allowed to directly conquer the city-state, just kill its units). Civ is not really a game about little polities, at least in its current form, and the city-state model is a bad shoehorned attempt. You don't get little countries in civ, everyone's building empires that are roughly equivalent, I think that's kind of a conceit of the game.
|
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2015 03:42
|
|
|
Nuclearmonkee posted:If it popped up a launch control dialog when another nation launches nukes that would be rad as hell. For maximum realism, this dialogue should come up occasionally even if nukes haven’t been launched.
|
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2015 05:02
|
|
|
Fister Roboto posted:DEFCON integrated into Civ 6. Make it happen, Sid. I would pay way too much money for this. But then again I bought Beyond Earth at launch so duh, obviously.
|
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2015 05:11
|
|
|
My biggest wish-list item for Civ 6 would be for them to actually develop a robust asynchronous multiplayer option that works straight out the box. I have a lot of friends who like to play Civ (for some, they're not really gamers but this is the only game they will play) but it's impossible to get everyone online at the same time. Hell, let me take and send turns with a phone app and I might pre-order it even after how Beyond Earth turned out
|
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2015 05:21
|
|
|
Use Giant Multiplayer Robot. http://multiplayerrobot.com/
|
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2015 05:26
|
|
|
You could always try remoting in to your pc from your phone. But someone should just make a good deep civ-like game that can be played on the phone. Or maybe I should take up phone chess or go.
|
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2015 05:51
|
|
|
Question: In my current game, I have several cities. If I hover my cursor over the city, I can see where the city's "unhappiness" is coming from. One of the complaints is, "We are unsafe!" The thing is, the cities in question have walls, are within the "great wall" perimeter, and have garrison (which I assume is a military unit positioned on the city tile). Now, I don't believe the walls/Great Wall have anything to do with the "we are unsafe" issue, but what am I supposed to do assuage these concerns? EDIT: I should mention that I am currently using the Community Balance Patch, which may have some effect on this issue.
|
|
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2015 06:26
|
|
|
Cream-of-Plenty posted:Question: In my current game, I have several cities. If I hover my cursor over the city, I can see where the city's "unhappiness" is coming from. One of the complaints is, "We are unsafe!" The thing is, the cities in question have walls, are within the "great wall" perimeter, and have garrison (which I assume is a military unit positioned on the city tile). Now, I don't believe the walls/Great Wall have anything to do with the "we are unsafe" issue, but what am I supposed to do assuage these concerns? Is this Civilization IV? Try putting a unit directly on the city, and if that isn't working make more units.
|
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2015 07:43
|
|
Chamale posted:Is this Civilization IV? Try putting a unit directly on the city, and if that isn't working make more units. I think I'm figuring out what is going on: I'm playing Civ V, but I started using the "Community Balance Patch", as well as a plugin that implements some Civ IV features. As a result, it appears that the act of garrisoning a military unit has more nuanced effects than simply "is a unit garrisoned yes/no"--it seems to take into consideration the relative strength of the garrisoned unit, so you can't just build a garbage military unit and dump it off in the city. The units I was using were initially decent enough, but as time went on, they become increasingly obsolete, which I think is why the citizens suddenly decided they were unsafe again, even without me moving the garrison.
|
|
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2015 08:17
|
|
|
Chamale posted:It's funny to read this, because I played Civ IV on a cheap laptop growing up, and I play Civ V now on a gaming desktop. I got used to reading a book while playing Civ IV, because in the late game the screen would go black while it processed a turn for a few minutes. Back when I was a teacher in Japan I had this old laptop I occasionally played Civ 4 on. The laptop was cheap and didn't really play the game all that well even when it was working properly, but I didn't care too much since this was a time in my life where I wasn't really playing games much and Civ 4 was just a nice casual thing to do now and then. One day I spilled soda all over the keyboard and killed the motherboard, but miraculously it came back to life three days later, only with the slight issue that it took about 40 minutes to boot up and end game Civ 4 turns took almost an hour to process. It was ok, though, because I was able to read all of the Song of Ice and Fire books over the period of about 3 months while I completed the remaining 30 turns or whatever of my one game.
|
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2015 10:30
|
|
|
Cream-of-Plenty posted:I think I'm figuring out what is going on: I'm playing Civ V, but I started using the "Community Balance Patch", as well as a plugin that implements some Civ IV features. As a result, it appears that the act of garrisoning a military unit has more nuanced effects than simply "is a unit garrisoned yes/no"--it seems to take into consideration the relative strength of the garrisoned unit, so you can't just build a garbage military unit and dump it off in the city. The units I was using were initially decent enough, but as time went on, they become increasingly obsolete, which I think is why the citizens suddenly decided they were unsafe again, even without me moving the garrison. The "We are unsafe" unhappiness modifier depends on your city's actual combat strength compared against a continuing changing average derived from the current strength of every city in the world and the total population of that one particular city. Most of the other unhappiness modifiers work in similar fashion. The solution in this case is to build more defensive buildings since they increase city combat strength. It's one of my main hangups with the CBP honestly. It takes the ever present phenomenon of Civs snowballing to an insurmountable lead over those who fall behind and excaserbates it. Falling behind in tech or infrastructure, even a little bit, can compound into a death sentence as the rolling average for each modifier steadily rises beyond what you can counteract by making new buildings, plunging your civilization into deeper and deeper unhappiness as the turns continue. Incidentally, there's an information panel somewhere in the overview panels that will show you all the unhappiness modifiers for all of your cities and the values (expressed per citizen in the city) it requires to reach the threshold of no unhappiness. Super Jay Mann fucked around with this message at 18:41 on Mar 10, 2015 |
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2015 18:36
|
|
|
Super Jay Mann posted:It's one of my main hangups with the CBP honestly. It takes the ever present phenomenon of Civs snowballing to an insurmountable lead over those who fall behind and excaserbates it. Falling behind in tech or infrastructure, even a little bit, can compound into a death sentence as the rolling average for each modifier steadily rises beyond what you can counteract by making new buildings, plunging your civilization into deeper and deeper unhappiness as the turns continue. Not to mention that there's no problem with my capital, say, having a single Warrior as its garrison, because it's buried deep in my empire and nobody's going to be able to reach it with an effective army without chewing through my border cities.
|
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2015 18:41
|
|
|
Ranged units can't gank workers? Lame.
|
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2015 23:38
|
|
|
I think they CAN, but you can't right click the worker and expect the unit to move>capture. It defaults to attack. Instead, right click your unit, hold, then drag over your target. I think then you can capture them.
|
|
#
?
Mar 11, 2015 00:16
|
|
|
Peas and Rice posted:Ranged units can't gank workers? Lame. I've ganked workers with scout->archers (via ruins) before. Instead of just right clicking (which attacks) you have to hold right click to see pathing and then move onto them. It's a bit wonky but it works.
|
|
#
?
Mar 11, 2015 01:16
|
|
|
Or use command move. I can't remember if it's G-Lclick or M-Lclick in Civ5. I think it's the latter, because building mines is N.
|
|
#
?
Mar 11, 2015 01:19
|
|
|
What is lame is that ranged units can't capture cities, even cities with 0 HP.
|
|
#
?
Mar 11, 2015 09:52
|
|
|
Gort posted:What is lame is that ranged units can't capture cities, even cities with 0 HP.
|
|
#
?
Mar 11, 2015 10:48
|
|
|
Serious question here, is there any chance or rumors or hints that there may be another civ V expansion made? Or can we consider this game to have reached its zenith? Has there been any word on civ 6?
|
|
#
?
Mar 11, 2015 11:02
|
|
|
zonar posted:Given their already massive domination over melee units, letting ranged units capture cities would obsolete everything but them. Well, quite. My own preference would be: 1. Ranged units can capture cities 2. Ranged units are rubbish in melee I've been tempted to make a mod for Civ 5 that mimics the combat strengths of Beyond Earth - I think they actually got the unit balance a lot closer to correct in that game.
|
|
#
?
Mar 11, 2015 11:12
|
|
|
Serrath posted:Has there been any word on civ 6? It's usually about 5 years between civ releases (1991, 1996, 2001, 2005, 2010), so we're certainly due, unless BE is taking the spot this time.
|
|
#
?
Mar 11, 2015 12:00
|
|
|
All the other Civ games came on new engines to their predecessor, so I'd be surprised if BE took the place of Civ 6, especially since it seems so low-effort.
|
|
#
?
Mar 11, 2015 12:04
|
|
|
Beyond Earth is more like Civ 4 Colonization, essentially a high quality full conversion mod sold in between the "real" games. Except in space. Hell, sending trade wagons between your cities was a big thing in Colonization too.
|
|
#
?
Mar 11, 2015 12:14
|
|
|
Gort posted:All the other Civ games came on new engines to their predecessor, so I'd be surprised if BE took the place of Civ 6, especially since it seems so low-effort. I haven't played BE yet, but it looked interesting and I thought the response to it was fairly positive. What do you think seems low-effort about it?
|
|
#
?
Mar 11, 2015 13:53
|
|
|
Drunk in Space posted:I haven't played BE yet, but it looked interesting and I thought the response to it was fairly positive. What do you think seems low-effort about it? It got pretty good reviews and has an 81 Metacritic rating (which is lower than it was early on), but the close to 10.000 Steam reviews currently sits at 53% positive, which is not very good, though it probably would have been better if they hadn't charged full AAA price for it at launch.
|
|
#
?
Mar 11, 2015 14:11
|
|
|
Drunk in Space posted:I haven't played BE yet, but it looked interesting and I thought the response to it was fairly positive. What do you think seems low-effort about it? You're probably better off reading BE's thread, many effort posts in there. The designers had this to say about why the game was bland. They reckoned it was just leaders and wonders that they messed up, but the game launched with a ton of issues that are slooooowly getting patched. Probably the biggest issue with BE is that there are only eight leaders, the leader bonuses are fairly low-powered, and all the leaders have the same dialogue, so there's not a great deal of difference one game from another. Like, imagine if Civ 5 had eight Civs, no unique units and no unique buildings. The game's got less than 10% of the players of Civ 5 right now, so it's not doing particularly well.
|
|
#
?
Mar 11, 2015 14:24
|
|
|
Drunk in Space posted:I haven't played BE yet, but it looked interesting and I thought the response to it was fairly positive. What do you think seems low-effort about it? It's a ~30 dollar effort/game with ok production values but little depth that they marketed as a 60 dollar full game that implicitly would've been an improvement over Civ V and its expansions (it's better than release Civ V but not nearly as good as Brave New World). It's decent on its own if you get it for 20-30 dollars but it isn't the full price triple AAA game they marketed it as and is really disappointing as such (and it's a shame because with expansions it could be really good, though it probably won't get any).
|
|
#
?
Mar 11, 2015 14:25
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 31, 2024 10:27 |
|
|
Drunk in Space posted:I haven't played BE yet, but it looked interesting and I thought the response to it was fairly positive. What do you think seems low-effort about it? In comparison to a full-fledged Civilization game that changes things as much as Civ5 did from Civ4 (or Civ4 from Civ3, you get the idea), it's just not the same level of work. Which isn't to say they've been twiddling their thumbs or some silly "we deserve a better game!!  " thing, but Beyond Earth is clearly a side project compared to the next Civilization game. Apples and Oranges.
|
|
#
?
Mar 11, 2015 14:30
|
|