|
I just realized that Ed Beach, the guy that worked on Gods + Kings and Brave New World is also the creator of one of my favorite boardgames: "Here I Stand". If any of you guys are interested in longass board games here is the link http://boardgamegeek.com/boardgame/17392/here-i-stand
turboraton fucked around with this message at 18:11 on Mar 16, 2015 |
#
?
Mar 16, 2015 17:59
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 30, 2024 15:32 |
|
|
TooMuchAbstraction posted:The Inca get extra food from their terrain of choice, while the Iroquois nominally get extra hammers. The fact that everyone else chops down their forests while they can't really "chop down" their hills is just icing on the cake, really. The Inca get extra of the One True Resource, and that's what makes them so good. Giving the Iroquois extra food from forests instead of extra production would go a long way. It's not worth keeping more than a few of your 1/4 yield tiles when you can easily plow a 4/0 farm on top of it and just rely on mines/pastures for production (obviously if you have a flat city site without much production potential outside of forests this doesn't apply, but those are generally bad city sites for any civ anyway). 2/3 tiles would be much more competitive with farms.
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2015 19:00
|
|
|
+1 food on forest tiles from a workshop that sill gets the normal workshop bonuses would be pretty nice. Not TOO strong when you weigh against the opportunity cost of not chopping the forests. Then all you'd need to deal with is a worthless UA and UU!
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2015 19:43
|
|
|
Putin It In Mah rear end posted:+1 food on forest tiles from a workshop that sill gets the normal workshop bonuses would be pretty nice. Not TOO strong when you weigh against the opportunity cost of not chopping the forests. It's funny, 'cause when Civ 5 originally released, the Mohawk was a pretty badass UU. It sucked having to face those in an iron-less start 'cause they could just pop your archers in a single attack and your warriors wouldn't stand a chance.
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2015 22:15
|
|
|
Cynic Jester posted:And that doesn't even address the fact that their double movement on hills applies everywhere, unlike the Iroquois bonus and they get discounted roads on top of that. Only their UUs are somewhat close, everything else is tilted massively in favor of the Inca. The slinger is one of the few units that I consider to be worse than the unit it replaces. The mohawk warrior isn’t meaningfully better than a swordsman, but at least it doesn’t take a bread & butter unit and weaken it.
|
|
#
?
Mar 17, 2015 11:52
|
|
|
Platystemon posted:The slinger is one of the few units that I consider to be worse than the unit it replaces. The mohawk warrior isn’t meaningfully better than a swordsman, but at least it doesn’t take a bread & butter unit and weaken it.
|
|
#
?
Mar 17, 2015 13:09
|
|
|
I think turtle ships are at least kinda interesting because they change Korea's playstyle. In real life Korea was pretty isolationist, so it actually approximates that in-game by delaying sea exploration more. It's a downside yeah but it's at least an interestingly thought out one because both UU's cater to a defensive playstyle.
|
|
#
?
Mar 17, 2015 14:43
|
|
|
Is there a good mod to force religious units to be subject to normal open border rules? It is absolutely loving ridiculous that I finally got a decent religion (with Tithe!) against Eithiopia of all civs and I still have a civ on either side of me trying to Great Prophet my capital. I can't even tell them to gently caress off until after they've hosed my holy city up and they don't even listen half the time. The fact that converting the city makes it produce missionaries/inquisitors of the wrong religion is also infuriating. I just want to spread my religion to my cities and be left alone, gently caress you AI.
|
|
#
?
Mar 17, 2015 19:59
|
|
|
Lightning Knight posted:Is there a good mod to force religious units to be subject to normal open border rules? It is absolutely loving ridiculous that I finally got a decent religion (with Tithe!) against Eithiopia of all civs and I still have a civ on either side of me trying to Great Prophet my capital. I can't even tell them to gently caress off until after they've hosed my holy city up and they don't even listen half the time. The fact that converting the city makes it produce missionaries/inquisitors of the wrong religion is also infuriating. I just want to spread my religion to my cities and be left alone, gently caress you AI. If you station inquisitors in or next to your cities, the AI will stop attempting to convert them. Still annoying, but it helps.
|
|
#
?
Mar 17, 2015 20:41
|
|
|
OpenlyEvilJello posted:If you station inquisitors in or next to your cities, the AI will stop attempting to convert them. Still annoying, but it helps. I'm lucky I created a religion with no faith buildings to buy because loving Morocco came back about 30 turns later with three(!) more great prophets after I'd finally sorted everything out and got my cities back where they belong. I only have enough faith for one inquisitor though, so after I reload the save in 45 minutes those fuckers are going to to get the Russian Army rammed up their religion spamming asses. Why does the AI randomly start giving me lovely one-sided research agreement deals after a certain point, almost invariably? I'm second in army score on the demographics screen (Morocco is first  ), I have a giant stack of frigates sitting off the cost of my city closest to Elizabeth after I discovered she was "plotting against me," and most of them are weaker and farther behind in tech than me. Is it just the AI is a bunch of jerks or what? At least in Civ V they have to nominally offer you real, if lovely, deals. It isn't like Beyond Earth where they're like "we'll owe you a solid bro if you give us half your money and all your resources." 
|
|
#
?
Mar 17, 2015 20:49
|
|
|
Lightning Knight posted:Why does the AI randomly start giving me lovely one-sided research agreement deals after a certain point, almost invariably? They figure that because you're ahead in tech, you value beakers more and are also better-able to pay for the research agreement.
|
|
#
?
Mar 17, 2015 20:52
|
|
|
Lightning Knight posted:Why does the AI randomly start giving me lovely one-sided research agreement deals after a certain point, almost invariably? I'm second in army score on the demographics screen (Morocco is first The cost of a research agreement is based on the era that the more advanced civ is in. If you're more advanced than an AI civ, they have to cough up extra money in order to get a research agreement with you, which they will expect you to subsidize for them. For reasons that are not entirely clear, they will charge you an extra 100 gold for every extra era you're ahead even though the cost only scales by 50 per era--maybe they're reluctant about helping you to get even further ahead and want to slow you down, but 50 gold is a pretty minor speedbump.
|
|
#
?
Mar 17, 2015 21:03
|
|
|
I tend to ignore religion in most of my games so I can put more resources into science and culture. Is that stupid of me? I'm usually happy to have some AI religion eventually enter my cities.
|
|
#
?
Mar 17, 2015 21:04
|
|
|
Gabriel Pope posted:The cost of a research agreement is based on the era that the more advanced civ is in. If you're more advanced than an AI civ, they have to cough up extra money in order to get a research agreement with you, which they will expect you to subsidize for them. Huh. I just stop taking non-equal research agreements since I figure if I'm already ahead there's no reason to help them. I guess that makes sense though. I wish you could trade units in this game. I love to be able to go to one of the weaker non-threatening civs and buy units from them in exchange for research agreements and gold so I wouldn't have to spend the hammers building them themselves. I'm swimming in gold but I have too much poo poo to build to raise an army to deal with my two lovely direct neighbors spamming their bad religions.  quote:I tend to ignore religion in most of my games so I can put more resources into science and culture. Is that stupid of me? I'm usually happy to have some AI religion eventually enter my cities. Usually I assume this will happen but this game I had an incredible coastal/plains on river/salt Russia start and even then I ended up with third religion in a six player game. Somehow I still got the %bonus to production, tithe, temple happiness and spread speed though. 
|
|
#
?
Mar 17, 2015 21:05
|
|
|
My general attitude is that if I've got a start that allows for good faith generation then I'll go a bit out of my way to found a pantheon to snag it. From there, I'll stockpile faith. When my first prophet shows up, I'll know from game announcements how religiously aggressive the rest of the world is. From there I'll decide whether to plant the prophets for more faith generation (for later buying great people, or some other civ's religion's buyable things) or try to start my own religion for my own cities (and maybe some nearby city-states or not-yet-religious AIs) only. I haven't bothered trying to establish my religion as a worldwide one much in BNW though. It worked better in G&K since I could relatively easily go wide and have the faith generation that came with that, but in BNW it's rare that I've got more than 3-5 cities until it's so late in the game that religion hardly matters any more.
|
|
#
?
Mar 17, 2015 21:28
|
|
|
Lightning Knight posted:Huh. I just stop taking non-equal research agreements since I figure if I'm already ahead there's no reason to help them. I guess that makes sense though. That's a mistake. By the time research agreements are available it should be clear that only a few civs have any chance of winning and the rest are background noise, and the human player should always be one of the former group. If you make research agreements with the "background noise" civs, even if you pay them for it, then you increase your chance of winning while the other civ still has a 0% chance. Even after all the nerfs, research agreements are incredibly good, easily the best use of your gold, and you should make as many as possible. If a friendly AI has no gold and I have 600, I'll offer a deal where I give that AI 300 gold in exchange for maybe 8 GPT for 30 turns, and then do the research agreement.
|
|
#
?
Mar 17, 2015 21:32
|
|
|
Chamale posted:I tend to ignore religion in most of my games so I can put more resources into science and culture. Is that stupid of me? I'm usually happy to have some AI religion eventually enter my cities. No, in most games that's the smart thing to do. Religion isn't nearly worth the effort it requires. By all means produce faith, but use it on great people (and if you're lucky enough to have an AI religion spread to you that allows for it, religious buildings.)
|
|
#
?
Mar 17, 2015 21:36
|
|
|
I generally find religion to be well worth the effort--most of the time. It's still necessary to keep an eye on the AI's religion progress, if you see a ton of AI pantheon announcements go flying by there's no reason to bother, but usually it's not that bad and you can get some pretty great returns without a lot of effort. If you have some other priority like taking out a dangerous neighbor or getting a key wonder you might not want to stretch yourself out too thinly by trying for religion too, though.
|
|
#
?
Mar 17, 2015 21:53
|
|
|
Chamale posted:That's a mistake. By the time research agreements are available it should be clear that only a few civs have any chance of winning and the rest are background noise, and the human player should always be one of the former group. If you make research agreements with the "background noise" civs, even if you pay them for it, then you increase your chance of winning while the other civ still has a 0% chance. Even after all the nerfs, research agreements are incredibly good, easily the best use of your gold, and you should make as many as possible. If a friendly AI has no gold and I have 600, I'll offer a deal where I give that AI 300 gold in exchange for maybe 8 GPT for 30 turns, and then do the research agreement. I guess that makes sense. I'm not a Deity player though, I think my current Russia game is on King and I'm running Gort's mods for warfare and science nerfs and even then I'm already about to go into the Modern Era through Radio while other people are still in the Renaissance, and I already have Factories in every city with a tier 2 ideology tenant. If I play to win (I like to role play) I typically don't have to try too hard at the difficulties I like to play at. Gort's mod is something else though. I took Morocco's stupid great prophets, deleted two and planted the one I could, and found out to my horror that they had an eight knight horde hiding in the fog of war. I more or less lost the resulting opening of the war (despite having Lancers/Gatling Guns/Cossacks) for lack of numbers, and was actually kind of worried before they offered me a white peace because reasons (???). Maybe the fact I had artillery on the way scared them. 
|
|
#
?
Mar 17, 2015 22:06
|
|
|
The AI's faith point advantage gets really noticeable if you start paying any attention to religion. They can go wide, which means more faith production; they're much more willing to invest in Piety; they have no concept of the value of saving faith points for buying Great People later in the game. So they end up with craptons of missionaries and Great Prophets that they just kind of mindlessly spam out across the map. Meanwhile, the human player has a much more sharply limited faith point supply and thus can't afford such carpet-bombing tactics, which makes it far harder to push out a religion against any remotely significant opposition. I had one game where two neighboring religions got into a holy war over my capital -- there were literally two Great Prophets that argued themselves to death by converting it back and forth on alternating turns.
|
|
#
?
Mar 17, 2015 22:14
|
|
|
TooMuchAbstraction posted:I had one game where two neighboring religions got into a holy war over my capital -- there were literally two Great Prophets that argued themselves to death by converting it back and forth on alternating turns. I always wonder how confusing life must be for the city residents when this happens.
|
|
#
?
Mar 17, 2015 22:34
|
|
|
Played a game of Civ4 and really the only improvement Civ5 has over it's predecessor is a reduction in some of the tedious micromanagement. The fact that civ AIs can hold their own in Civ4 actually means a lot more than people give credit. It's not just a matter of difficulty. When I'm struggling on the early game in Civ4 I know it's because of decisions I've made vs. those of the AI civs. When I'm lagging behind on a prince game in Civ5 it's not because the AI has made better decisions to create a stronger economy, it's because the AI cheats like crazy and I'm still in the process of catching up. Going wide quickly is a lot more rewarding of a playstyle, and it's just not viable in Civ5. Civ4 allows for aggressive expansion balanced against maintenance costs. You are rewarded for expanding fast by getting a stronger economy later. Even when you hit 60% there's always a balance to strike between getting military vs science vs production. Building 3-4 cities in Civ5 and sitting on them for the early game just isn't as exciting. While the combat in Civ5 is more interesting, you can defend against pretty much anything the AI throws at you with 5 crossbowmen and 2 horsemen - or sit on your token anti-barb units and buy more military only if the need arises. That doesn't fly in Civ4; the AI knows how to move a stack and siege a city. Whipping out an extra unit or two isn't going to save your expansion in time. Also being a dick and expansion blocking a civ is really fun.
|
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2015 02:41
|
|
|
Incas and Korea are badass for other reasons, so they don't need good UUs as well, just like Poland.
Gort fucked around with this message at 12:30 on Mar 18, 2015 |
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2015 12:28
|
|
|
TooMuchAbstraction posted:I had one game where two neighboring religions got into a holy war over my capital -- there were literally two Great Prophets that argued themselves to death by converting it back and forth on alternating turns. By moving inquisitors in and out of my cities I eventually had 11 great prophets from 3 different religions reenacting Benny Hill in the wasteland between my 4 cities. Then I declared 3 wars and got 7 great prophets with no conversions used.
|
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2015 13:26
|
|
|
Are there any good mods that bring back culture flipping?
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2015 18:47
|
|
|
causticBeet posted:Are there any good mods that bring back culture flipping? It is actually present in this game, it just doesn't show up until Industrial Age and later.
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2015 19:19
|
|
|
You also won't see it too much on higher difficulties because of the AI's crazy happiness bonuses.
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2015 19:31
|
|
|
Gort posted:It is actually present in this game, it just doesn't show up until Industrial Age and later. Which makes it largely useless unless you just happen to need that city as a basing point for military operations, because AI cities have basically no infrastructure even after peacefully flipping hundreds of turns into the game. I mean, what the hell are they doing with their hammers anyway?
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2015 20:00
|
|
|
TooMuchAbstraction posted:Which makes it largely useless unless you just happen to need that city as a basing point for military operations, because AI cities have basically no infrastructure even after peacefully flipping hundreds of turns into the game. I mean, what the hell are they doing with their hammers anyway? They don't improve bafflingly large swaths of their territory too, and often build crappy improvements. If they did a better job coding the AI to improve more of its territory more intelligently and build more appropriate infrastructure sooner they wouldn't have to have the AI just cheat at higher difficulties. It's fine for the AI to role play but they could at least do so efficiently to provide a fair challenge.
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2015 20:05
|
|
|
TooMuchAbstraction posted:Which makes it largely useless unless you just happen to need that city as a basing point for military operations, because AI cities have basically no infrastructure even after peacefully flipping hundreds of turns into the game. I mean, what the hell are they doing with their hammers anyway? Those carpets on doom that the AI mindlessly throws into your butter churner of ranged units during wars has to come from somewhere you know. They also really like using the hammer conversion builds from what I've observed in FireTuner, so there's that as well.
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2015 21:23
|
|
|
I always wonder if the AI would fare better if you just bought tile improvements with gold instead of having to move units around to do it.
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2015 21:31
|
|
|
Gort posted:I always wonder if the AI would fare better if you just bought tile improvements with gold instead of having to move units around to do it.
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2015 21:33
|
|
|
Poil posted:Or if you built them with a separate Public Works resource. I always thought that building tile improvements with gold would line up elegantly with getting (less) gold for pillaging them.
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2015 21:37
|
|
|
Or make it like Endless Legend, remove workers as a need for building improvements, or hell workers entirely, and have all improvements be built by the city, in the city screen. I always kind of felt like Workers were unnecessary and their roles could be abstracted without losing much depth. Endless Legend sort of proved this point for me. Although having to protect workers is a decent factor for some strategic depth, it's usually trivial and micromanaging your workers around enemy units is just a pain instead of interesting or fun. The only way you can steal workers is if it's a surprise declaration of war or if the other player fell asleep at the wheel. Losing that aspect is not a big deal. Plus, it gives the cities themselves more things to do, so you don't feel like you're idling with them as much. Dr. Video Games 0031 fucked around with this message at 04:00 on Mar 20, 2015 |
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2015 03:57
|
|
|
I like the idea of abstracted workers, but as I see it, workers‐as‐units is still necessary for wartime work, like building roads through neutral territory or chopping forests in enemy land.
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2015 04:57
|
|
|
I think Workers also do add a little bit by way of the need to protect them from hostiles. It's not a major consideration, but it's a plus for the game that SOME attention has to be paid to it. The ability to buy tile improvements with gold is already in the game--you can do so for allied city-states. I wonder if enabling it for civs to do on their own land is moddable? It's likely a moot question since even if it is, the AI couldn't be properly programmed to use the ability. Eric the Mauve fucked around with this message at 05:04 on Mar 20, 2015 |
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2015 05:01
|
|
|
Eric the Mauve posted:I think Workers also do add a little bit by way of the need to protect them from hostiles. It's not a major consideration, but it's a plus for the game that SOME attention has to be paid to it. Can't you represent that by hostiles entering your terrain and pillaging improvements?
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2015 05:02
|
|
|
Platystemon posted:I like the idea of abstracted workers, but as I see it, workers-as-units is still necessary for wartime work, like building roads through neutral territory or chopping forests in enemy land. Make roads and forestry (why is adding forests/jungle not a thing in this game anymore?) something you can only do within your borders and make a separate military engineer unit for it outside your borders and the creation of forts? Also holy poo poo the spawn logic in this game is super irritating sometimes. Playing an eight player standard sized Earth map and the game decides to spawn only one player in Africa and an AI within ~15 tiles of me, as well as four players total in Asia (one in Europe and one each in North and South America to round it out). I ended up having to take his last city to give myself any room to go anywhere and the game immediately went down the tubes because of the dumb warmonger penalties that makes the AI hate you forever after doing that. It baffles me still that the in-game editor for this is so much loving worse than the one for Civ IV. I just want to make the starting locations not stupid game, come the gently caress on.
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2015 05:07
|
|
|
The only time I felt workers were remotely interesting was playing as Portugal and sending them out on jaunts for feitorias.
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2015 05:20
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 30, 2024 15:32 |
|
|
Platystemon posted:I like the idea of abstracted workers, but as I see it, workers‐as‐units is still necessary for wartime work, like building roads through neutral territory or chopping forests in enemy land. Woah, is that a thing people do? I've never thought to include workers in my invasion army. I didn't even know workers could work in rival territory. It would definitely make hitting those annoying cities surrounded by forest easier to hit with ranged units.
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2015 13:57
|
|
