|
Hidden Ability 3: "Actually, in British English" - All trade routes with England yield 0 gold because nobody wants to buy Trump's autobiography
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2015 09:34
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 28, 2024 18:14 |
|
|
The White Dragon posted:Hidden Ability 3: "Actually, in British English" What's the context for that Trump quote? I've never seen it before.
|
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2015 09:58
|
|
|
Chamale posted:UB: Trump House - Replaces Palace, gives +100 Gold per turn and -50 Science per turn. Trump has yet to show his birth certificate proving his father is not an orangutan, therefore this should replace the zoo instead.
|
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2015 13:41
|
|
|
Chamale posted:Hidden ability 1: "Great relationship with the blacks" - Shaka will pretend to be friendly but secretly hates you. Hmm. You'd have to rely on trade and pop to get over the...wait, you'd still be at Agriculture. Hmm. Difficult to win a war or keep enemies from fighting you with nothing but Warriors, but early enough... Couldn't exploit many resources yourself, either, since you need Mining, Sailing, Trapping, Bronze Working, and Calender. You'd want a bunch of plains, grasslands and/or hills so you can farm the pop you'd need. 5 cities at 10 pop, or 4 at 13 to even begin earning any Science at all. But no Happiness would basically be murder. ...Maybe in combination with other mods, or a team mate you can funnel to and leech Science/techs off? Maybe just buy out city-state friendship, go heavily into Patronage, go from there? Feels weird to not go Tradition, but in this case there's decent reason. Culture's a problem, too, since nothing but Monuments. Looking it up, Patronage doesn't unlock by default till Medieval. Hrm. Bloodly fucked around with this message at 14:36 on Aug 17, 2015 |
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2015 14:21
|
|
|
The Trump Civ should inherit all the wealth produced in the player's previous game, but pretend that Trump Civ created it all. Diplomatic penalties multiply once Broadcast Tower is built. "Restructuring" ability allows free buildings or cities up to 3 times in a game.
|
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2015 18:59
|
|
|
Chamale posted:What's the context for that Trump quote? I've never seen it before. Oh, that's not a Trump quote, it's because people in the UK don't buy his autobiography because they don't give a gently caress about him and also because Trump means "fart" in British slang.
|
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2015 19:25
|
|
|
Phobophilia posted:I've managed to successfully play on a GMR hotseat save in singleplayer. Though what happened was everyone else resigned from the game, leaving me as the "host", and somehow I could keep playing. Technically that's not singleplayer, though, that's multiplayer without any other players (or with all other players controlled by AI). It's a dumb distinction but Kaal is probably right, moving between the two game modes isn't possible.
|
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2015 23:00
|
|
|
I've got a question about starvation mechanics if anyone has any insight. I'm playing a GMR game, and in the middle of a pitched war with the person in second place (I'm currently the leader). His capital is size 30, and while I'm in the process of trying to wear it down, I'm not optimistic I can capture it in the near future. I have pillaged pretty much every tile around it, and the city is in starvation. My question is, when a city loses a Pop to starvation, do you end up with a full box of food from the previous food level that has to empty out before they lose another Pop, or does it start somewhere halfway? I'm trying to figure out how quickly he'll be losing population if I was to delay a few turns in making my final push, or if at those levels it would be so insignificantly slow that I shouldn't even bother thinking about it.
|
|
#
?
Aug 18, 2015 01:17
|
|
|
Palleon posted:I've got a question about starvation mechanics if anyone has any insight. I'm playing a GMR game, and in the middle of a pitched war with the person in second place (I'm currently the leader). His capital is size 30, and while I'm in the process of trying to wear it down, I'm not optimistic I can capture it in the near future. I have pillaged pretty much every tile around it, and the city is in starvation. My question is, when a city loses a Pop to starvation, do you end up with a full box of food from the previous food level that has to empty out before they lose another Pop, or does it start somewhere halfway? I'm trying to figure out how quickly he'll be losing population if I was to delay a few turns in making my final push, or if at those levels it would be so insignificantly slow that I shouldn't even bother thinking about it. They don't end up with any extra food at all when dropping population, but a city can be starving (i.e. producing less food than it eats) while still having a significant stockpile of food to survive off of. I snagged this from a Civ Fanatics thread. Callonia posted:To starve a city... From what you've said, if the city is in starvation (and that can't be remedied) then it will still have to go through all the stockpiled food, and then it will start losing one population per turn until it reaches a stable level. For a size 30 capital this is going to take many turns, as they probably have quite a bit of food coming in from buildings alone. Since population only adds to the base city combat strength on a 1:1 ratio, I'd say that you'll have to wait quite a while for it to have a significant effect. A city's food surplus becomes very large indeed by the time it gets to size 30; if it was halfway grown to size 31 before it went into starvation then it'll have to burn through 350 food* before it begins dropping population. Each citizen eats two food so that means the city needs 60 food per turn, but that first comes from the food being produced by the city itself and any food from unoccupied tiles (pillaged tiles still provide basic resources). It could take dozens of turns before it goes into population loss. It probably isn't worth it if you intend to seize it by force, and I can't imagine how effective it would be to maintain the blockade while being attacked every turn. If you don't think that you can seize the city, then either wait them out (this situation is crippling for them and time is probably on your side here) or sue for peace on your terms. If you are rampaging through their territory and picking off isolated units then they'll never be able to recover, so don't risk your army just trying to get their capital quickly. Take your time, offer them an expensive peace, and start teching up to Artillery while they make up lost ground. Alternatively, if you think it'll be a doable slog, then plant a citadel and bring up siege units. *http://civilization.wikia.com/wiki/Mathematics_of_Civilization_V Kaal fucked around with this message at 02:45 on Aug 18, 2015 |
|
#
?
Aug 18, 2015 02:17
|
|
|
Thank you for that, it's helpful. I do have artillery, although he also has bomber fleets and I don't have anti-air yet. He has a stockpile of 100+ food, so I've decided to just start bombarding him with artillery, and it looks like I'll probably wear down the city and take it, although I'm definitely going to lose at least a few artillery units and probably a melee unit or two in the process.
|
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2015 11:22
|
|
|
Palleon posted:Thank you for that, it's helpful. I do have artillery, although he also has bomber fleets and I don't have anti-air yet. He has a stockpile of 100+ food, so I've decided to just start bombarding him with artillery, and it looks like I'll probably wear down the city and take it, although I'm definitely going to lose at least a few artillery units and probably a melee unit or two in the process. Pretty goddamn good avatar/subtitle/post combination right here, as long as expending semi-replaceable assets in the furtherance of a greater cause goes.
|
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2015 11:27
|
|
|
Palleon posted:Thank you for that, it's helpful. I do have artillery, although he also has bomber fleets and I don't have anti-air yet. He has a stockpile of 100+ food, so I've decided to just start bombarding him with artillery, and it looks like I'll probably wear down the city and take it, although I'm definitely going to lose at least a few artillery units and probably a melee unit or two in the process. Melee units shouldn't get near the city. Bombard to 0 HP with ranged units/planes, then capture with a fast unit like a lancer. The strength of the fast unit doesn't matter - as long as the city is at 0 HP any melee attacker will take it.
|
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2015 11:45
|
|
|
Gort posted:Melee units shouldn't get near the city. Bombard to 0 HP with ranged units/planes, then capture with a fast unit like a lancer. The strength of the fast unit doesn't matter - as long as the city is at 0 HP any melee attacker will take it. I'm not confident the artillery I have can wear down the city before they're destroyed or his reinforcement army arrives, I think I need the extra damage to expedite. Once the city is taken I can rebase my own bombers in range and finish his army for good.
|
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2015 12:33
|
|
|
I started a quick/random game last night on Americas map. Started as the Mayans right in Colombia, and built a sweet city on the one-tile thick Panama isthmus, allowing navy ships to pass through  I had forgotten that the game shows the date in the corner in the Mayan calendar when you play as the Mayans. It's the little things there that make me love this game so much. Mayan atlatlist is a pretty pointless unit though. I've never played Quick before. Seems pretty fun, especially since I can finish games more quickly (and then start new ones!) Coming from normal, you really can't depend on battlefield experience to upgrade your units. Fortunately, I spawned in surrounded by jungle, so I'm cranking out science like crazy all game with just 2 cities. Elizabeth declared war on me before she had built Ships of the Line, and got all her coastal cities frigate rushed to death. Elizabeth upgrading all her longbowmen to gatling guns (with 2 range!) has been a real annoyance as well. For some reason, she had like 6 Impi units. I'm guessing she got some gifted to her from a militaristic citystate before she built Terracotta Army and doubled them. It's nice to see that the Impi's bonus against gunpowder units carries through when facing Foreign Legion
|
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2015 00:36
|
|
|
canyoneer posted:I started a quick/random game last night on Americas map. Started as the Mayans right in Colombia, and built a sweet city on the one-tile thick Panama isthmus, allowing navy ships to pass through The atlatl lets you beeline straight for Theology to get your UA online without completely loving your defense.
|
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2015 01:40
|
|
|
What the hell, Washington? Does he honestly think I'm going to let him keep that?
|
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2015 08:18
|
|
|
Palleon posted:I've got a question about starvation mechanics if anyone has any insight. I'm playing a GMR game, and in the middle of a pitched war with the person in second place (I'm currently the leader). His capital is size 30, and while I'm in the process of trying to wear it down, I'm not optimistic I can capture it in the near future. I have pillaged pretty much every tile around it, and the city is in starvation. My question is, when a city loses a Pop to starvation, do you end up with a full box of food from the previous food level that has to empty out before they lose another Pop, or does it start somewhere halfway? I'm trying to figure out how quickly he'll be losing population if I was to delay a few turns in making my final push, or if at those levels it would be so insignificantly slow that I shouldn't even bother thinking about it. When a city loses a pop to starvation due to its food bar emptying, its food bar stays empty at successive pop losses. Not at full, not at halfway. So once you're in such a state, you are in a bad, bad position. However, the reason their city is "starving" is unlikely to be due to your army completely cutting off its food supplies. After all, if your army occupies every single exploitable tile around a size 30 city, then you may as well use your 30+ units to just up and take it. No, the reason your opponent's city is starving is because they have deliberately taken their citizens off food producing tiles, and put them onto hammer producing tiles and hammer specialists. You are on a timer on your opponent's reinforcements arriving, and units within their city aiding them. How much damage is your artillery doing per attack, and how many artilleries can fire on it per turn? A city naturally has 200hp, and heals 20hp/turn. Walls gives +50hp, castle gives +25hp, arsenal gives +25hp. So calculate the health - (damage x shots + healing) to calculate approximately how many turns it takes to reduce their city to 0hp. In any case, you are in a very, very strong position if you're at the capital of #2 and are reducing it. Even if you capture it and they recapture it, you've wiped out over half their population, and their science and production has been crippled. This is a game-winning position.
|
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2015 10:25
|
|
|
Phobophilia posted:However, the reason their city is "starving" is unlikely to be due to your army completely cutting off its food supplies. After all, if your army occupies every single exploitable tile around a size 30 city, then you may as well use your 30+ units to just up and take it. Don't units--especially seafaring units--have zone of control for preventing a city from working tiles? I wanna say land units have range 1 and ocean units lock out up to two tiles away.
|
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2015 10:41
|
|
|
Washington sends his regards.
highmodulus fucked around with this message at 20:20 on Aug 20, 2015 |
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2015 20:18
|
|
|
The White Dragon posted:Don't units--especially seafaring units--have zone of control for preventing a city from working tiles? I wanna say land units have range 1 and ocean units lock out up to two tiles away. However, military ships do block 2 tiles away from being worked. Liberating and resurrecting civs is the greatest thing. Casimir became the pariah of the world and got stomped by a combined effort from Japan and China after leading most of the game. We were never on great terms, but man, liberate one of his minor cities and you're buds for life. Also, battleships with Range upgrade are so ridiculous, I love it. Nuke sub one-shots the enemy ships and your battleships safely pick off anything within a 4 tile radius
|
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2015 22:50
|
|
|
Enemy land units only block the tile they’re standing on. Naval units block all tiles within a radius of two or three. What’s really dumb is that you can have your own military unit sitting on the tile you want to work and it doesn’t matter; you still can’t work it till the enemy ship sinks or wanders off.
|
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2015 23:04
|
|
|
Platystemon posted:Enemy land units only block the tile they’re standing on. That was an awful mechanic introduced in BTS. They could have at least changed it for Civ5, but Civ5's mechanics are hideously unwieldy and have too many ill-fitting legacy systems from older Civs.
|
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2015 00:00
|
|
|
Platystemon posted:Enemy land units only block the tile they’re standing on. Does this work even for units they can't see, IE subs?
|
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2015 00:26
|
|
|
It's small, but occasionally the amusing anecdotes I get from this game remind me why I still play. In my current game Aztec missionaries just peacefully converted Mecca to Buddhism while a massive war is kicking off between the COMINTERN powers of Carthage, Portugal, and Siam, and the autocratic dictatorships of England, Indonesia, and Byzantium.
|
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2015 17:23
|
|
|
I just managed to enter the Atomic Era and Information Era two turns apart. Stole Radar in 1635, finished Oxford University for Rocketry in 1640, and popped a great writer to fill Rationalism for Satellites in 1645. Then my great engineer finishes Hubble, and I've got a total of 5 Great Scientists waiting for their moment. I love a good slingshot.
|
|
#
?
Aug 25, 2015 20:44
|
|
|
Chamale posted:I just managed to enter the Atomic Era and Information Era two turns apart. Stole Radar in 1635, finished Oxford University for Rocketry in 1640, and popped a great writer to fill Rationalism for Satellites in 1645. Then my great engineer finishes Hubble, and I've got a total of 5 Great Scientists waiting for their moment. I love a good slingshot. Wonder what 17th century Internet would look like. "Bare thine breasts or remove thyself hence"
|
|
#
?
Aug 25, 2015 21:07
|
|
|
I never understood what they were going for with Hubble. It's like it's just there to ensure that a climactic race to a Space Victory can never happen because whoever grabs the Hubble has too much of a lead to be caught.
|
|
#
?
Aug 25, 2015 21:35
|
|
|
canyoneer posted:Wonder what 17th century Internet would look like. According to goon military historian Hey Gal, increasing literacy in the 17th century was like the Internet to them. People had opinions, and writing meant that they could tell them to more than just the people in earshot. Message boards would have been popular with those people until the moment they learned about porn.
|
|
#
?
Aug 25, 2015 21:47
|
|
|
Gort posted:I never understood what they were going for with Hubble. It's like it's just there to ensure that a climactic race to a Space Victory can never happen because whoever grabs the Hubble has too much of a lead to be caught. Firaxis decided to combat the end-game grind by making it a frustrating anticlimax as well, encouraging other players to just quit. They seem to have doubled-down on this in Beyond Earth.
|
|
#
?
Aug 25, 2015 21:49
|
|
|
In multiplayer, HST is overrated. It’s on a tech that’s militarily useless, and it pushes back your great scientist counters twice, which is often the difference between getting one more naturally and not. It can clinch science victories, but if there’s serious military competition, HST doesn’t win the game. It’s something of a trap when the alternatives are nukes, bomb shelters, stealth bombers, and XCOM. e: And also your probably used a great engineer on HST, which generally costs another scientist. Platystemon fucked around with this message at 22:36 on Aug 25, 2015 |
|
#
?
Aug 25, 2015 22:06
|
|
|
Platystemon posted:In multiplayer In multiplayer the game ended ages ago when Artillery and Bombers showed up.
|
|
#
?
Aug 25, 2015 22:07
|
|
|
canyoneer posted:Wonder what 17th century Internet would look like. "im king james i"
|
|
#
?
Aug 25, 2015 22:10
|
|
|
Platystemon posted:It can clinch science victories, but if there’s serious military competition, HST doesn’t win the game. It’s something of a trap when the alternatives are nukes, bomb shelters, stealth bombers, and XCOM. The idea is to beeline for HST with a stack of Great Scientists, then slingshot yourself up the military tree. If you're playing a multiplayer game and have stealth bombers and XCOM available, then of course it isn't needed.
|
|
#
?
Aug 25, 2015 22:13
|
|
|
Kaal posted:The idea is to beeline for HST with a stack of Great Scientists, then slingshot yourself up the military tree. If you're playing a multiplayer game and have stealth bombers and XCOM available, then of course it isn't needed. I'm saying that's basically break-even. It doesn't get you much, if anything, over beelining for the military techs directly.
|
|
#
?
Aug 25, 2015 22:34
|
|
|
Is there a way to see how many turns until a militaristic city-state pays out? Sofia has keshiks. I want a keshik. But I also need to declare war, and I can't wait on chivalry and then machinery.
|
|
#
?
Aug 28, 2015 06:11
|
|
|
canyoneer posted:Wonder what 17th century Internet would look like. Hamlet's soliloquy talks about suffering the slings and arrows of outrageous trolls.
|
|
#
?
Aug 28, 2015 06:34
|
|
|
Platystemon posted:I'm saying that's basically break-even. It doesn't get you much, if anything, over beelining for the military techs directly. You need Rocketry to reach stealth bombers and xcom anyway, so it's a diversion of exactly one tech (that you can oxford) and 670 faith to get 2 scientists much quicker than you would otherwise. I'd say that's absolutely worth it if you're going down that tech path. Nukes and bomb shelters are another story obviously.
|
|
#
?
Aug 28, 2015 06:50
|
|
|
Does the deity AI get 1 free settler or 2? Is there a specific turn for each gamepace where this happens?
|
|
#
?
Aug 28, 2015 10:32
|
|
|
Sanctum posted:Does the deity AI get 1 free settler or 2? Is there a specific turn for each gamepace where this happens? Deity gets one free settler (as well as two warriors, two workers, and an explorer). This all happens on Turn 0. Of course with a doubled construction and growth rate, they're able to pump out more settlers pretty quickly. http://civilization.wikia.com/wiki/Difficulty_level_(Civ5) Vil posted:NB that this is an extra free settler on deity, so instead of the usual 1 they have 2. Right. So free as in addition to the settler and warrior that everyone starts out with. On Turn 0 a Deity AI starts with 2 Settlers, 3 Warriors, 2 Workers, and 1 Explorer. Kaal fucked around with this message at 01:14 on Aug 29, 2015 |
|
#
?
Aug 28, 2015 20:55
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 28, 2024 18:14 |
|
|
NB that this is an extra free settler on deity, so instead of the usual 1 they have 2.
|
|
#
?
Aug 28, 2015 21:01
|
|
