|
Honestly I think it would be better if they full on prevented you from researching things you don't have access to. No stone? No Masonry research period. Obviously this wouldn't work for every research node and there would have to be significant changes to the research tree in general but this makes much more sense to me. And also creates an additional point of consideration for conflict between different civs in a game.
|
#
?
May 12, 2016 00:22
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 30, 2024 13:54 |
|
|
xgalaxy posted:Honestly I think it would be better if they full on prevented you from researching things you don't have access to. No stone? No Masonry research period. Obviously this wouldn't work for every research node and there would have to be significant changes to the research tree in general but this makes much more sense to me. And also creates an additional point of consideration for conflict between different civs in a game. If you think of "research" as a general progression mechanic for the game rather than tied to the real life notion it makes a lot more sense and this has been how it works since civ 1.
|
|
#
?
May 12, 2016 00:48
|
|
|
When I look at individual units or buildings in the screenshots I like them(except those atrocious trees). But I hate the overall look, and I think it's because they had the same angle and zoom level on all of them. It gave me the impression we were seeing 1/8 of the entire game world in those shots. They didn't advertise it as a broad, strategic game with those and I think that's what irks me the most.
|
|
#
?
May 12, 2016 01:09
|
|
|
they always gotta start with the most zoomed in shots so as to be a massive tease
|
|
#
?
May 12, 2016 01:14
|
|
|
Rakthar posted:It's amazing how unappealing the new design is. It may have more polys or better shadows but it looks absolutely awful. I don't get how anyone could dislike it, much less consider it "absolutely awful." To me, it looks like a more vibrant Civ IV.
|
|
#
?
May 12, 2016 01:15
|
|
|
Bogart posted:You know when people bitched about Diablo 3 being Too Colorful? I imagine it was like this. You mean it was like a few people expressing moderate distaste for the art style, while still being interested in the game? Horror!  Truly, you are the last sane one in this thread.
|
|
#
?
May 12, 2016 01:17
|
|
|
Fintilgin posted:You mean it was like a few people expressing moderate distaste for the art style, while still being interested in the game? Horror! 
|
|
#
?
May 12, 2016 01:18
|
|
|
While I am glad that Civilization VI is coming, the art style is a disappointment. It looks much worse than Civ V. No mention of a global map either, but that's not really all that important.
|
|
#
?
May 12, 2016 01:35
|
|
|
The Human Crouton posted:When I look at individual units or buildings in the screenshots I like them(except those atrocious trees). But I hate the overall look, and I think it's because they had the same angle and zoom level on all of them. It gave me the impression we were seeing 1/8 of the entire game world in those shots. They didn't advertise it as a broad, strategic game with those and I think that's what irks me the most. It reminds me a lot of when I first got Civ 5 (which was my first Civ game), I didn't realize I could zoom out on the map, or turn of grid view, etc. Playing the game fully zoomed-in is a completely different experience and almost feels like an entirely different genre. I'll wait until we see a screenshot from a playable zoom level to really decide on my feelings about the art, since that is all anyone is ever going to use.
|
|
#
?
May 12, 2016 01:39
|
|
|
I loving loved the Civ4 world art style, which made everything pop out of the ground, and reproducing it with this instead of the muddy Civ5 art style is a good thing. The Civ5 UI design can stay, of course. It's also good that they're trying to iterate and redesign all the economic and management systems in Civ6, instead of the clumsy hacked together mess that Civ5+expansions was. Sad to say that City States are still around, hopefully we're allowed to push in their borders or even burn them Civ4 style, instead of only having the option of conquest in CIv5. Still not buying it at launch, I've been burnt.
|
|
#
?
May 12, 2016 02:24
|
|
|
Frankly the concept of city-states as a bunch of micronations that the real players get to push around and fight over is a good concept. Implementation details, as usual, are imperfect.
|
|
#
?
May 12, 2016 02:44
|
|
|
TooMuchAbstraction posted:Frankly the concept of city-states as a bunch of micronations that the real players get to push around and fight over is a good concept. Implementation details, as usual, are imperfect. I agree. Having lesser powers that you can pressure to tilt the game balance in your favour is a good idea on paper. It's not the same when there's 6 players and nothing else on the map. If they had more diplomatic ways of influencing city states rather than just killing barbs, making a road or getting resources, I think it would add a lot.
|
|
#
?
May 12, 2016 02:58
|
|
|
Orcs and Ostriches posted:I agree. Having lesser powers that you can pressure to tilt the game balance in your favour is a good idea on paper. It's not the same when there's 6 players and nothing else on the map. If they had more diplomatic ways of influencing city states rather than just killing barbs, making a road or getting resources, I think it would add a lot. Personally, and I mentioned this in the Portugal LP, I think 'city-states' should actually be minor civilisations in their own right. Give them a distinct identity beyond just a name and a sound clip, at the very minimum. (If AI civilisations in general start as minors and which ones grow up to be big players changes from game to game, that'd do quite a bit to add flavour and depth both to the mechanic and to the game as a whole, IMO.)
|
|
#
?
May 12, 2016 03:04
|
|
|
Orcs and Ostriches posted:I agree. Having lesser powers that you can pressure to tilt the game balance in your favour is a good idea on paper. It's not the same when there's 6 players and nothing else on the map. If they had more diplomatic ways of influencing city states rather than just killing barbs, making a road or getting resources, I think it would add a lot. I think it'd be good if influence got you more direct control of them rather than simple bonuses.
|
|
#
?
May 12, 2016 03:05
|
|
|
I'd be plenty happy if they allowed custom palettes/terrain a la Civ 3 (gently caress it, ship with something that looks like Sn00py's watercolors), and loving got rid one unit per hex. Can you make it easier to make a custom map? The steam workshop kind of sucks for Civ mods, maybe they can spend some time to make that poo poo fun too. BE was a terrible let down, and I've purchased every Civ game and probably spent more time playing this series than anything else. How can they breathe life into this series so it's a novelty again? We've been playing this poo poo what, 25 years now? Endless Legend by Amplitude has a lot of neat mechanics, but needs something more, can't quite put my finger on it. I hope Civ 6 finds whatever that missing piece is.
|
|
#
?
May 12, 2016 03:11
|
|
|
Mizaq posted:BE was a terrible let down, and I've purchased every Civ game and probably spent more time playing this series than anything else. How can they breathe life into this series so it's a novelty again? We've been playing this poo poo what, 25 years now? Endless Legend by Amplitude has a lot of neat mechanics, but needs something more, can't quite put my finger on it. I hope Civ 6 finds whatever that missing piece is. Endless Legend, like 99% of all 4x games pretty much has a well-tested early game and then the design thought goes out the window as the game goes on as there's far, far less testing and development. The time past the medieval period in civ games tends to be way underdeveloped and not well thought out. The civs haven't found a good way to make huge empires manageable to civ 5 just decided to make 4-5 cities the way to go which is the cop out solution. If they found a way to make cities simpler and more managable in the main map mode they could let players have huge numbers of them and it wouldn't be a big deal. Also the 1upt tends to, like a lot of 4x gimmick systems(sci-fi ship design is a big one) just be a way to do donuts around the AI.
|
|
#
?
May 12, 2016 03:21
|
|
|
Mizaq posted:I'd be plenty happy if they allowed custom palettes/terrain a la Civ 3 (gently caress it, ship with something that looks like Sn00py's watercolors), and loving got rid one unit per hex. Can you make it easier to make a custom map? The steam workshop kind of sucks for Civ mods, maybe they can spend some time to make that poo poo fun too. I think the missing piece is to make sure there is no optimal build order or tech order. Make the game change every time. There was no excuse for them not to nerf the national college and rationalism, or to make a change so the AI chose freedom sometimes. My main gripe is how static the world becomes in 5. You get down to 3 or 4 remaining civs and just slog it out. Give me revolutions that create some new players. Make the world flow.
|
|
#
?
May 12, 2016 03:25
|
|
|
Bogart posted:You know when people bitched about Diablo 3 being Too Colorful? I imagine it was like this. Diablo 3's art style was poo poo though, and the game was terrible when it first came out. Vargs fucked around with this message at 04:13 on May 12, 2016 |
|
#
?
May 12, 2016 03:52
|
|
|
The Human Crouton posted:I think the missing piece is to make sure there is no optimal build order or tech order. Make the game change every time. There was no excuse for them not to nerf the national college and rationalism, or to make a change so the AI chose freedom sometimes. So basically Rhye's from Civ 4:BTS? They tried in Civ 5 but it never really got off the ground. I don't see much incentive for the Steam Controller bundle that they seem to be pushing, I just want mouse+KB for most strategy games. Qtotonibudinibudet fucked around with this message at 04:05 on May 12, 2016 |
|
#
?
May 12, 2016 03:54
|
|
|
City states should just be one tile things that come with bonuses within the state as opposed to having them in their borders. Actually having borders was annoying as fuuuuck.
|
|
#
?
May 12, 2016 04:01
|
|
|
I never really stuck with Crusader Kings but what I liked about it was that there was a rise and fall type of thing, an empire could shatter into pieces while someone new consolidates power and fills in the gap, it's emergent and interesting. Part of that I guess is the lack of any real win condition; you roll with the punches because that's the point of the game. Trying to do that in Civ the way it's currently structured would just lead to people ragequitting if they ever got knocked off the progression towards their win condition.
|
|
#
?
May 12, 2016 04:04
|
|
|
http://www.ign.com/articles/2016/05/11/three-ways-sid-meiers-civilization-6-radically-reinvents-itself-city-building-science-and-diplomacyquote:To help you with that, Shirk says we’ll have a much-improved diplomatic screen. “The Diplomacy system in Civ 5 was kind of existing in a box. You went in, there was no information, so you left (or you used one of those amazing mods). “But the new Diplomacy UI is beautiful - there’s a plethora of information so you can make informed decisions when you’re going through a trade or just need information on the fly.” Thank God! Information on the diplomacy screen. No excuse that we had to use infoaddict in V. Now I'm hyped.
|
|
#
?
May 12, 2016 04:11
|
|
|
I don't mind the graphic style. Civ 4 was by far my favorite Civ and it had a fairly cartoony/colorful look as well. it definitely helps reading things at a glance, compared to Civ 5 where I always felt like I had to have certain overlays on.
|
|
#
?
May 12, 2016 04:54
|
|
|
Forget all this graphics talk. They say that trade routes are still in, but hopefully they're not a boring chore that they were in Civ V and BE. Trade route times should be infinite, but just give a cooldown so you can't switch them every turn (unless the cities are literally next to each other).
|
|
#
?
May 12, 2016 05:12
|
|
|
Sucks that they're still using a map instead of a globe. That was the one thing I was hoping for in the space civ.
|
|
#
?
May 12, 2016 06:41
|
|
|
Odobenidae posted:Sucks that they're still using a map instead of a globe. That was the one thing I was hoping for in the space civ. mapping a grid to a sphere is extremely hard because the lateral lines across it get shorter as you move further from the equator
|
|
#
?
May 12, 2016 06:48
|
|
|
President Ark posted:mapping a grid to a sphere is extremely hard because the lateral lines across it get shorter as you move further from the equator And a buckyball map incorporates pentagons, which doesn't fit the pattern. Alas.
|
|
#
?
May 12, 2016 06:54
|
|
|
President Ark posted:mapping a grid to a sphere is extremely hard because the lateral lines across it get shorter as you move further from the equator They're using hexes still, and that maps to spheres much better. There was a way to do it that only needed 5? pentagons to even it out, but I guess that's enough to gently caress someone over or give someone an unfair advantage. Trying to find that image led me to this: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=356334 which explains that it's either really hard or impossible to do it without things looking wonky. Shame.
|
|
#
?
May 12, 2016 06:58
|
|
|
They could do it if they were able to use a mosaic style system, where tiles could be any shape and the rule was just "units must move into an adjacent tile" But I'm not a programmer and I suspect it would be a herculean task that would gently caress the graphics over at every turn. But boy what a USP it would be. By the way, Populous The Beginning had a classic square grid that somehow wrapped a sphere - how was that done? I think they must have cheated somehow by conveniently using seas to cover up the poles, but I'm sure boats still followed the grid. Anyone know?
|
|
#
?
May 12, 2016 08:22
|
|
|
Some cool stuff I've gathered from articles: " The happiness level will be focused on a city level, rather than on a global basis across your civilization." "Unstacking cities will allow for more strategic warfare as well. "You can do bombing raids on key industrial districts," Beech says. Seeing as how farmland, factories, and markets are now separated, the "when and where" of any invasion is key. If London is pumping out armored tanks and fighter jets, you can attack its factory tiles. If Cairo is generating ample currency, its markets are the obvious targets." (A crisp, bright colored Dresden air campaign in Civ VI?) The game will have most of Civ V features right out of the box: religion, espionage, tourism, great works, city-states, archeology, trade. "More then one way to declare a war" - Ed Beach No idea what this means. During Napoleonic era you can stack units of same type to form a Corps,on some later era one unit more to form an Army. No more massive traffic jams, helps the AI combat better too. Engine and AI build from scratch first time since 2004.
|
|
#
?
May 12, 2016 08:58
|
|
|
Harmonia posted:"More then one way to declare a war" - Ed Beach It could mean a lot of things. It could mean forcing uprisings to occur in enemy cities that will turn the city over to a Civ supporting the uprising. It could mean declaring Crusades against Civs that pit religions against each other. It's pretty unclear.
|
|
#
?
May 12, 2016 09:04
|
|
|
I think the district thing might make starting position less vital. Sometimes you can get a decent position, but most of the resources are out of reach to be in the best spot. It can be tricky sometimes to decide if you're gonna start your city next to a mountain or on a coast. I THINK the way it's going to work means you can start your city on the coast, but then stick your science district in the mountain so that you can get that terrain bonus for your science stuff.
|
|
#
?
May 12, 2016 09:34
|
|
|
JeremoudCorbynejad posted:They could do it if they were able to use a mosaic style system, where tiles could be any shape and the rule was just "units must move into an adjacent tile" As I recall, the seas thing is definitely not, going any direction on the map for long enough would bring you back to your starting point. But if you are thinking of a turn-based civ grid, it didn't have that. It was an RTS after all.
|
|
#
?
May 12, 2016 11:25
|
|
|
More forgiving city locations are welcome, Civ4 could get away with restricting sea improvements and boat to coastal cities only, because you were supposed to build much more of them. Civ5 doing the same was a mistake, especially when they didn't even give tile improvements that could alleviate this (like coastal forts being used as canals). I just hope you can build an actual empire, unlike Civ5's intended purpose. No more global happiness helps, and also prevents the risk of accidentally inducing ICS.
|
|
#
?
May 12, 2016 11:31
|
|
|
Harmonia posted:"Unstacking cities will allow for more strategic warfare as well. "You can do bombing raids on key industrial districts," Beech says. Seeing as how farmland, factories, and markets are now separated, the "when and where" of any invasion is key. If London is pumping out armored tanks and fighter jets, you can attack its factory tiles. If Cairo is generating ample currency, its markets are the obvious targets." This sounds promising and might just sell me on districts, depending on how well they implement it (of course). Strategic bombing isn't really a thing in Civ 5, at most you could just bomb defenses until your ground forces could waltz in. Otherwise you could bomb things like mines and other improvements, but with very limited impact (it was more effective to just stand a unit on the tile) I'd like a more robust siege mechanic too. There's a weird compromise in Civ 5 - armies don't have to feed themselves on the field, and cities can still farm with the drawbridge up and produce huge amounts of food inside the walls. Microplastics fucked around with this message at 11:42 on May 12, 2016 |
|
#
?
May 12, 2016 11:36
|
|
|
Odobenidae posted:Sucks that they're still using a map instead of a globe. That was the one thing I was hoping for in the space civ. I don't think spherical maps add much, honestly. They're harder to navigate than the flat ones and the minimap doesn't work.
|
|
#
?
May 12, 2016 11:45
|
|
|
Spherical maps are cool but hard. I'd love if they added the option, but what a nightmare to program. You could still do wrapping, that's fine, but the problem will always lie in spherical warping.
|
|
#
?
May 12, 2016 12:07
|
|
|
H13 posted:Sometimes you can get a decent position, but most of the resources are out of reach to be in the best spot. It can be tricky sometimes to decide if you're gonna start your city next to a mountain or on a coast. I THINK the way it's going to work means you can start your city on the coast, but then stick your science district in the mountain so that you can get that terrain bonus for your science stuff. One of the articles said that you'll be able to place districts withing a 3 hex radius of the city center. It sounds like they're going to be more like the secondary settlements in Empire: Total War than the city districts in Endless Legend. That might (emphasis on might) mean you'll be able to build ships as long as your city is within 3 hexes of the coast and has a harbor district (if they're a thing).
|
|
#
?
May 12, 2016 14:02
|
|
|
Kassad posted:That might (emphasis on might) mean you'll be able to build ships as long as your city is within 3 hexes of the coast and has a harbor district (if they're a thing). That's the impression I'm getting from the screenshots, and if it's so, then it's what I've always wanted. There's plenty of prime inland real-estate in Civ5, but the allure of coastal settlements is too great.
|
|
#
?
May 12, 2016 14:07
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 30, 2024 13:54 |
|
|
the art style makes me think of Civ: Revolution for some reason, and it may not have been my choice, but it's still pretty and I'm hype for new Civilization considering all the hours I sunk into V. Though I'm kind of bummed I'll inevitably have to wait like three years and two expansions to see the fullest of the fullest visions. Not that Civ V ever felt incomplete for me, the vanilla was good when it was out, then G+K was good, then BNW was good, like you were content with them when they existed but then the next step would be a whole new world basically...so I almost want to just wait and get the ULTIMATE CIV VI COLLECTION in X years. I know I won't be able to though.
|
|
#
?
May 12, 2016 14:59
|
|