|
Peas and Rice posted:I see the problem. The Roman numeral isn't under the game's name anymore. FFFUUUUUUU CI VI LIZATION
|
#
?
May 17, 2016 19:14
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 14, 2024 00:20 |
|
|
Lord Hypnostache posted:I'm assuming that wonders take up a space, but are not counted as districts, so building wonders doesn't limit the number of districts you can build but does limit the number of hexes you can place them. Fortunately each city has 36 hexes to choose from, so it shouldn't be a problem unless you really want to build all the wonders in the same city. to be fair in my casual playstyle the capital is always wonder city where I have literally every wonder in there.
|
|
#
?
May 17, 2016 19:38
|
|
|
I know I'm literally the only person in the world who thinks this, but I think Civ 1 got unit stacking right and every system since has been inferior. Stack as much as you want, roll one die to decide who wins, if your best defender loses then you lose the whole stack (except in cities or fortresses) so stack your entire army on one tile at your peril. Maybe lay on some kind of battle fatigue system that reduces the victorious unit's strength until it goes home to rest. But Civ 2 introduced hit points on units, which have been around ever since and were a step backward IMO because it made battles too predetermined. I liked seeing a spearman miraculously kill an attacking cannon unit every once in a while.
|
|
#
?
May 17, 2016 19:38
|
|
|
Mystic_Shadow posted:CI VI LIZATION 
|
|
#
?
May 17, 2016 19:40
|
|
|
JeremoudCorbynejad posted:Has anyone said CiVIlisation yet so that I can drag them out the back of the thread and beat them with a shovel Get me my shovel
|
|
#
?
May 17, 2016 19:49
|
|
|
Cowman posted:to be fair in my casual playstyle the capital is always wonder city where I have literally every wonder in there. This is the best way to play. I like to throw it on to Immortal or Deity and turtle up inside a tomorrowland of low priority wonders and cling to my blissfull mono-city as long as I can until the savage hordes overtake me.
|
|
#
?
May 17, 2016 19:51
|
|
|
Eric the Mauve posted:I know I'm literally the only person in the world who thinks this, but I think Civ 1 got unit stacking right and every system since has been inferior. Stack as much as you want, roll one die to decide who wins, if your best defender loses then you lose the whole stack (except in cities or fortresses) so stack your entire army on one tile at your peril. Sid had the right idea with Civ I, but even Civ II stacks were bearable. I started hating stacks with the promotion system in Civ IV. It felt like it barely mattered to select promotions for each unit individually. I'd rather have a system of global unit promotions like CIV:BE. e: I can't even remember how war worked in Civ III Rexides fucked around with this message at 20:19 on May 17, 2016 |
|
#
?
May 17, 2016 20:17
|
|
|
Cowman posted:to be fair in my casual playstyle the capital is always wonder city where I have literally every wonder in there. Makes sense. I actively try to build wonders in different cities because I think it looks prettier, it's not fair that only citizens living in the capital have access to wonders 
|
|
#
?
May 17, 2016 20:27
|
|
|
TooMuchAbstraction posted:It really feels like you ought to just be able to say "keep the people from revolting, otherwise build science buildings first, then buildings that give hammers, then buildings that give gold" and the governor would almost always do the right thing. I don't feel like choosing which building to build is a hard decision, in other words...so why are AI cities always so lovely? You can already do this with the build queue... The real microing doesn't come from what buildings you choose (which is less of an obvious decision than you're making it out to be) and more from managing citizens, which already has governor options for like, max food, max production etc.
|
|
#
?
May 17, 2016 21:12
|
|
|
JVNO posted:I'll take 'pain in the dick' over 'completely unengaging warfare' any day. Stacks are in no way disengaging unless you're playing against a complete moron, in which case, yes, you can walk your doom stack up to your opponent and knock over their cities one by one. But as someone that has put a lot of hours into pitboss games against other players, and games on the harder difficulties, I can tell you that this isn't really the standard case and will get you wrecked. What would be preferable would be some kind of army system where you lock a collection of units into a single unit with a single strength rating that gets bonuses depending on the unit composition. (which is what I hope they do) Where you can lock 1 spearman, 1 archer, and 1 horseman together and have a balanced army, but if you lock 3 archers and 1 spear together and have it fight an army based on 3 horseman and 1 archer (and let's just say this game has a rock paper scissors of spear > horse > archer > spear) then the first army will get destroyed. What would be nice about this system is that it still gives you the flexibility to separate units from the army and have them do their own thing, like flanking or whatever.
|
|
#
?
May 17, 2016 21:18
|
|
|
Mystic_Shadow posted:CI VI LIZATION Gonna call it Ci6lization now.
|
|
#
?
May 17, 2016 21:47
|
|
|
Sixilization
|
|
#
?
May 17, 2016 22:11
|
|
|
Borsche69 posted:Stacks are in no way disengaging unless you're playing against a complete moron, Since this is a matter of taste you can't just tell me 'you're wrong stacks are fine'. I've played north of 2000 hours in Civ IV and V combined and a few dozen hours in the prior iterations, and I vastly prefer V's poor-man's-Advance-Wars to every iteration of the stack mechanic. I'd sooner they implement stricter limits on army size to tone down carpets of doom, than re implementing any contemporary form of stacking. From what I can tell they're doing something similar to Civ Revolutions- limited stacking of same unit types to form 'armies'? Correct me if I'm wrong of course. It seems for Civ V the main issue causing a carpet slog is the very liberal unit cap + limited window of engagement for units (ie. Units can only hit each other 2 tiles away usually). To that end, I'd rather they take even more cues from Advance wars. distances and range in war are already abstracted; it's kind of silly that archers can fire across something like the English Channel in world maps of Civ V, and it's kind of silly conflicts often last multiple centuries or millennia. I say accept these abstractions, embrace them in the name of better mechanics. Specifically, I think this could be resolved with four simple changes to the Civ V system: 1.) stricter unit caps, 2.) extend unit movement range significantly for most land units, 3.) extend the range of ranged units, and 4,) implementing a minimum range mechanic so melee units can get up in their face without fear of reprisal. All of these work against the carpet of doom by directly reducing the amount of units and speeding up the resolution of military engagements. In cases where two large armies DO clash, increased maneuverability and range means units other than your immediate frontline (and 1 tile behind it) are involved. The result is large conflicts get resolved quicker and units get chewed up, indirectly reducing military size. Better still, it could resolve the issues of Civ V without needing to shake up the mechanics too much- these are all rather simply tweaks.
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2016 00:23
|
|
|
JVNO posted:Since this is a matter of taste you can't just tell me 'you're wrong stacks are fine'. I've played north of 2000 hours in Civ IV and V combined and a few dozen hours in the prior iterations, and I vastly prefer V's poor-man's-Advance-Wars to every iteration of the stack mechanic. You've probably only played vs AIs, which only know how to attack via a "Stack Of Doom" and are set up to only be attackable by a "Stack of Doom" (via free bonuses and units, behavior-limiters*, and an inclination to spam shitloads of defensive units) in order to hide the fact, by still being able to provide resistance to a conqueror, that it doesn't have any loving clue about what it's doing. I can assure you that trying to use a SoD tactic when you're playing against humans is generally the worst thing you can do. To be fair, on the other hand, from what I've seen, Civ5 Human v Human combat doesn't regularly result in 30:0 kill ratios either, as is common for skilled players facing AIs. It's short-sighted to frame AI problems as mechanics problems because then you end up warping the mechanics without ever touching on your underlying problems. *edit: yes, really. there's huge parts of the Civ4 BTS AI code that the devs purposely turned off because they thought it wouldn't be fun for the player if the AI could take "cheap shots" in wars! German Joey fucked around with this message at 00:47 on May 18, 2016 |
|
#
?
May 18, 2016 00:44
|
|
|
I have played CIV sinde CIV1 and I think stacks are retarded. Also I'm reaaaaaally hyped for this game as Ed Beach is the lead designer.
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2016 00:47
|
|
|
German Joey posted:You've probably only played vs AIs, which only know how to attack via a "Stack Of Doom" and are set up to only be attackable by a "Stack of Doom" (via free bonuses and units, behavior-limiters*, and an inclination to spam shitloads of defensive units) in order to hide the fact that it doesn't know what it's doing, yet still provide some resistance against a conquering player. I can assure you that trying to use SoD tactics when you're playing against humans is generally the worst tactic you can do. Yeah, literally the only advantage stacks of units have in civ 4 is that the best defender gets picked. That's it. Otherwise, the 1v1 combat makes it kinda meaningless where the attack comes from, so it's not really a fundamental flaw of the game to me. You just move in some catapaults if your opponent has a mega stack and get easy money. The game has a lot of mechanisms to attack stacks. Honestly, though, I don't feel civ needs more tactical combat- I would say it needs more abstract warfare, not less.
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2016 00:48
|
|
|
German Joey posted:You've probably only played vs. AI You could make that assumption, but you'd be incorrect. Do you have some pathological need to prove me wrong on something that's ultimately a subjective preference? Civ IV may have done stacks a little better, but I still don't like the mechanic. I also like the visual aspect of 1UPT because I can see at a glance how powerful my opponent is, rather than checking through drop down lists of stacked units. PoizenJam fucked around with this message at 00:57 on May 18, 2016 |
|
#
?
May 18, 2016 00:55
|
|
|
I think the main problem with stacks is that you can't tell what's in them with a glance. One cool thing that they're doing with this new art style is that they're making the units' weapons more noticeable precisely so that you can tell what kind of primary and support units are in a tile together. I also think that certain civilizations could have more than one leader to choose from but not have more than one unique ability to keep track of, just have the leader represent some changes to the AI or even just purely cosmetic depending on what's going on with the diplomacy in this game.
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2016 01:09
|
|
|
Proposition Joe posted:I also think that certain civilizations could have more than one leader to choose from but not have more than one unique ability to keep track of, just have the leader represent some changes to the AI or even just purely cosmetic depending on what's going on with the diplomacy in this game. This is just common sense. Leaders will all have different traits but the people and the culture that make the civilization unique would be pretty constant.
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2016 01:14
|
|
|
JVNO posted:You could make that assumption, but you'd be incorrect. Do you have some pathological need to prove me wrong on something that's ultimately a subjective preference? Civ IV may have done stacks a little better, but I still don't like the mechanic. I don't think I am incorrect, as someone who really spent a long time engaged with the combat system in either game would say something more substantial about why they did or did not like one over the other than it being a "subjective preference." As far as "a pathological need to prove" you wrong -I couldn't care less about you or your subjective preferences. What I do care about is the fact that there's a very wide opinion, originating from a marketing push by Firaxis in the leadup to the release of Civ5, that 1UPT combat was the tactically far superior system because unit-stacking inevitably led to broken and brainless "Stacks of Death." If it was just dumb fanboys saying it, I wouldn't really care, but I see Firaxis doing that whole rigmarole again in the previews they've released for Civ6 thus far. And so yes, that drives me a little bit bonkers, because it makes me think that they *still* don't understand how they hosed up with Civ5.
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2016 01:15
|
|
|
The biggest combat fuckup in Civ V was having ranged units operate differently from melee units, rather than just having unique attributes (good against spear/bad against horse/etc.)
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2016 01:19
|
|
|
I like that their bringing armies to it. That was one thing about civ 3 that was actually pretty awesome. However they need to ensure it doesn't arrise from some random even where you get a great general like in Civ 3. Instead make it so that your armies come from like a a building that is called a "Legionary fort", but require that you already have several military buildings present to build it, and that a city has to be like larger then x size. Finally make it so the total number of armies you can have is entirely dependent on the total number of legionary forts. Overall though I hope this is closer to civ 4, rather then 5. Also I hope the modding is easier.
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2016 01:22
|
|
|
Nah. The biggest fuckup was having an AI completely incapable of dealing with the new movement and stacking mechanics. It was a traffic jam cluster gently caress.
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2016 01:23
|
|
|
The impression I get is that the devs consider Civ IV the best iteration of that style (stacking units) and are currently focused on improving the Civ V style rather than trying to redo Civ IV. The idea being that if you really love stacking units, you can just go back and replay Civ IV. It's not gonna get any better than that.
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2016 01:27
|
|
|
I meant more in regards to IV's Government and culture system, rather then 5's. I want to be a caste based democracy.
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2016 01:31
|
|
|
Fuligin posted:I feel like a lot of people came in when Civ V launched cause Steam sales and whatnot and just heard tales of the horrible micromanagement hell of doom stacks Poor kids will never experience the Ultimate Fanfic Crossover Circle Jerk that was the Fall From Heaven mods.
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2016 01:31
|
|
|
xgalaxy posted:Nah. The biggest fuckup was having an AI completely incapable of dealing with the new movement and stacking mechanics. It was a traffic jam cluster gently caress. That's a symptom. The cause is 1UPT. 1UPT isn't necessarily a problem, but when implemented improperly, as in Civ5, it can have far reaching effects that negatively impact the rest of the game, from tile yields, cost of production, cost of techs, AI, etc.
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2016 01:34
|
|
|
Grinning Goblin posted:Poor kids will never experience the Ultimate Fanfic Crossover Circle Jerk that was the Fall From Heaven mods. FFH2 was amazing and I should play it again. ed: Are there any total conversion fantasy mods for Civ5? Prism fucked around with this message at 01:38 on May 18, 2016 |
|
#
?
May 18, 2016 01:36
|
|
|
Grinning Goblin posted:Poor kids will never experience the Ultimate Fanfic Crossover Circle Jerk that was the Fall From Heaven mods. THe funny thing about Fall from Heaven is that I would argue for as cliche ridden and predictable as it was, it was still more original then Warhammer Fantasy. Also I always liked the weird far future mod in Beyond the Sword.
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2016 01:37
|
|
|
Are the CiV expansions worth checking out if I really disliked the basic game?
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2016 01:41
|
|
|
Ratios and Tendency posted:Are the CiV expansions worth checking out if I really disliked the basic game? No. The basic mechanics like global happiness et al are still there. Things are added, like Religion and Ideologies, but they're basically an extension of the Social Policy system.
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2016 01:44
|
|
|
Prism posted:FFH2 was amazing and I should play it again. There is Faerun and Civilization Nights. I never actually got around to playing either, but if you liked the guy who made FFH1/2, he ended up getting a job at Stardock and was a lead for Fallen Enchantress and the expansion. It sorta has the same concepts in a few places, but I think it sorta executes a bunch of things horribly(doesn't even have an option for balanced starting locations) and the AI is even worse than Civ games, but gets giant combat/economic bonuses to offset it.
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2016 02:05
|
|
|
Grinning Goblin posted:Poor kids will never experience the Ultimate Fanfic Crossover Circle Jerk that was the Fall From Heaven mods. This, but unironically.
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2016 02:09
|
|
|
I understand that 1u/t is here to stay from now on, the danger is if the "support" units simply mean that 1u+s/t is going to be the optimal strategy in endgame of Civ5. I do agree that Civ5 was super fun in MP, but you can say the same thing for Civ4. In fact, even more so, there were a ton of Civ4 tactics that a good player could exploit. The combat and management games were much more intertwined. Midgame Civ4 combat, when the terrain had filled in, was all about terrain control: you wanted to set up killing zones where the enemy could not invade without being obliterated. At the same time, you wanted to settle in a way that let you push your cultural borders in a way that made your opponent vulnerable. There was alot of feints and misdirections involved in Civ4: if you knew what your opponent could see, you could hide your stack and attack by surprise. You could set up attacks by drawing enemies out of position. You could bait units to attack, and obliterate them with a stack hidden behind your city. You could use two movers to enhance the power of surprise attacks, or use them to fork entire areas, forcing the opponent to choose where to defend, and where gets razed to the ground. And all these could also be done to you, meaning you had to be constantly on the lookout. On the city management side, there was alot more city specialisation, you were always on the lookout for a good hilly city that you could use as a unit pump, which would complement the rest of your empire that was more likely to be focused on economy. Units had a much shorter window of relevance, and unit upgrade costs were more punishing, meaning that timing attacks were trickier. A good player could set up build queues for a powerful upgrade like knights, have the new tech come in, and instantly have a dozen units one turn, and another dozen the next. Some of these elements were present in Civ5, but not to the same extent. Civ5 combat is very much about getting a good surround, or hitting the next timing window first. Less stealth mechanics: you can't hide a blob of units, and that gives your opponent time to respond. There also isn't as much dynamism, where one bad mistake could cost you the entire game. Civ5 also has different justifications as to why you go to war. In Civ4, you go to war in the order in which you could economically integrate your opponents into your empire, in Civ5, you go to war to win. This makes Civ5 more turtley, if you can peacefully settle 4-5 cities, you can sit back, keep your borders fortified, and tech to an overwhelming advantage over someone who could only peacefully settle 3 and had to conquer someone else. Sure, a warmonger could win by constantly knock over opponents until they reach the frontrunner who hadn't snowballed out of control, but there is no impetus for the frontrunner to actually expand by warfare. In Civ4, everyone, even the peaceful expanders, were constantly eyeing your neighbours for weakness, which made the midgame interesting, and would constantly shift the balance of power. Weakness was death, and a huge investment for the victor, which in turn invited predation. So what I'm saying is, as Joey says, Civ5 wasn't actually a tactical and strategic leap over Civ4, no matter what the box blurb or prince players say.
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2016 02:11
|
|
|
Is civ 6 finally going to be better than civ 4?
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2016 02:24
|
|
|
Methanar posted:Is civ 6 finally going to be better than civ 4? In the minds of the Civ 4 True Believers it is impossible for anything to ever be better than Civ 4. I think both games have their plusses and minuses and still play both, myself, but you have to admit no Civ inspired passionate loyalty the way 4 did. I don't think there's anyone in the world that will fight to their last breath to defend Civ 5 the way Civ 4's fans do.
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2016 02:27
|
|
|
Eric the Mauve posted:In the minds of the Civ 4 True Believers it is impossible for anything to ever be better than Civ 4. Civ 4 is still the best game ever created: Got it.
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2016 02:32
|
|
|
Put another way, it took them four iterations plus the usual bevy of expansions (plus SMAC) to get the original Civ style right; expecting them to get the new Civ style right in two iterations (plus BE) is optimistic. Doesn't mean it won't be a good game, but mostly we're looking for "fixes the most glaring flaws in its predecessor" as our metric for success.
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2016 02:42
|
|
|
Methanar posted:Civ 4 is still the best game ever created: Got it. actually it's bad
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2016 03:13
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 14, 2024 00:20 |
|
|
Gamerofthegame posted:I infinitely disagree but I also wish we got a FFH for 5 because 1UPT would have solved all of the loving issues of pyre zombie stacks and poo poo like that. pyre zombies woulda been completely nonsensical in 1UPT. if someone got the whammy on you first, than the death-explosions would start a cascading reaction that would result in your entire loving carpet of doom getting murked like someone unleashing a tantruming toddler on the world's most intricate dominos train. (it'd be really funny to see, though)
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2016 03:26
|
|