|
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. The only reason pyre zombies exist is because of Civ4s stacking and collateral damage mechanics. Without them FFH would lose a lot of magic.
|
#
?
May 18, 2016 03:51
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 14, 2024 04:07 |
|
|
I'm glad that all the people who really love Civ IV still get to play Civ IV. I guess it would be nice of them to release a remastered version some day.
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2016 03:56
|
|
|
Super pumped for Civ 6. Glad to see they are adding Endless Legend-esque districts to the cities. That was a long time coming. I seriously hope they just fix some of the balancing issues with the AI. Don't give them such silly bonuses that prohibit certain mechanics from taking place (So much happiness you can't ever city flip, Refusing to adhere to Diplomatic request) and expand the diplomacy to be a bit closer to a mix between EL and EU4. Civ 5 suffered from unrealistic trades and stonewalling on obvious deals to the point of suicide. They have fixed that in other games and I think they'll nail it on this go around. I REALLY hope they bring back outposts so you don't have to plop a city down in Antarctica to get one of 3 uranium deposits. Vassals too would be ridiculously enjoyable in a game like this too. I know they really want you to play differently with each game, but they'll really have to give civs different bonuses for being the civ and they'll have to provide a lot more options for improvements and yields. I think the dude that did BNW can certainly do that. Also ideologies own, they just need to do a bit more play testing because locking them in so not everyone picks the same social policies and ideologies for the Win every time. SUPER PUMPED.
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2016 04:02
|
|
|
Phobophilia posted: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. This is my main problem with Civ5 that I hope Civ6 fixes. There's basically no actual reason to go to war in Civ5, it's so punishing on every level, from integrating cities, to increasing the cost of social policies and techs, and decreasing global happiness. Civ is a 4x game, and one of those x's is meant to stand for expand. A 4x that so thoroughly discourages expansion is insane to me.
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2016 04:54
|
|
|
Borsche69 posted:This is my main problem with Civ5 that I hope Civ6 fixes. There's basically no actual reason to go to war in Civ5, it's so punishing on every level, from integrating cities, to increasing the cost of social policies and techs, and decreasing global happiness. Civ is a 4x game, and one of those x's is meant to stand for expand. A 4x that so thoroughly discourages expansion is insane to me. Because expansion isn't actually fun to some people, which is why civ 5 tried to strike a balance between wide and tall. They failed to some degree since ICS dominated vanilla civ5 and then 4 cities dominated BNW but that's why the effort was made.
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2016 06:03
|
|
|
I'm enjoying the heck out of this community balance patch due to the fact it somehow kicks out global happiness in favor of local happiness
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2016 06:17
|
|
|
Lovely Senorita posted:I'm enjoying the heck out of this community balance patch due to the fact it somehow kicks out global happiness in favor of local happiness Wow i have been checking that out. Thats really extensive! I think they went too far in some places, but thats a lot of data to go through.
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2016 07:42
|
|
|
Not letting workers stack pissed me off in 5. Building a road and a unit ends its turn in the way? Worker stops what it's doing and you can't continue the road. Happened all the time and it was such a huge pain in the rear end.
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2016 07:59
|
|
|
Cowman posted:Not letting workers stack pissed me off in 5. Building a road and a unit ends its turn in the way? Worker stops what it's doing and you can't continue the road. Happened all the time and it was such a huge pain in the rear end. This is one of the annoying things that arose from a mixture of Civ5's new mechanics and legacy mechanics, like open borders. Just as Civ4 was intended to fix up all of the previous games, Civ6 should theoretically fix up all the jankiness and flaws of Civ5.
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2016 08:08
|
|
|
Phobophilia posted: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 <snip> I think I could probably warm to stacks if the UI wasn't so impenetrably texty. I never got a lot of experience with Civ 4 combat as a result, which is a shame because it sounds like it was entertainingly strategic, from what you've said. I'm curious: what did you make of the espionage mechanic in Civ 4? I could never bear myself to buy espionage points instead of science because all the sabotage moves seemed so incredibly weak. How did it fair in MP?
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2016 08:23
|
|
|
Cowman posted:Not letting workers stack pissed me off in 5. Building a road and a unit ends its turn in the way? Worker stops what it's doing and you can't continue the road. Happened all the time and it was such a huge pain in the rear end. It was really cool how you could sabotage friendly civs by getting open borders and then stationing units on good tiles so their workers could never improve them.
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2016 08:27
|
|
|
This concept of kind-of-realistic city development and the increased value of raiding vs conquest that comes with it, and science development being tied to how you settle and where you go and what you do sounds out-freaking-standing, I love it. If there's one thing I'd like to see related to those, its the arrival of Alpha Centauri style Supply Crawlers or something similar that allows you to harvest distant resources for your cities. I've never really been a fan of how crucial the stuff immediately surrounding your city is, especially in comparison to the relative non-importance of terrain. Like yeah, hills and jungles and stuff MATTER, but do they really matter as much as whether or not you've got two Fish and a Marble two squares or less away when you found your Capital? I also never liked that in the late game you might have to build an entire metropolis just to get Oil or whatever when in real life you just build a derrick and then put it on a truck. Assuming based on the descriptions that the location of your city matters far beyond the presence or absence of cows or whether you have a mountain for that Observatory with these new mechanics, the ability to get stuff you want even if you don't want to build a city particularly close to it would be VERY welcome IMO. Not to mention that then attacking and protecting supply lines becomes a factor. Also, random thought, but the mention of ethnicity being reflected in your units makes me wonder if your demographics will change over the course of the game. If you conquer the cities of another civ, or capture their workers and settlers, will you start seeing racial diversity in your own units over time as they assimilate into your population? Or if you establish trade routes? Or if your religion or culture holds sway over them and you see influxes of pilgrims and tourists? Or even because of simple geographic proximity and thus natural immigration?
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2016 08:34
|
|
|
Sanguinia posted:If there's one thing I'd like to see related to those, its the arrival of Alpha Centauri style Supply Crawlers or something similar that allows you to harvest distant resources for your cities. I've never really been a fan of how crucial the stuff immediately surrounding your city is, especially in comparison to the relative non-importance of terrain. Like yeah, hills and jungles and stuff MATTER, but do they really matter as much as whether or not you've got two Fish and a Marble two squares or less away when you found your Capital? I also never liked that in the late game you might have to build an entire metropolis just to get Oil or whatever when in real life you just build a derrick and then put it on a truck. Yeah. I would like a simple system of diminishing returns where you can harvest anything regardless of distance, but the further out you go (and more difficult the terrain), the less of it you get (or more it costs you). Early on, distant sources would have zero or negative ROI but then things like techs, and roads and oil pipelines improve your returns and expand your reach. E: I think such a thing would bring a lot to the "protecting supply lines" business, although I like what Civ 5 did with trade routes in that regard. (Vvv well apart from that yes. It was a good idea badly implemented, like most of Civ 5  )
Microplastics fucked around with this message at 08:51 on May 18, 2016 |
|
#
?
May 18, 2016 08:45
|
|
|
I hate Civ 5 trade routes because there's no way to protect them without micromanagement. Why can't there just be an "assign caravan guard" button?
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2016 08:49
|
|
|
RE: Expansion Tall vs Wide is a lovely dichotomy that emerged as the capacity for a single city to drive your civ-engine became more important and more micromanagy, while at the same time kept being the only method to expand. It probably started when Civ III abolished the per-city unit support penalty (which was a crap mechanic and I am glad to see gone), while each game kept adding items you could possibly build in your cities. I would like to see some kind of "colony" mechanic that can act as a city in terms of border growth and resource acquisition, but doesn't contribute to the main pressure levers (military production, science, culture) the way a normal city can. Then maybe that can force players to actively expand and compete for land, and make turtling in strategies not as good, while not requiring too much cognitive power from those of us who want to build singular super cities. I remember that Civ III had a similar mechanic, but it was there merely to grab some distant resource that no one else had settled. Eric the Mauve posted: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.) "Ranged I: +500% vs AI" 
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2016 10:39
|
|
|
JeremoudCorbynejad posted:I think I could probably warm to stacks if the UI wasn't so impenetrably texty. I never got a lot of experience with Civ 4 combat as a result, which is a shame because it sounds like it was entertainingly strategic, from what you've said. BTS MP espionage was a mix of weak, strong, and broken. The happiness/health sabotage actions are weak. The drop city defence sabotage action is almost brokenly powerful, lets you rampage through enemy territory with a stack of mounted units. Tech stealing is mathematically a better conversion of commerce into research than actual teching. Civic/religion changes were broken: costs didn't scale with empire size, so you could prevent people from using state property/free market forever. Spy units were a tad too good, you could have vision on everyone's armies, meaning you'd never be caught by surprise. And spy units in neutral terrain cannot get captured, which made them way too good as sentries. Because a normal unit acting as a sentry can be killed by 2-movers, which is a good map control mechanic. I don't mind BNW condensing down many of the inelegant spy mechanics into what they have now, it really needed tweaking. The downside is that most of the BNW spy actions are uninteresting, and boil down to sitting and waiting, and have few opportunity costs or trade offs.
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2016 10:43
|
|
|
Ranged units were too tough in melee by far. The best guard for a ranged unit was another ranged unit.
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2016 10:47
|
|
|
I hope they finally removed worker units.
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2016 12:10
|
|
|
i hope they remove you
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2016 12:42
|
|
|
How dare you. Well, it seems that roads will be built without workers so that's already a positive sign. Although there will also be some kind of 'Engineer' unit that can built roads for your army.
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2016 12:59
|
|
|
America's leader should be William Jefferson Clinton Esq.
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2016 13:14
|
|
|
John F Bennett posted:How dare you. so as long as it's not called a worker you're cool with it
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2016 13:19
|
|
|
Gamerofthegame posted:so Is there a problem with this, tovarisch?
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2016 13:23
|
|
|
Bob James posted:America's leader should be William Jefferson Clinton Esq. *CGI Bill slowly huffs and puffs his way up to the camera in his tiny silken first term jogging shorts* "Hi, I'm Bill. From America"
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2016 13:23
|
|
|
Gamerofthegame posted:so They should do it like they did it in Civ Rev: click button to build road to city from city. And get rid of using a unit to build mines and irrigation.
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2016 13:53
|
|
|
Speaking of irrigation, while I'm glad you don't have to do that I hope they would add canal options and stuff like that. Things to improve tiles to make them have more utility. Canal's to get your tile that is 2 tiles in to be coastal so you can build naval units, or allow naval units to cross 1 tile wide land spaces without plopping a city. Tunnels through mountains and planting trees should be an option too. We'll just have to wait and see!
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2016 14:00
|
|
|
Jastiger posted:Speaking of irrigation, while I'm glad you don't have to do that I hope they would add canal options and stuff like that. Things to improve tiles to make them have more utility. Canal's to get your tile that is 2 tiles in to be coastal so you can build naval units, or allow naval units to cross 1 tile wide land spaces without plopping a city. Tunnels through mountains and planting trees should be an option too. We'll just have to wait and see! They should make sure that the engine supports runtime terrain modifications. Not because I want anything specific to that in Civ 6, I just want proper terraforming in Civ:BE 2
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2016 14:03
|
|
|
Mountain tunnels should be the one-way Swiss style where they are all wired to blow and cannot be used by an invading army. Or just have that be a Swiss civ specific thing. Either way, I don't want cannons and elephants rushing through what is often my only tangible defense.
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2016 14:09
|
|
|
I think If they gave ranged units minimum range and made them more vulnerable to melee, they'd be a lot more squishy and balanced. I like that ranged units can shoot multiple tiles, but I don't think the Advance Wars or Tactics style range mechanics work well when you only move or shoot two tiles a turn. I would be fine if maneuverability and range are scaled up.
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2016 14:11
|
|
|
shadow puppet of a posted:*CGI Bill slowly huffs and puffs his way up to the camera in his tiny silken first term jogging shorts* 
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2016 14:18
|
|
|
JVNO posted:I think If they gave ranged units minimum range and made them more vulnerable to melee, they'd be a lot more squishy and balanced. I like that ranged units can shoot multiple tiles, but I don't think the Advance Wars or Tactics style range mechanics work well when you only move or shoot two tiles a turn. I would be fine if maneuverability and range are scaled up. The big problems with ranged units are that they don't get hurt when they attack and that you can bring a lot more ranged attack to bear on a single enemy unit than you can bring melee attack to bear. Increasing attack ranges makes the latter problem worse even if they have a firing shadow, and the former problem would be completely untouched. Making them squishier in melee...well, they're going to be part of combined-arms military now, so they'll be paired with melee units to defend them better. I'd go in the opposite direction and just remove ranged attack altogether. Archers just become another melee unit, one that specializes at attacking but has crap defense.
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2016 14:23
|
|
|
TooMuchAbstraction posted:Making them squishier in melee...well, they're going to be part of combined-arms military now, so they'll be paired with melee units to defend them better. That's not my interpretation. I think that you will be able to combine a rifleman with another rifleman, or a rifleman with an anti-aircraft gun, but not a rifleman with a cannon. Speaking of which, I don't think combining two or three units together is going to help the AI that much. Sure, it will reduce the end game clutter, but in the end when it comes down to both opposing forces being comprised of three-unit stacks, the AI is going to lose. Firaxis, we know that the AI cheats. Just let it cheat by having a combat bonus instead of just bumping production.
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2016 14:46
|
|
|
John F Bennett posted:They should do it like they did it in Civ Rev: click button to build road to city from city. And get rid of using a unit to build mines and irrigation. Speaking of CivRev, is the second one worth the $10 asking price?
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2016 14:47
|
|
|
It would be neat if the new support units worked essentially like buildable, swappable promotions when stacked on top of combat unit. A swordsman unit with catapult support, for example, could get an overall increase to damage output and a "first strike" when attacked by another melee unit. If an army of combat + support stacks ends up being more optimal than the equivalent hammer/upkeep cost in just regular combat units, it could go a long way toward keeping traffic jams and unit spam from the AI down.
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2016 15:42
|
|
|
jivjov posted:Speaking of CivRev, is the second one worth the $10 asking price? Probably not. Civ Rev 2 is basically the second attempt at a mobile port for Civ Rev, as opposed to a real sequel. It's a better attempt, because it has actual 3D graphics and a couple new leaders, but many of the same issues from the first port persist in this one - AI and barbarian units don't interact, for example. This might not sound like a big deal but it actually gives you, the player, a huge advantage for snapping up all the untouched barb villages, along with impeding the AI's expansion because they have to just try to move around the barb units in their way. Civ Rev for 360 (or PS3, I think?) is a super-fun game that was designed (actually by Sid Meier!) to deliver the essential civ experience in a single sitting, and I think it does a good job at that even if it's obviously simpler than IV, V, or presumably VI. The mobile ports, however, should only be considered if you absolutely positively need to play an incomplete version of that game.
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2016 15:51
|
|
|
jivjov posted:Speaking of CivRev, is the second one worth the $10 asking price? Also, make Nixon the American leader. Echo Chamber fucked around with this message at 15:54 on May 18, 2016 |
|
#
?
May 18, 2016 15:52
|
|
|
I thought Civ Rev was a ton of fun and a great way to introduce people to the Civ series and get them interested in strategy games in general, I wish it had gotten a real sequel that addressed some of its design issues instead of being relegated to the realm of lazy mobile ports.
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2016 15:56
|
|
|
Failboattootoot posted:Because expansion isn't actually fun to some people, which is why civ 5 tried to strike a balance between wide and tall. They failed to some degree since ICS dominated vanilla civ5 and then 4 cities dominated BNW but that's why the effort was made. If someone doesn't find expansion fun, they shouldn't be playing a 4X.
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2016 16:26
|
|
|
Borsche69 posted:If someone doesn't find expansion fun, they shouldn't be playing a 4X. Yeah but the BNW devs were trying to accommodate those people, rather than just discourage expansion outright, and as failboattoottoot mentioned, they failed to do so effectively. Whether they should be accommodating such people is something you can agree to disagree on
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2016 16:47
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 14, 2024 04:07 |
|
|
Rexides posted:That's not my interpretation. I think that you will be able to combine a rifleman with another rifleman, or a rifleman with an anti-aircraft gun, but not a rifleman with a cannon. That's totally not how I'm reading it. How I see it is the ability to combine "support" units like AA guns, great generals or maybe ranged units with typical melee units like cavalry or warriors
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2016 16:56
|
|
