|
To make it spergy and annoying for no real benefit of course.
|
#
?
May 24, 2016 00:20
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 14, 2024 07:45 |
|
|
I'm not entirely sure what would be too spergy and annoying about 'If you get your units between invading armies and their home territory you get an advantage' but OK.
|
|
#
?
May 24, 2016 00:26
|
|
|
Tendales posted:I'm not entirely sure what would be too spergy and annoying about 'If you get your units between invading armies and their home territory you get an advantage' but OK. You already get a benefit for having your armies between an invading army and their homeland. It's called a pincer, and even if the game had no internal bonus for surrounding an army , you would still get a tactical bonus simply by attacking them from both sides. This bonus is already built into mathematics.
|
|
#
?
May 24, 2016 00:38
|
|
|
One time I sent some workers to cut down the marshes between me and an enemy I wanted to invade so I could shoot through the area easier. That's about the closest to this stuff civ has ever got for me.
|
|
#
?
May 24, 2016 01:18
|
|
|
civ4 wars had great use of combat workers: take a city, lay down a road, and advance your army through additional tiles up to the next target
|
|
#
?
May 24, 2016 01:25
|
|
|
MMM Whatchya Say posted:One time I sent some workers to cut down the marshes between me and an enemy I wanted to invade so I could shoot through the area easier. That's about the closest to this stuff civ has ever got for me. In cIIIv and cIV I would always wait until my road network was hooked up to the enemy's road network before declaring war and invading, and then also bringing up workers into newly conquered territory to make sure more roads were being added.
|
|
#
?
May 24, 2016 01:30
|
|
|
What's stopping you from doing that in Civ V? The maintenance cost? Legionnaires are built around paving roads, it's definitely viable.
|
|
#
?
May 24, 2016 01:33
|
|
|
Jay Rust posted:What's stopping you from doing that in Civ V? The maintenance cost? I personally haven't really played ciV enough to form a strategy around it either way. It feels like empires are always too far from each other for me to try it, but I'm probably also just bad at the game.
|
|
#
?
May 24, 2016 01:36
|
|
|
Jay Rust posted:What's stopping you from doing that in Civ V? The maintenance cost? the cost, and the fact you cant wire up a broad front with roads without backrupting yourself id often build some extra roads to the front, but only a few
|
|
#
?
May 24, 2016 01:36
|
|
|
Jay Rust posted:What's stopping you from doing that in Civ V? The maintenance cost? The main thing that stops me from bringing workers with me in Civ5 is that you can't stack workers and thereby build roads in a single turn. In Civ4 you could basically bring a corps of engineers with you and slam out improvements as you needed them. It is still occasionally worth building roads out to your enemy's borders in advance of declaring war, though, especially if there's a lot of terrain in the way.
|
|
#
?
May 24, 2016 01:54
|
|
|
Rise of Nations had supply wagons that prevented attrition damage in enemy territory in a big aoe. Conversely if you were Russia and researched all the attrition techs and wonders enemy armies without supply wagons would get passively annihilated just by entering your borders it was cool.
|
|
#
?
May 24, 2016 04:19
|
|
|
majormonotone posted:Micromanaging supply lines sounds like the opposite of fun Micromanaging caravans and unit supply being tied to the cities that built the unit were two of the most universally reviled features of Civ1 and Civ2, which makes it hilarious that some people ITT want to bring those exact concepts back as new features. 
|
|
#
?
May 24, 2016 05:39
|
|
|
Either create a good tactical game where unit dynamics (tanks, DPS, support) and terrain in a single conflict inform the strategy, OR abstract small scale conflicts away and make war a logistics puzzle for your empire to solve. Since Civilization just loves the concept of a unit, I think they should just focus on the first approach.
|
|
#
?
May 24, 2016 09:16
|
|
|
Rexides posted:Either create a good tactical game where unit dynamics (tanks, DPS, support) and terrain in a single conflict inform the strategy, OR abstract small scale conflicts away and make war a logistics puzzle for your empire to solve. Since Civilization just loves the concept of a unit, I think they should just focus on the first approach. Well, that's the issue, right? Civ1-3 were the latter, while Civ5 was the former, Civ4 was more in-between but still heavily leaned towards the latter. Your point about Civ having units which thus suggests a defacto focus on tactics over strategy is a good one, but then you should also consider that Civ also has empires, which is just as much of a core concept as units, which suggests a focus on strategy. The big question is whether it's even possible to marry the two concepts in a way that's fun (i.e. the solution isn't something super tedious like manually managed supply-train units) and interesting (complex behavior develops that makes you think, there's no "one right answer" to many problems, etc) and engaging (there's stuff to do that makes a difference on how your civ develops, the game isn't so automated that half of it is played for you, etc). It might be fundamental that you have to trade off some of one for the other two.
|
|
#
?
May 24, 2016 11:15
|
|
|
Ratios and Tendency posted:Rise of Nations had supply wagons that prevented attrition damage in enemy territory in a big aoe. Conversely if you were Russia and researched all the attrition techs and wonders enemy armies without supply wagons would get passively annihilated just by entering your borders it was cool. I'd pick Russia JUST to do this. I'd research all the attrition techs, build the Colosseum (which doubled attrition) and watched enemies melt in my territory.
|
|
#
?
May 24, 2016 15:48
|
|
|
Regarding the whole idea of supply lines being an incentive to advance bit by bit instead of beelining toward a capital, civ 5 already sorta incentivised that by the AI packing all its cities so closely together that in order to safely capture their capital, you'd have to carve yourself safe chunks of their territory by capturing cities. If you beelined a capital that was in the centre of an enemy empire you'd be in bombardment range of 3 or 4 cities and would have nowhere to heal units. I hope this game takes advantage of the improvements in computers in the last six years and just gives us slightly larger maps, honestly. A game that gave you bigger maps to play around in and was balanced toward slightly bigger maps would be nice.
|
|
#
?
May 24, 2016 16:04
|
|
|
Red Bones posted:Regarding the whole idea of supply lines being an incentive to advance bit by bit instead of beelining toward a capital, civ 5 already sorta incentivised that by the AI packing all its cities so closely together that in order to safely capture their capital, you'd have to carve yourself safe chunks of their territory by capturing cities. If you beelined a capital that was in the centre of an enemy empire you'd be in bombardment range of 3 or 4 cities and would have nowhere to heal units. I want larger maps and and platform that can handle more civs at once, because I want a world where you don't have to directly be involved with each other civ if you don't want to. Having some regional powers, and giving their opponents weapons might be fun.
|
|
#
?
May 24, 2016 16:46
|
|
|
The Human Crouton posted:I want larger maps and and platform that can handle more civs at once, because I want a world where you don't have to directly be involved with each other civ if you don't want to. Having some regional powers, and giving their opponents weapons might be fun. God, the delay between turns beyond the early game was bad enough with 12+ civs in Civ 5, no thanks to even longer delays.
|
|
#
?
May 24, 2016 16:57
|
|
|
Phobophilia posted:the cost, and the fact you cant wire up a broad front with roads without backrupting yourself Also 1upt means that you wouldn't be able to do it quickly since you could only have one worker working on one road tile at a time.
|
|
#
?
May 24, 2016 17:03
|
|
|
Eric the Mauve posted:God, the delay between turns beyond the early game was bad enough with 12+ civs in Civ 5, no thanks to even longer delays. I think that's what he means by a platform that can handle more Civs - performance improvements as well as it being optional rather than mandatory.
|
|
#
?
May 24, 2016 17:04
|
|
|
JeremoudCorbynejad posted:I think that's what he means by a platform that can handle more Civs - performance improvements as well as it being optional rather than mandatory. Yes, that's what I meant.
|
|
#
?
May 24, 2016 17:09
|
|
|
I want multiplayer that somehow isn't less stable than decade old real time games. 
|
|
#
?
May 24, 2016 19:51
|
|
|
Aerdan posted:The other issue is that tactical combat violates the Covert Action Rule™, so it's not going to happen. Microprose made all sorts of rad games like Pirates!, Sword of the Samurai and stuff like that, following the same formula as Covert Action, and then they stopped. So the "Covert Action Rule" sucks. As for Civ6, ideally, you would have tactical combat on the strategic level. Civ5 kind of did that, maybe Civ6 will do it better.
|
|
#
?
May 24, 2016 21:16
|
|
|
Lowen posted:Microprose made all sorts of rad games like Pirates!, Sword of the Samurai and stuff like that, following the same formula as Covert Action, and then they stopped. So the "Covert Action Rule" sucks. And its pretty bad in Civ5 IMHO. I still liked Civ5 and ended up getting used to the combat, but it was still bad and made wars such a chore that in most of the games I would avoid it altogether
|
|
#
?
May 24, 2016 21:28
|
|
|
Red Bones posted:I hope this game takes advantage of the improvements in computers in the last six years and just gives us slightly larger maps, honestly. A game that gave you bigger maps to play around in and was balanced toward slightly bigger maps would be nice. Presumably one of the reasons they're starting over from scratch is so that they can do it right this time, instead of piling poorly-optimized code on top of poorly-optimized code on top of poorly-optimized code. That's really the main reason Civ5 is so sluggish: lovely programming. Lowen posted:Microprose made all sorts of rad games like Pirates!, Sword of the Samurai and stuff like that, following the same formula as Covert Action, and then they stopped. So the "Covert Action Rule" sucks. No, the Covert Action Rule specifically concerns the problem where the main game didn't mesh well with the sub game, both mechanically and, uhh, 'feel'-wise. Intricate mechanics of the sort required for decent tactical combat lack the 'feel' Civilization's aiming for, so it's not going to happen. Aerdan fucked around with this message at 22:03 on May 24, 2016 |
|
#
?
May 24, 2016 21:59
|
|
|
Aerdan posted:Presumably one of the reasons they're starting over from scratch is so that they can do it right this time, instead of piling poorly-optimized code on top of poorly-optimized code on top of poorly-optimized code. That's really the main reason Civ5 is so sluggish: lovely programming. Yeah, I never dug into the code too much, but even from the XML files you could tell they were rushing V at some point. "<UsesForestsAsRoads>", really?
|
|
#
?
May 24, 2016 22:03
|
|
|
I finally listened to that Three Moves Ahead podcast and they (Jon and Soren) do a good job of explaining how Civ 4 was essentially perfect so Civ 5 had to be an experiment in re-inventing things to see where they could take the series. So hopefully Civ 6 will be a very welcome refinement of everything they got wrong in Civ 5. (said podcast is here: https://www.idlethumbs.net/3ma/episodes/civilization-at-25)
|
|
#
?
May 24, 2016 22:05
|
|
|
I'm so glad they're using a new engine. Civ 5 was such a CPU hog and it had no reason to be.
|
|
#
?
May 24, 2016 22:09
|
|
|
Things I'm looking forward to in Civ VI (that haven't at all been confirmed yet): * Multiple leaders and/or multiple traits for civilizations (think Civ IV) * Nuclear Gandhi * TSL Earth scenario(s). No reason not to have them * The option to act as an observer for a match (i.e. Polynesia in AI-Only Domination Match, Babylon in /r/civ Battle Royale) * If the above is added, then also AI-only games * The glorious armies of communist America going to war against the robber-baron capitalists of Persia
|
|
#
?
May 24, 2016 22:09
|
|
|
SpaceCommunist posted:* The glorious armies of communist America going to war against the robber-baron capitalists of Persia * Getting into a holy war with Buddhist Queen Izzy.
|
|
#
?
May 24, 2016 22:13
|
|
|
SpaceCommunist posted:Things I'm looking forward to in Civ VI (that haven't at all been confirmed yet): AI only would be fun. It also means Battle Royales with 4chan Boards as civs ala the 4Chan Cup.
|
|
#
?
May 25, 2016 00:41
|
|
|
Ratios and Tendency posted:Rise of Nations had supply wagons that prevented attrition damage in enemy territory in a big aoe. Conversely if you were Russia and researched all the attrition techs and wonders enemy armies without supply wagons would get passively annihilated just by entering your borders it was cool. this is why i played america and got statue of liberty as my free wonder. i wish shafer's stupid game was out.
|
|
#
?
May 25, 2016 00:53
|
|
|
Looks like Teddy Roosevelt is the American leader. He looks fat. 
|
|
#
?
May 25, 2016 15:30
|
|
|
Booo no Obama. They really should bring in the War Score system along with some EU4 style Casus Belli. If i wreck your poo poo enough I shouldn't HAVE to take your cities and rule them. I should be able to give them back and hold you to a diplomatic truce/cease fire/vassalage thing for X turns (which can be broken with SEVERE consequences depending on circumstance). I'd rather beat down and keep a state or region down than have to take over management and ownership of their crap cities and have to take a hit for being a warmongering genocider.
|
|
#
?
May 25, 2016 15:35
|
|
|
New info + gameplay video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2qzC5cUQcFk https://www.rockpapershotgun.com/2016/05/25/cvilization-vi-hands-on-preview/#more-369287
|
|
#
?
May 25, 2016 15:35
|
|
|
Jastiger posted:Booo no Obama. I'd love cassus belli or some kind of "karma" system where if someone's a dick to you other leaders will overlook you being a dick back in proportion. Someone gets caught spying on you? No warmonger penalty for taking one (1) city from them.
|
|
#
?
May 25, 2016 15:51
|
|
|
Very happy with the graphics, the Wonder building, and the aesthetics (having a literal fog of war just seems ugly compared to the new map theme). Also looking forward to the new mechanics and civs structures. The enhanced role of culture through a civics tree and the idea of more leaders having multiple but ultimately relatively simple and clear agendas all seems very promising. God now I can't wait.
|
|
#
?
May 25, 2016 16:18
|
|
|
WOW roosevelt got fat
|
|
#
?
May 25, 2016 16:24
|
|
|
That is an awful design of Teddy, holy poo poo.
|
|
#
?
May 25, 2016 16:27
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 14, 2024 07:45 |
|
|
You know, for all the people complaining about Cellization, Civ VI seems to have a lot of good gameplay ideas. I mean, we'll see if it is or isn't broken on release, but the ideas are sound. But yeah, Teddy should not be that heavy. He looks like Taft instead.
|
|
#
?
May 25, 2016 16:28
|
|
