|
berryjon posted:Can you imagine Nero as the Roman leader? I can easily see him as a Culture/Diplomacy leader, if only to move away from the typical view of Rome as military/imperial. With the addition of civilization agendas to the diplomatic system, I'm hoping they're going to bring back multiple civ leaders. This would make the same civilization play and act very differently depending on who's leading it. For instance, a Greek civilization led by Alexander would be more aggressive and focused on conquest than a Greece led by Pericles.
|
#
?
May 27, 2016 10:18
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 13, 2024 23:29 |
|
|
Poil posted:Personally I won't miss it. While the idea is good it basically always just boils down to getting enough money to buy all city states so the AI doesn't ban every luxury. Except that now you won't be able to buy out CS with money.
|
|
#
?
May 27, 2016 10:57
|
|
|
I don't know why they didn't apply some basic rubber-banding to that mechanism. If they had gone the path of "Buy out a city state, and buying the next one costs more" then city states would have ended up more evenly distributed across the empires regardless of financial power (and two wealthy rivals fighting over a CS could easily be undermined by a less wealthy rival getting in late with their cheapo subsidy) Then the focus would have shifted more to quests and spies.
|
|
#
?
May 27, 2016 11:21
|
|
|
JeremoudCorbynejad posted:The Qin dynasty probably played the biggest part in the construction of the great wall too, unifying the existing state walls into a single continuous barrier along the north. Given the way that the great wall is now built (tile by tile), I suspect it might be a unique improvement for China, rather than a world wonder? If so, that fits with Qin being the leader (though that's not saying much since it's only the unique ability that tends to fit the leader, not the unique building/improvement/unit) If forts are in the game, it might be a Chinese replacement for them. Perhaps a fort that enemy/neutral units find simply impassible? It'd have to be a pretty big benefit if it's going to take up a whole line of tiles. Or a fort that gets stronger if other forts are adjacent to it, to incentivise players to make long walls, rather than pepper borders with single buffed forts.
|
|
#
?
May 27, 2016 11:25
|
|
|
The game had better give a drat good reason for me to waste a tile on a fort or a wall instead of something productive
|
|
#
?
May 27, 2016 11:32
|
|
|
Phobophilia posted:The game had better give a drat good reason for me to waste a tile on a fort or a wall instead of something productive Great Wall would make more sense to me as an addition to a tile, like a road, rather than an entire tile improvement. Say, it puts a wall border on all the edges of that tile that are also the edges of your borders, get a +XX% fortification combat bonus if attacked from across the tile.
|
|
#
?
May 27, 2016 11:37
|
|
|
Phobophilia posted:The game had better give a drat good reason for me to waste a tile on a fort or a wall instead of something productive Maybe you have more tiles than pops to work them with? Seems like a pretty common scenario to me based on past games. If forts/walls are actually useful I can see them being used.
|
|
#
?
May 27, 2016 12:01
|
|
|
Staltran posted:Maybe you have more tiles than pops to work them with? We may not have been playing the same long-running critically acclaimed series of 4X games.
|
|
#
?
May 27, 2016 12:11
|
|
|
Can't wait for the day one mod that makes Donald Trump the leader of the US with a wall as special building 
|
|
#
?
May 27, 2016 12:21
|
|
|
John Dough posted:Can't wait for the day one mod that makes Donald Trump the leader of the US with a wall as special building Unique building: Luxurious Wall With Big Fat Beautiful Gate (+2 happiness (+4 when autocratic), bankrupts your country) Edit: this is a rough transcript of quill18 discussing the Wall he built as China: quote:Oh one other thing i should talk about since this is the China game here: the Great Wall is not a conventional wonder in Civilization 6 - rather it's something that your builders can actually build. They stand on a tile and rather than build a farm, they build a segment of the Great Wall. Has to be built on the border of your nation but you build it, say, on this tile, then you move your builder to the next tile and build another segment, and that makes a piece of Wall here. And you can keep doing that, and the Wall acts as, apparently it'll act as basically a really good defensive fort like you can park some units in there and get huge defensive bonuses, maybe it screws up enemy movement maybe that sort of thing, it wasn't one of those things I was able to explore [...] if your borders push out later on, it's fine it doesn't disrupt the Wall or anything like that, although if the borders push out too early, then you might not be able to build the Wall in the tile you had intended to [...] Microplastics fucked around with this message at 12:57 on May 27, 2016 |
|
#
?
May 27, 2016 12:40
|
|
|
yet another IGN preview: http://www.ign.com/articles/2016/05/25/civilization-6s-new-game-changer-features important quote: you can manually build roads using military engineers. will they, like builders, have a limited number of road tiles available? also, they try to justify the limited use of builders. still not sure i agree with it, but this is probably a fault of the civ5 model of samey tile improvements, lack of city specialisation, and low improvement yields
|
|
#
?
May 27, 2016 14:44
|
|
|
That Great Wall sounds sick as hell
|
|
#
?
May 27, 2016 16:16
|
|
|
Phobophilia posted:also, they try to justify the limited use of builders. still not sure i agree with it, but this is probably a fault of the civ5 model of samey tile improvements, lack of city specialisation, and low improvement yields I've always thought a neat UA for Canada or Australia would be for their tile improvements to gain bonus yields the fewer other tile improvements are adjacent to them.
|
|
#
?
May 27, 2016 16:28
|
|
|
TooMuchAbstraction posted:For those who didn't watch the video: He looks like a caricature, like Civ leaders always do.
|
|
#
?
May 27, 2016 16:44
|
|
|
Phobophilia posted:also, they try to justify the limited use of builders. still not sure i agree with it, but this is probably a fault of the civ5 model of samey tile improvements, lack of city specialisation, and low improvement yields IDK, having improvements built instantly seems like it compliments relatively low yields rather well.
|
|
#
?
May 27, 2016 16:50
|
|
|
Having low yields makes local terrain matter less in terms of how it impacts your city. Civ5's low-yield tile improvements are just another facet of its generic one-size-fits-all cities. I mean, in Civ4 you literally couldn't grow cities unless they had a few food-giving tiles, because each pop point consumed 2 food/turn (unlike in Civ5 where existing population food consumption is 1/turn, IIRC). So you needed high-food-yield tiles to have a large city. And conversely, if you could support a few citizens working hill mines, then you'd have a really noticeable bump in your production speeds.
|
|
#
?
May 27, 2016 17:05
|
|
|
Edit: ^^^ Civ 5 citizens consumed 2 food per turn too. Builders seem a bit pointless to me. You build them, with say, 75 hammers, and then they get 3 improvements before they're gone forever. Why not have the city throw 25 hammers at an improvement directly? Why have this intermediary? Builders don't seem to add anything except the faff of having to move them to the desired locations. I could be persuaded I think, but I'm unconvinced at the moment.
|
|
#
?
May 27, 2016 17:10
|
|
|
JeremoudCorbynejad posted:Edit: ^^^ Civ 5 citizens consumed 2 food per turn too. Eh, you can train builders earlier who'll construct stuff later. Or you can train people at one city and have them build improvements at another city. I can see uses there, and really having your workers sit around forever after you've built most of your improvements isn't really great design imo. Enslaving workers was fun, but I can't imagine it was WAD that the best strategy was to steal a worker from a city state before you met anybody else.
|
|
#
?
May 27, 2016 17:20
|
|
|
I rarely ever ran out of things for my workers to do in Civ4. There was always a new city to bootstrap, or forests to chop, or an half-grown city might need to be reworked for cottages, or I might want to replace mines with windmills for growth, or I might want to make a workshop hammer pump, or I want to expand my road network, or wire up a front city to make it more defensible, or I might want to build a canal fort to set up a raid. The Civ4 worker minigame was fun because there was a nigh infinite skill cap. I did often run out of things to do in Civ5, and if Civ6 is following that model, then this limited use worker mechanic might be a good idea.
|
|
#
?
May 27, 2016 17:29
|
|
|
JeremoudCorbynejad posted:Builders seem a bit pointless to me. You build them, with say, 75 hammers, and then they get 3 improvements before they're gone forever. Why not have the city throw 25 hammers at an improvement directly? Why have this intermediary? Builders don't seem to add anything except the faff of having to move them to the desired locations. I could be persuaded I think, but I'm unconvinced at the moment. After you built up your cities in Civ5 your workers sat around costing you GPT until you either disbanded them or found them something to do. Builders with charges eliminates this problem because you'll have expended your builders by the time you run out of tiles to improve.
|
|
#
?
May 27, 2016 17:30
|
|
|
JeremoudCorbynejad posted:Edit: ^^^ Civ 5 citizens consumed 2 food per turn too. What, really? Then why is it that I never seem to run into a food cap for my cities outside of the very early game, while in Civ4 making certain there was enough food was a constant struggle for any city I wanted to grow big?
|
|
#
?
May 27, 2016 17:38
|
|
|
MMM Whatchya Say posted:Eh, you can train builders earlier who'll construct stuff later. Or you can train people at one city and have them build improvements at another city. I can see uses there, and really having your workers sit around forever after you've built most of your improvements isn't really great design imo. Enslaving workers was fun, but I can't imagine it was WAD that the best strategy was to steal a worker from a city state before you met anybody else. Okay, some good points, especially one city supporting another with builders, which I had forgotten about. I guess my problem is that with only 3 charges they won't hang around long enough to be slavable, but otherwise the charge mechanic is pretty good and would solve the issue of late game worker congestion. As for the city state kidnapping abuse, I feel like that could have been more appropriately addressed by having them actually defend their workers, so you at least have to put up a fight instead of just a "gotcha!" "oi!" "peace?" "ok you can keep it but I'll be gradually less miffed for 60 turns"
|
|
#
?
May 27, 2016 17:39
|
|
|
TooMuchAbstraction posted:What, really? Then why is it that I never seem to run into a food cap for my cities outside of the very early game, while in Civ4 making certain there was enough food was a constant struggle for any city I wanted to grow big? Because Civ 4 Granaries, etc. didn't give free food, as I recall.
|
|
#
?
May 27, 2016 17:41
|
|
|
Plus there was the whole Health mechanic that did stuff, can't remember what, to limit growth.
|
|
#
?
May 27, 2016 17:44
|
|
|
health was a soft cap on growth in civ5, farms were the only thing you ever build, meaning you'd get a food surplus for each citizen working the land... forever. meanwhile, in civ4, farms competed with crucial cottages, so you could only build so many farms. civ4 cities could be planned out from settlement to endgame, you can estimate the final size of the city, so you'd spend most of the game setting it up for that endpoint where you'd stabilise working cottages and mines. meanwhile, civ5 cities didn't have any kind of endpoint, you'd just work farms forever, unless you wanted some temporary production
|
|
#
?
May 27, 2016 17:51
|
|
|
Jay Rust posted:Plus there was the whole Health mechanic that did stuff, can't remember what, to limit growth. That was pretty simple: if you had more sources of unhealthiness than healthiness in your city, you lost food equal to (healthiness - unhealthiness). Generally that was solvable by building more health buildings or chopping down jungles; unhealthiness due to overcrowding was only noticeable in large cities.
|
|
#
?
May 27, 2016 17:54
|
|
|
I'm thinking the builders having charges might make war a lot more fun. Previously, pillaging was just an annoyance because you could just have workers rebuild everything rather quickly. In 6 you will have to build builders to rebuild you lands. I predict that hit and run pillaging wars are going to be much more effective this time around.
|
|
#
?
May 27, 2016 18:15
|
|
|
Phobophilia posted:health was a soft cap on growth That's a real oversimplification. You can know where a Civ V city's borders will end: three hexes in every direction. And you shouldn't just be building farms: growth is great but so are all of the buildings. Plus, you have Great Person tile improvements, reasons to keep jungles and forests intact, decisions regarding whether to build an alternate road through your cities... There's a lot to consider! Honestly, I love both Civ IV and Civ V equally.
|
|
#
?
May 27, 2016 18:19
|
|
|
The Human Crouton posted:I'm thinking the builders having charges might make war a lot more fun. Previously, pillaging was just an annoyance because you could just have workers rebuild everything rather quickly. In 6 you will have to build builders to rebuild you lands. I predict that hit and run pillaging wars are going to be much more effective this time around. Plus, people are complaining about the value of enslaving, but now you'll need builders throughout the entire game, so enslaving might continue to be valuable later into the game, without being incredibly powerful right at the beginning.
|
|
#
?
May 27, 2016 18:23
|
|
|
Jay Rust posted:That's a real oversimplification. You can know where a Civ V city's borders will end: three hexes in every direction. And you shouldn't just be building farms: growth is great but so are all of the buildings. Plus, you have Great Person tile improvements, reasons to keep jungles and forests intact, decisions regarding whether to build an alternate road through your cities... There's a lot to consider! For the basic tile improvements, you want to maximize food, because food is science, and via specialists it's also great people, production, culture, faith, etc. Getting some hammers from a mine/lumbermill is a puny benefit in contrast. So you throw down farms on everything that can take a farm. Forests are not worth keeping, because 1 food is worth massively more than 1 hammer. Jungles sometimes are worth keeping, but unimproved jungles provide +1 food anyway so the only reason to chop and farm them is to get an extra hammer. Roads don't disturb tiles, they just make transit faster, so there's no difficult decision there; build a road if you need to pass through the tile quickly. Civ 5 city building really wasn't that complex. Once you decided where to place the city, you had no major decisions left to make, just a priority queue. No surprise that they're focusing on making cities more complex in Civ6 -- there's a lot that can be improved on.
|
|
#
?
May 27, 2016 19:01
|
|
|
I guess we just played differently. I prioritized production most of the time because you have to get, say, the buildings with specialist slots out somehow. And military units. And trade routes. And wonders! I want them all!
|
|
#
?
May 27, 2016 19:10
|
|
|
Jay Rust posted:I guess we just played differently. I prioritized production most of the time because you have to get, say, the buildings with specialist slots out somehow. And military units. And trade routes. And wonders! I want them all! This is how I play too lol. But then I hear that people get Science vicotries in like..1800 and i'm like how in the hell. Is it doable or are they cheating or being mega optimized or some such?
|
|
#
?
May 27, 2016 19:13
|
|
|
My ideal Civ game: Build every wonder. Cover the entire map like a stain. Turn every scrap of land into an improvement of some sort.
|
|
#
?
May 27, 2016 19:15
|
|
|
I'm secretly glad Wonders will take up actual physical space on the map now. Racing to build every wonder just because I can, regardless of its actual benefits, is a bit of a bad habit of mine
|
|
#
?
May 27, 2016 19:16
|
|
|
Jay Rust posted:I guess we just played differently. I prioritized production most of the time because you have to get, say, the buildings with specialist slots out somehow. And military units. And trade routes. And wonders! I want them all! Optimizing for hammers can be good in the short-term, to help you build a building faster. But in the long term, it's unlocked techs that really dictate your civ's potential. Especially the techs that allow you to produce more food (irrigated farms) or science (universities and public schools) are huge. I generally wouldn't recommend focusing on hammers except very early on to get a granary built, or if you've decided to hard-build a wonder that other civs have access to (if you're king in tech, you can build wonders at your leisure because other civs don't have the tech that unlocks the wonder!), or if you're in really dire straits and need a new unit ASAP. Generally the way to win Civ at the highest levels is to ride that snowball effect as hard as you can, and that means focusing on science, and therefore food.
|
|
#
?
May 27, 2016 19:17
|
|
|
I think science in Civ 4 was tied to gold income? I can't remember if that worked better than tying it to population.
|
|
#
?
May 27, 2016 19:39
|
|
|
Poil posted:Personally I won't miss it. While the idea is good it basically always just boils down to getting enough money to buy all city states so the AI doesn't ban every luxury. "Citrus is immoral!" - the AI civ operating 6 whaling tiles TooMuchAbstraction posted:Optimizing for hammers can be good in the short-term, to help you build a building faster. But in the long term, it's unlocked techs that really dictate your civ's potential. Especially the techs that allow you to produce more food (irrigated farms) or science (universities and public schools) are huge. I generally wouldn't recommend focusing on hammers except very early on to get a granary built, or if you've decided to hard-build a wonder that other civs have access to (if you're king in tech, you can build wonders at your leisure because other civs don't have the tech that unlocks the wonder!), or if you're in really dire straits and need a new unit ASAP. Every Civ 5 victory is actually a science victory.
|
|
#
?
May 27, 2016 19:42
|
|
|
Jay Rust posted:I think science in Civ 4 was tied to gold income? I can't remember if that worked better than tying it to population. Science, culture, and gold were all tied to commerce, which was an intermediate resource that didn't do anything on its own (i.e. all of your commerce was always converted into something else every turn). Commerce was produced in many ways, but the big one was by having citizens work villages, since the longer you worked a village, the more commerce it would produce (working a village gradually upgrades it through various tiers, each of which produces 1 more commerce than the last tier). Supporting a large number of villages was not trivial, because they usually were at best self-sufficient foodwise, so you needed extra food sources if you wanted the city to grow any. Cities in Civ4 usually fell into one of three categories: the production city (relatively small population, sited on an area that has some food and lots of hills), the Great Person farm (huge population all dedicated towards supporting as many specialists (usually scientists) as possible), and the commerce city (on a river for bonus commerce, as many villages as possible, needs extra food to support the villages).
|
|
#
?
May 27, 2016 19:44
|
|
|
JeremoudCorbynejad posted:The Qin dynasty probably played the biggest part in the construction of the great wall too, unifying the existing state walls into a single continuous barrier along the north. Given the way that the great wall is now built (tile by tile), I suspect it might be a unique improvement for China, rather than a world wonder? If so, that fits with Qin being the leader (though that's not saying much since it's only the unique ability that tends to fit the leader, not the unique building/improvement/unit) In fact it's so personal, I can dream of a Civ VI where there are multiple leaders, who each have a particular unique unit. Like Roosevelt might have rough riders, mustangs and movie studios, but Washington gets minute men, mustangs and movie studios. Actually that's the only way I can really imagine multiple leaders working meaningfully without combining stock traits like Civ IV, or coming up with a ridiculous number of unique bonuses for civs.
|
|
#
?
May 28, 2016 00:04
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 13, 2024 23:29 |
|
|
Eiba posted:As a reminder, America with Roosevelt gets the Rough Riders, which is a ridiculously personal unique unit. This one is supposed to be easier to mod,so it wouldn't be too hard.
|
|
#
?
May 28, 2016 00:08
|
|
