|
Phobophilia posted:I think the idea of city states is nonsense, you have small-time civs to fight around/push around: they are civs that got bottled up, have less land than others, but still follow similar rules as other civs. Heck, just give some rubber band mechanics to the AI so they keep pace with the civs running ahead of the pack, so they can have some disproportionate influence on the world without being instantly eaten up. But having people not desiring to win fleshes out the world a bit and makes it feel more...I dont know, I don't want to say real because civ is at its heart a board game and is not trying to be real, but it does inject some politics into the game you couldn't get with just pushing around the 8th places person.
|
#
?
May 30, 2016 04:46
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 13, 2024 23:19 |
|
|
I just want Vassal States back. The ability to force them on other civs and the ability to create new nations/civs out of cities you've either conquered or settled.
|
|
#
?
May 30, 2016 04:48
|
|
|
Phobophilia posted:I think the idea of city states is nonsense, you have small-time civs to fight around/push around: they are civs that got bottled up, have less land than others, but still follow similar rules as other civs. Heck, just give some rubber band mechanics to the AI so they keep pace with the civs running ahead of the pack, so they can have some disproportionate influence on the world without being instantly eaten up. No, the small civs need to have a completely different AI guiding their decisions. I think it's cleaner if you just have two groups: one of Real Civs that are going to [pretend to] try to be dominant on the world stage, and another of tiny civs that are never going to amount to anything, and they know it. I don't trust Firaxis' developers to be able to write an AI that can smoothly transition between the two, so I'd rather have city-states as an explicit thing.
|
|
#
?
May 30, 2016 04:54
|
|
|
It could theoretically work if the big boy civs have one set of AI behaviours, then the little civs have another set of AI behaviours where they get to kingmake and play the big boys off against one another. But why are you setting this in stone from 4000BC? This should be as a consequence of how the world shakes out. Also, City States don't actually do anything.
|
|
#
?
May 30, 2016 04:57
|
|
|
RagnarokAngel posted:But having people not desiring to win fleshes out the world a bit and makes it feel more...I dont know, I don't want to say real because civ is at its heart a board game and is not trying to be real, but it does inject some politics into the game you couldn't get with just pushing around the 8th places person. Right but the only way to enforce the existence of city-states (rather than them all being instantly conquered by the first real civ that finds them) is the jarringly gamey mechanic of making everyone else in the entire world permanently ripshit pissed off at anyone that conquers a city-state.
|
|
#
?
May 30, 2016 05:03
|
|
|
Their implentation in Sellaris was really good - some civs spawned earier/later than others, and are bigger/smaller, resulting in politics as they band together or get eaten. But whatever you do, don't play stellaris, it has many many issues that made me hanker for Civ5 and SinsOfASolarEmpire, which is telling.
|
|
#
?
May 30, 2016 06:00
|
|
|
Alternatively, play Stellaris because it's fun
|
|
#
?
May 30, 2016 06:23
|
|
|
Have they confirmed whether or not leaders will speak in their native language like 5?
|
|
#
?
May 30, 2016 06:57
|
|
|
Eric the Mauve posted:Right but the only way to enforce the existence of city-states (rather than them all being instantly conquered by the first real civ that finds them) is the jarringly gamey mechanic of making everyone else in the entire world permanently ripshit pissed off at anyone that conquers a city-state. Eh I disagree. Paradox games handle OPMs all the time. You just have to give them mechanics to even the score, and more importantly, give the player a reason to keep them around (e.g. the bonuses you get from high relations) Lurker God posted:Have they confirmed whether or not leaders will speak in their native language like 5? Teddy Roosevelt talks in the canned gameplay footage, so I'd hope so. It seems like something they can't step backwards on now that they've done it.
|
|
#
?
May 30, 2016 10:28
|
|
|
voiced leaderheads were a mistake, because now every single new leader needs high def art assets and VA studio time, which means they're a magnitude more expensive, and you can't do creative things with them like interchangable leaders for civs also they loving chug when you fire up the diplo screen. i dont give a gently caress about what they look like or say, i just want to compare what they have on the table
|
|
#
?
May 30, 2016 10:42
|
|
|
I really, really hope someone writes a UI mod that puts all the information relevant to the player in one place instead of scattering it to the four corners of the screen. I have a big monitor so I can see better, not so that I can crane my neck every which way to keep an eye on numbers'n'poo poo.
|
|
#
?
May 30, 2016 11:00
|
|
|
Phobophilia posted:voiced leaderheads were a mistake, because now every single new leader needs high def art assets and VA studio time, which means they're a magnitude more expensive, and you can't do creative things with them like interchangable leaders for civs Actually they're Cool and Good, sorry. It's not that you can't do anything creative like multiple leaders, they just made the conscious choice to not do that, because players would feel like they got ripped off if they just got a "rehash" of an older civ. I certainly wouldn't mind, but a large chunk of the player base would. I don't find them particularly resource intensive, maybe upgrade your computer.
|
|
#
?
May 30, 2016 11:13
|
|
|
Having recently played a game of civ 5 and finishing a diplomatic victory that required engagement with the city-states(I was playing CBP so it was a touch different), I would say that either the CSs need to be more like civs and be more flexible or they need to be less like civs, allowing their ally more control over their actions(e.g. controlling their troops when they're at war within some limitations). Right now they're an unhappy medium to me. I'd like to see some way to have cities that don't have any fine control- perhaps after the first few, you get minor cities that offer an averaged out yield of their neighboring tiles and extend the territory, allowing them to be fought over between civs but it's not a huge deal if they get taken. You could kinda play with it, how many major cities can a civ get- that could changed based on which civ, some having more, some having less. This way you could have big empires with lots of territory but not 10,000 city screens to go into to micro the citizens/change build queues.
|
|
#
?
May 30, 2016 11:38
|
|
|
RagnarokAngel posted:It's not that you can't do anything creative like multiple leaders, they just made the conscious choice to not do that, because players would feel like they got ripped off if they just got a "rehash" of an older civ. I certainly wouldn't mind, but a large chunk of the player base would. I'm of the opinion that they decided against multiple leaders because the UA system really doesn't allow for it. Washington and Teddy Roosevelt, while they lived in very different times, were both kinda isolationist, for instance. Then, too, many civilizations just don't have a second iconic leader that would be distinct enough to qualify for their own UAs. So, rather than waste time trying to figure out how to make it work, they decided to pick just one. (More than that, their preference for iconic female leaders generally means they skipped over an iconic male leader or two, so having multiple leaders would just skew the leader pool further into the masculine.)
|
|
#
?
May 30, 2016 11:42
|
|
|
Aerdan posted:I'm of the opinion that they decided against multiple leaders because the UA system really doesn't allow for it. Washington and Teddy Roosevelt, while they lived in very different times, were both kinda isolationist, for instance. Then, too, many civilizations just don't have a second iconic leader that would be distinct enough to qualify for their own UAs. So, rather than waste time trying to figure out how to make it work, they decided to pick just one. To the contrary, I think the UA system would have aided multiple leaders well. You keep the UB and UUs (as those define the country), but give them a new UA(which usually defines the leader). However, I can definitely see releasing, say, a Lincoln DLC leading people to ask "Why wasn't this just a new civ?".
|
|
#
?
May 30, 2016 12:36
|
|
|
you end up not doing that because if it costs this much budget to make a hi def leaderhead and voice acting, there's no point attaching that leader to an old civ, you may as well make an entirely new civ and nail another bullet point to the box blurb which is why i think civ5 leaderheads are a terrible investment and a colossal waste of effort
|
|
#
?
May 30, 2016 12:50
|
|
|
Phobophilia posted:you end up not doing that because if it costs this much budget to make a hi def leaderhead and voice acting, there's no point attaching that leader to an old civ, you may as well make an entirely new civ and nail another bullet point to the box blurb You're assuming a whole lot. I'm sure they cost more than Civ 4's much simpler leader models but you have no real way of knowing what their budget was, or if they'd even have gone in the direction of multiple leaders per civ under different circumstances. We got 43 civs over the course of the game, I hardly feel we were deprived.
|
|
#
?
May 30, 2016 12:57
|
|
|
It's also impossible to say how many more units sold because of the fancy animations and voice acting. You can't say it was a bad investment and a waste of effort when you don't have a control product to compare it to. (All we know is Civ 5 is the best selling Civ of all time, but I reckon that's largely down to digital distribution) Remember they've gotta market this to the filthy casuals who don't look past the graphics, not just us spergy spergs who want a negotiation simulator and prefer the most extensive animation to be the depression of the "agree to terms" button Microplastics fucked around with this message at 13:20 on May 30, 2016 |
|
#
?
May 30, 2016 13:17
|
|
|
RagnarokAngel posted:To the contrary, I think the UA system would have aided multiple leaders well. You keep the UB and UUs (as those define the country), but give them a new UA(which usually defines the leader). ...Come up with 43 alternate leaders, one per Civ5 civilization, then, and UAs for each. You can't use fictional leaders, you can't pull leaders from other civilizations unless they're part of the conglomerate (so no non-British Celtic leaders, for instance), and you certainly can't use prominent people who weren't widely-recognized champions of a national identity for the civilization. (...am I missing anything that would bar an existing leader, aside from e.g. Dido?)
|
|
#
?
May 30, 2016 13:29
|
|
|
Aerdan posted:...Come up with 43 alternate leaders, one per Civ5 civilization, then, and UAs for each. You can't use fictional leaders, you can't pull leaders from other civilizations unless they're part of the conglomerate (so no non-British Celtic leaders, for instance), and you certainly can't use prominent people who weren't widely-recognized champions of a national identity for the civilization. They have to be not alive. Also you can't use Hitler.
|
|
#
?
May 30, 2016 13:42
|
|
|
Aerdan posted:...Come up with 43 alternate leaders, one per Civ5 civilization, then, and UAs for each. You can't use fictional leaders, you can't pull leaders from other civilizations unless they're part of the conglomerate (so no non-British Celtic leaders, for instance), and you certainly can't use prominent people who weren't widely-recognized champions of a national identity for the civilization. Civ 4 literally did this though, just with traits. Some civs had 3! Yes, UAs took a little more work than interchangeable traits, but it could be done.
|
|
#
?
May 30, 2016 13:48
|
|
|
Browsing through the Well of Souls site, it looks like the Campus only has space for a Library, University, and Research Lab. Assuming the other districts follow a similar pattern, that means there's only one specialized building for three eras : ancient, medieval, and modern. Alongside the fact that they've said there's only 50 technologies in the game (and maybe a similar number of civics which are researched concurrently) does this indicate that the game length is going to be shorter than in previous games? It's probably too early to speculate, but one of the things that always bugged me about Civ 4 and 5 is how compressed the ages are, especially if you play on the higher difficulties. It's most noticeable when you try to build an army and by the time your units reach their destination they're a generation or two out of date. I like a long game, and unfortunately playing on Epic or Marathon wasn't a great solution because it introduced other issues like lowering the overall difficulty. This is my only real concern at the moment. Everything I've seen looks fantastic!
|
|
#
?
May 30, 2016 14:01
|
|
|
It's one of the things I absolutely don't care about because after the game starts, it doesn't matter if the civ you picked had one or a billion alternative leaders. I'd rather focus on systems (and visuals!) that enhance the core game rather than giving me more options to fiddle with on the Setup Game Screen. e: Kalko posted:Browsing through the Well of Souls site, it looks like the Campus only has space for a Library, University, and Research Lab. Assuming the other districts follow a similar pattern, that means there's only one specialized building for three eras : ancient, medieval, and modern. Alongside the fact that they've said there's only 50 technologies in the game (and maybe a similar number of civics which are researched concurrently) does this indicate that the game length is going to be shorter than in previous games? The new Culture system will take up the burden of the missing techs. So you should get less technologies that you will research more slowly, but in the time you will get some kind of Culture "unlock" that should trigger the same pavlovian reaction in your brain that normally a tech does. Or so I assume. Rexides fucked around with this message at 14:06 on May 30, 2016 |
|
#
?
May 30, 2016 14:03
|
|
|
RagnarokAngel posted:Civ 4 literally did this though, just with traits. Some civs had 3! Not really. Most (all?) UAs are tied to the civilization rather than any personality the leaders might've had. Also, Civ4's traits were boring and there are obvious 'best' combinations depending on your goals. I'd accept UAs tied to the leader's hidden agenda, though. Prism posted:They have to be not alive. ...Or Mao or Stalin...
|
|
#
?
May 30, 2016 14:10
|
|
|
Honestly i'd rather see more civs than more leaders for existing civs.
|
|
#
?
May 30, 2016 14:13
|
|
|
Phobophilia is there anything in Civ V you can't complain about? I think they could definitely still Make multiple leaders per civ still, but I'm also not really sure why that's something we benefit greatly from? In Civ IV, the traits were a lot less specific, so multiple leaders helped add variety to the game. Basically: Panzeh posted:Honestly i'd rather see more civs than more leaders for existing civs.
|
|
#
?
May 30, 2016 14:32
|
|
|
Phobophilia posted:I think the idea of city states is nonsense, you have small-time civs to fight around/push around: they are civs that got bottled up, have less land than others, but still follow similar rules as other civs. Heck, just give some rubber band mechanics to the AI so they keep pace with the civs running ahead of the pack, so they can have some disproportionate influence on the world without being instantly eaten up. City states are like having some retarded children playing along with adults, so they need special rules and can never do anything important, never develop but only stand in the way and wait be used by the real players. Its stupid. It would make sense and be more fun if they could at least expand and maybe develop into a full civ. And if they dont, later in the game be peacefully annexed by their big neighbours, instead of just keep occupying space and waiting to be bribed until the end of time or until some civ says "gently caress it" and conquer it in 2 turns Mostly I play 5 with no city states at all
|
|
#
?
May 30, 2016 14:50
|
|
|
Aerdan posted:...Or Mao or Stalin... Both Mao and Stalin were in Civ4 actually.
|
|
#
?
May 30, 2016 15:19
|
|
|
Prism posted:Both Mao and Stalin were in Civ4 actually. And Civ1.
|
|
#
?
May 30, 2016 15:25
|
|
|
Aerdan posted:I'm of the opinion that they decided against multiple leaders because the UA system really doesn't allow for it. Washington and Teddy Roosevelt, while they lived in very different times, were both kinda isolationist, for instance. Then, too, many civilizations just don't have a second iconic leader that would be distinct enough to qualify for their own UAs. So, rather than waste time trying to figure out how to make it work, they decided to pick just one. IIRC Civ 2 just straight up had one male and one female leader for each civ. (Wasn't Eleanor Roosevelt the America leader there?) In a way I'm kinda surprised they never came back to that. Rexides posted:It's one of the things I absolutely don't care about because after the game starts, it doesn't matter if the civ you picked had one or a billion alternative leaders. I'd rather focus on systems (and visuals!) that enhance the core game rather than giving me more options to fiddle with on the Setup Game Screen. So maybe it's just that the non-technological techs like Philosophy, Drama, etc. were removed from the Technology Tree proper and attached to culture points instead? Eric the Mauve fucked around with this message at 15:29 on May 30, 2016 |
|
#
?
May 30, 2016 15:26
|
|
|
Elias_Maluco posted:City states are like having some retarded children playing along with adults, so they need special rules and can never do anything important, never develop but only stand in the way and wait be used by the real players. Its stupid. It's actually very thematic and good. Of course the big players are going to see City States as their own special things. They aren't rivals. They aren't full-fledged civs. And yes, they play by different rules; that's how diplomacy works. A small country shouldn't try to join the big league. "La Cour des Grands", as it is said in diplomacy, is unapproachable for a smaller country, or they'll be smacked down by the big players and put back in their place. You may as well complain that barbarians never settle down and form their own civs, or that countries don't explode in revolutions and get balkanised. Those are all things that are irrelevant to the themes in Civ V: there's a bunch of world players fighting for supremacy, and everything in the world is another asset for them to defeat the others. It's not a simulation game, and it isn't supposed to be. Maybe Civ VI will go for another route. It certainly feels like they're trying to move away from gamey stuff to more organic developments (tying tech to what you do in-game, roads forming along trade routes, painting the map with your expanding cities etc.) but I think that fundamentally, every civ will still be trying to become numero uno and knock the others out and "win". If they don't, maybe then having civs turn into city-states and city-states into civs will be appropriate, especially if the themes end up being "every country has its up and downs" or something.
|
|
#
?
May 30, 2016 15:30
|
|
|
Maybe it would be possible to have multiple leaders by giving players several people to choose from when you select your civ, but for AI's there is always only one pre-determined option. That way they don't have to produce additional assets for the diplomacy screens, and players will get to play as their favourite dictator/warlord/mass murderer. So if they were to apply that for Civ 5, for example, and you selected the Russians, you could choose between Catherine or Stalin, each with their own numerical bonuses and intro voice-over, but if you were to meet Russia as an AI civ it would ALWAYS be Catherine.
|
|
#
?
May 30, 2016 15:34
|
|
|
Eric the Mauve posted:So maybe it's just that the non-technological techs like Philosophy, Drama, etc. were removed from the Technology Tree proper and attached to culture points instead? It seems like it. Civ 5 already made a start when it took the forms of government out of the tech tree (Liberalism, Communism and Divine Right to name a few) and stuck them into all these other trees that fed off culture points instead of science. What Civ 6 is doing doesn't sound that revolutionary (a whole second tree? Pffft, like I wasn't paying attention to eleven trees already) but I do like the sound of the new mix-and-match social policy card system.
|
|
#
?
May 30, 2016 15:36
|
|
|
I'm just hoping it helps Civilization's long running issue of science being the only thing worth investing in everAerdan posted:Then, too, many civilizations just don't have a second iconic leader that would be distinct enough to qualify for their own UAs.
|
|
#
?
May 30, 2016 15:40
|
|
|
MMM Whatchya Say posted:I'm just hoping it helps Civilization's long running issue of science being the only thing worth investing in ever That's pretty much it, isn't it? In Civ 1-4 trade was everything because trade converted to science. In Civ 5 food is everything because food = population = science. I can't perceive any way to change it so that science isn't everything, without radically overhauling the fundamentals of the game. But that's probably just because I'm not creative enough. Even so, the Civ VI designers have to toe a fine line between better balancing the game and messing too much with proven success.
|
|
#
?
May 30, 2016 15:44
|
|
|
Eric the Mauve posted:That's pretty much it, isn't it? In Civ 1-4 trade was everything because trade converted to science. In Civ 5 food is everything because food = population = science. I meant that splitting the tech tree into culture and science might help because now there's two trees to go down and maybe if you just plow down the science side you'll have trouble competing against civs who take a balanced approach.
|
|
#
?
May 30, 2016 15:51
|
|
|
I hope they bring back voiced advisors. Like Elvis for entertainment, and the Military guy that always gets pissed at the Nerdlinger science dude for wanting to build more universities.
|
|
#
?
May 30, 2016 15:51
|
|
|
Eric the Mauve posted:IIRC Civ 2 just straight up had one male and one female leader for each civ. (Wasn't Eleanor Roosevelt the America leader there?) In a way I'm kinda surprised they never came back to that. Because many civilizations have never had a notable female leader, and in Civ2 in such cases the female leader was usually a mythological figure if not an outright goddess. Say what you will about Dido, in Civ2 Japan's female leader was Amaterasu.
|
|
#
?
May 30, 2016 16:11
|
|
|
Deltasquid posted:It's actually very thematic and good. Of course the big players are going to see City States as their own special things. They aren't rivals. They aren't full-fledged civs. And yes, they play by different rules; that's how diplomacy works. A small country shouldn't try to join the big league. "La Cour des Grands", as it is said in diplomacy, is unapproachable for a smaller country, or they'll be smacked down by the big players and put back in their place. The bolded part actually sounds awesome and I think would go a long way towards making Civ way more engaging and organic. Other games have done it successfully from Galactic Civ to Europa Universalis 4. I think Civ would do well to borrow those kinds of themes and incorporate them into their own games. Especially the barbarians like they had in 4, it adds another layer of depth rather than "ugh another trade route pillaged by an iron age unit in 1985".
|
|
#
?
May 30, 2016 16:15
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 13, 2024 23:19 |
|
|
Barbs settling would be cool, but empires fracturing would be extremely irritating given that the game isn't simulation focused. I think, maybe civil war or revolution mechanics could be put in place, but permanent splits don't seem great to me.
|
|
#
?
May 30, 2016 16:17
|
|