|
Deltasquid posted:I don't yearn for the return of multiple leaders per civ but I'm saying there's an opportunity cost that we might not know about. Like having animators or model artists sitting around not creating animations or models. Or maybe being able to get your rabid fanbase to hand over 5 dollars each so they can play with an obscure pharaoh instead of Cleopatra is more profitable than bloating the game with civs nobody cares about, like the well-known empires of Luxemburg or, God forbid, Canada. IDK why people are acting like there aren't that many historic civilizations that matter. Civ V had 43 civilizations and only, like, Venice felt a little out of it's league. The Community Battle Royal has like, 61 civs without too many duds either, and most of those were to either fill out space or just for fun. I like variety, and maybe I'm not representative of the general community, but I'd rather have a large choice of civs than a smaller selection with more than one leader for each. I'm not necessarily opposed to multiple leaders either, but you know.
|
#
?
Jun 17, 2016 00:11
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 14, 2024 01:09 |
|
|
I'm all in favor of having 150 civs/leaders in the game, but the ability to manually pick which ones to include and exclude as potential AI opponents should be baked into the game and not require a mod. It's not that hard to have the best of both worlds: Here are a million civs, those of you who only want to play with the 25 or so that your high school history book covered can just turn the rest off, go wild.
|
|
#
?
Jun 17, 2016 00:16
|
|
|
I mean, 150 civs/leader of the quality that Civ 4, 5, or (hopefully) 6 would actually be a monumental undertaking, but it's a fun pipe dream!
|
|
#
?
Jun 17, 2016 01:30
|
|
|
MMM Whatchya Say posted:Civ V had 43 civilizations and only, like, Venice felt a little out of it's league. In its heyday the Venetian Republic was a major power in the Mediterranean region - it gets mentioned quite a lot in Shakespeare.
|
|
#
?
Jun 17, 2016 01:50
|
|
|
Venice is a pack of assholes.
|
|
#
?
Jun 17, 2016 01:56
|
|
|
Byzantine posted:Venice is a pack of assholes. Best username/post combo ever.
|
|
#
?
Jun 17, 2016 02:06
|
|
|
Nice Rome you got there, would be a shame if someone crusaded it.
|
|
#
?
Jun 17, 2016 02:50
|
|
|
Cythereal posted:In its heyday the Venetian Republic was a major power in the Mediterranean region - it gets mentioned quite a lot in Shakespeare. Oh I know, it just feels a bit like a different league than the other civs, probably just because of how different the Venetian Republic operates from the powers. I think it makes a really good addition to the game though.
|
|
#
?
Jun 17, 2016 05:16
|
|
|
MMM Whatchya Say posted:I mean America has existed for longer than Germany's modern incarnation. Well hell, Australia has existed for longer than the People's Republic of China.
|
|
#
?
Jun 17, 2016 06:18
|
|
|
MMM Whatchya Say posted:IDK why people are acting like there aren't that many historic civilizations that matter. Civ V had 43 civilizations and only, like, Venice felt a little out of it's league. I mean don't get me wrong, I like choice, but the premise of Civilization to me is a wild dream of "Imagine China, the Monghols and Romans having a fight!! Who'd win!!" like a crazy time-traveling Hollywood trip. It loses sort of its magic when you get civilizations, like Venice, as you said, that were kind of middle powers for like 200 years but can hardly be called an empire. It's the same reason I don't particularly care about the Zulus or colonies like Canada, Brazil and New Zealand. And also why I think adding Switzerland or Flanders or the Ainu or the Inuits is kind of a swing and a miss for me, as far as mods go. Give me Congo, give me the Holy Roman Empire and Byzantium, give me native American empires to fight when I colonise in my earth TSL game instead of having either the USA or vast wastelands of nothing. I realize I'm kind of a minority in this, probably. So Eric the Mauve posted:I'm all in favor of having 150 civs/leaders in the game, but the ability to manually pick which ones to include and exclude as potential AI opponents should be baked into the game and not require a mod. It's not that hard to have the best of both worlds: Here are a million civs, those of you who only want to play with the 25 or so that your high school history book covered can just turn the rest off, go wild. Would be a neat compromise IMO.
|
|
#
?
Jun 17, 2016 11:56
|
|
|
Thing is, once you've already got all the "great empire" civs, you can either just put more leaders in place for them (which is inherently less interesting than a whole new civ) or it's time to move onto smaller guys. It'd be one thing if they were adding Venice when Rome wasn't in the game yet, but that's never been the case.
|
|
#
?
Jun 17, 2016 12:32
|
|
|
It won't be included but I really want a list of the different civs and be able to toggle them between may appear and may not appear when setting up a game.
|
|
#
?
Jun 17, 2016 12:39
|
|
|
Poil posted:It won't be included but I really want a list of the different civs and be able to toggle them between may appear and may not appear when setting up a game. It'd be cool to have pre-made lists of Civs depending on map type. Like if you're playing on archipelago you'll run into all the big naval bruisers like England, the Dutch and the Ottomans, while if you're playing a desert map you run into Egypt and Morocco.
|
|
#
?
Jun 17, 2016 12:53
|
|
|
Poil posted:It won't be included but I really want a list of the different civs and be able to toggle them between may appear and may not appear when setting up a game. Civ 5 advanced setup mod does that and I love it Elias_Maluco fucked around with this message at 13:21 on Jun 17, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jun 17, 2016 12:58
|
|
|
Gort posted:It'd be cool to have pre-made lists of Civs depending on map type. Like if you're playing on archipelago you'll run into all the big naval bruisers like England, the Dutch and the Ottomans, while if you're playing a desert map you run into Egypt and Morocco. Unless it's a civ that's completely going to lose on it's UA, I think that it's kinda cool when a Civ evolves in a way completely different than in reality, like coming face to face with English steppe horsemen or having naval battles with the Mongolian Invincible Armada.
|
|
#
?
Jun 17, 2016 13:05
|
|
|
Rexides posted:Unless it's a civ that's completely going to lose on it's UA, I think that it's kinda cool when a Civ evolves in a way completely different than in reality, like coming face to face with English steppe horsemen or having naval battles with the Mongolian Invincible Armada. Well, England with no sea is a generic civ with one unique unit. That's boring. Maybe alternative unique units/buildings/abilities to replace naval civs on land maps would be the way to go?
|
|
#
?
Jun 17, 2016 13:18
|
|
|
I dont know how its going to be done in 6, but so far in Civs no civilization as much to do with what they was reality. A civilization means a color, city names, a couple of unique buidings, some unique bonus to something, and a leader. All vaguely inspired on what they was in history, but just that And Im ok with that, If I want a historical experience I go play paradox games. So it doenst really matters if Venice can be called a civilization or if England is historically accurate. Personally I found that the right way for me to enjoy civ games is to forget about history On the things the Im interested in knowing about Civ 6, which civs are included are pretty down on my list. Specially considering a lot more will be added in future DLCs/expansions and through mods, as always
|
|
#
?
Jun 17, 2016 13:30
|
|
|
Deltasquid posted:I mean don't get me wrong, I like choice, but the premise of Civilization to me is a wild dream of "Imagine China, the Monghols and Romans having a fight!! Who'd win!!" like a crazy time-traveling Hollywood trip. It loses sort of its magic when you get civilizations, like Venice, as you said, that were kind of middle powers for like 200 years but can hardly be called an empire. Well I think one of the problems is the geographic distribution and the way they handle civs in the same region. "China" and "India" are just sort of every historic kingdom or empire that existed in that area. Name recognition is important as well. The Songhai have had a bigger impact on world history than The Zulus, but people never care about The Songhai. I guess the other big problem is the whole colonization thing. We know a lot about European civs because of how much recorded information we have, but for many new world civs their records were burned or otherwise destroyed by colonization. So we have groups of people that ruled over an area for a long time but never really jump into people's mind as a great Civilization. Idk, I don't think there's anything wrong with digging deeper and using less well known or significant civs because the cut off for when a civ is significant really arbitrary. Like, lots of people don't think America should be in, even though they've been a dominant power for like the last 200 years. Or to use Venice again, I said it felt out of place, but never meant that as if it wasn't significant enough for the game.
|
|
#
?
Jun 17, 2016 13:45
|
|
|
I really like their idea that each Civ has a known agenda along with a random one built into their AI. I think that will have a much greater impact than the other stuff which generally doesn't amount to much.
|
|
#
?
Jun 17, 2016 13:45
|
|
|
They should just merge all European Civs into "Polyeuropea" so that we have more budget for more interesting Civs. e: Leader should be Hitler. Rexides fucked around with this message at 14:23 on Jun 17, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jun 17, 2016 13:55
|
|
|
Hand Row posted:I really like their idea that each Civ has a known agenda along with a random one built into their AI. I think that will have a much greater impact than the other stuff which generally doesn't amount to much. Yeah this sounds fun. I like the Devs' description of how agendas might be played off one another, too. The example they used was: build a lot of wonders and China gets annoyed (because their agenda is hating other wonder whores) and wages war against you, which annoys America (because their agenda is hating anyone causing trouble on their continent) so they go to war with China, you join in on the offensive, steal all China's wonders and end up being best buds with America on a continent and being full of wonders. If the agendas are suitably interesting their could be some excellent chain reactions going on as a game develops.
|
|
#
?
Jun 17, 2016 16:14
|
|
|
I'm just hoping Agendas make it easier to actually work with civs and specific ones, instead of everybody being various shades of rear end in a top hat.
|
|
#
?
Jun 17, 2016 16:26
|
|
|
MMM Whatchya Say posted:I'm just hoping Agendas make it easier to actually work with civs and specific ones, instead of everybody being various shades of rear end in a top hat. This is Civ. Everyone's some shade of rear end in a top hat.
|
|
#
?
Jun 17, 2016 16:34
|
|
|
Well yeah, but I'm hoping they're easier to deal with than everybody being a different shade of the same general "I covet your lands even though you're not even close to me, also I know we both hate the huns but if you kill them I'm going to gouge you on trade deals for the rest of the game"
|
|
#
?
Jun 17, 2016 16:51
|
|
|
Cythereal posted:This is Civ. Everyone's some shade of rear end in a top hat. Ehh, that was Civ5. Civ4 you could actually be buddies with civs, and they'd do stuff like vote for you for diplo victory. I mean, they might still do annoying things like send a settler to take that 1 open tile your culture hadn't fully taken over yet, but that's just the AI being  .
|
|
#
?
Jun 17, 2016 16:59
|
|
|
Admittedly, you could actually be friends in civ5 once you knew the gimmicks, it just wasn't intuitive or stable.
|
|
#
?
Jun 17, 2016 17:05
|
|
|
MMM Whatchya Say posted:Well yeah, but I'm hoping they're easier to deal with than everybody being a different shade of the same general "I covet your lands even though you're not even close to me, also I know we both hate the huns but if you kill them I'm going to gouge you on trade deals for the rest of the game" Hopefully having the AI less focused on playing to win will cut down on that stuff.
|
|
#
?
Jun 17, 2016 17:08
|
|
|
I don't mind the antagonistic AI, my main problem is that the main vector of antagonism for most of the game is war. I would love it if there were mechanics that facilitated trade or cultural "wars" for example. e: I mean, you have great musicians and missionaries, but the only way to defend against them effectively is war, so...
|
|
#
?
Jun 17, 2016 17:10
|
|
|
Some limited conflict where you couldn't take cities but could pillage and block tiles would be interesting. Sometimes I'm not interested in capturing lands, just slowing things down or removing pesky units. Maybe even have some way to attack cultural boundaries without taking cities, letting you ninja a city in close to snatch resources.
|
|
#
?
Jun 17, 2016 17:23
|
|
|
MMM Whatchya Say posted:Admittedly, you could actually be friends in civ5 once you knew the gimmicks, it just wasn't intuitive or stable. Also, this was added post-launch--it was literally impossible to actually be friends at first. The AI personalities only included reasons for the AI to be pissed at you, there were never any reasons for the AI to like you.
|
|
#
?
Jun 17, 2016 17:38
|
|
|
Gabriel Pope posted:Also, this was added post-launch--it was literally impossible to actually be friends at first. The AI personalities only included reasons for the AI to be pissed at you, there were never any reasons for the AI to like you. I think a good example of the way diplomacy works is to look at the world congress. There's a some resolutions to pass for world fairs and stuff like that, but the majority of the options are banning luxuries or embargoing other civs, so the world congress usually becomes a very negative function.
|
|
#
?
Jun 17, 2016 18:04
|
|
|
Chronojam posted:Some limited conflict where you couldn't take cities but could pillage and block tiles would be interesting. Sometimes I'm not interested in capturing lands, just slowing things down or removing pesky units. Maybe even have some way to attack cultural boundaries without taking cities, letting you ninja a city in close to snatch resources. There have been some comments from the developers that hint at something like this, I believe one of the comments was "there will be more than one way to do combat". However that could have been in reference to the new "siege" mechanics.
|
|
#
?
Jun 17, 2016 18:05
|
|
|
MMM Whatchya Say posted:I think a good example of the way diplomacy works is to look at the world congress. There's a some resolutions to pass for world fairs and stuff like that, but the majority of the options are banning luxuries or embargoing other civs, so the world congress usually becomes a very negative function. It doesn't help that the world congress is just about who buys the most city states and dictates everything. Really looking forward to seeing that changed in Civ6. Hopefully it'll be less Greece, Greece and Greece all the time.
|
|
#
?
Jun 17, 2016 22:02
|
|
|
Poil posted:The AI absolutely loves to ban luxuries. All luxuries. Forever. Yep. And when playing without city states is funny because nothing ever passes, except world fairs and such
|
|
#
?
Jun 17, 2016 22:06
|
|
|
Chronojam posted:Some limited conflict where you couldn't take cities but could pillage and block tiles would be interesting. Sometimes I'm not interested in capturing lands, just slowing things down or removing pesky units. Maybe even have some way to attack cultural boundaries without taking cities, letting you ninja a city in close to snatch resources. Even if there's nothing else, the new district system will help with making raiding/pillaging wars more impactful, since you can now get to burn down so many more buildings. Riding in, burning down their library/university and taking off with a bunch of looted science will be fun as hell.
|
|
#
?
Jun 18, 2016 17:54
|
|
|
Gully Foyle posted:Even if there's nothing else, the new district system will help with making raiding/pillaging wars more impactful, since you can now get to burn down so many more buildings. Riding in, burning down their library/university and taking off with a bunch of looted science will be fun as hell. At the same token, it's probably not as onerous to repair a pillaged district since Workers looks to able to build them instantly so it's probably a matter of getting a worker to that spot unmolested and repairing it.
|
|
#
?
Jun 18, 2016 18:32
|
|
|
Xelkelvos posted:At the same token, it's probably not as onerous to repair a pillaged district since Workers looks to able to build them instantly so it's probably a matter of getting a worker to that spot unmolested and repairing it. Districts do take time to build. They are built in the city menu as if they were buildings. I don't think we know yet if a builder can repair a pillaged building or if you need to build it from the city menu all over again.
|
|
#
?
Jun 18, 2016 18:40
|
|
|
Gully Foyle posted:Even if there's nothing else, the new district system will help with making raiding/pillaging wars more impactful, since you can now get to burn down so many more buildings. Riding in, burning down their library/university and taking off with a bunch of looted science will be fun as hell. Well, officially hyped for the game now. The implications for pillaging science / culture / food are huge. It means warmongers can be small, teched up and vicious instead of huge, sprawling and dumb. Hopefully.
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2016 09:16
|
|
|
I also like the idea that districts mean one has to be more tactical in building a wall around your most precious districts instead of turtling in the city itself.
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2016 11:58
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 14, 2024 01:09 |
|
|
I've stopped wanting to play Civ5 because some of the clunky mechanics look like they're going to be a lot better in Civ6. I can't loving wait for automatic road building.
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2016 14:37
|
|
