|
Clarste posted:Uh... you do realize you can declare peace with any City State at any time, right? I mean, you have to end the war with their ally first, but that doesn't seem to be what you're complaining about. Yes it is.
|
#
?
Jun 25, 2016 09:08
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 13, 2024 21:40 |
|
|
Borsche69 posted:What the gently caress? No it wasn't. Yes, it was. Did you think the Civ series reputation of only being good after two expansions was based on a single game?
|
|
#
?
Jun 25, 2016 09:10
|
|
|
Yes? It was? SMAC and Civ3 had reputations of being solid, and were arguably weakened by their expansions. Civ4 was also solid beyond some early bugginess, it didn't need two entire expansions to be deemed playable.
|
|
#
?
Jun 25, 2016 10:05
|
|
|
How about a cap of one city per continent may build a canal? This is to reflect the rarity and strategic importance of canals. Gives trade bonus to all trade that goes through it with a cut to the owner naturally.
|
|
#
?
Jun 25, 2016 10:33
|
|
|
Just make moving into a canal take all of a ship's movement for a turn (stuck in the locks, even on 'flat' land). That will make long canals possible, but only worth it for really important ship movements, and also a great source of traffic jams, just like real life.
|
|
#
?
Jun 25, 2016 13:01
|
|
|
Nah dont restrict them just make the costs multiplacative if you keep stringing them along. They should allow you to do whatever you want, just charge you for it instead of instating arbitrary rules.
|
|
#
?
Jun 25, 2016 16:46
|
|
|
Away all Goats posted:Now they just need to announce a canal tile improvement and I can stop taking forever to settle cities. That's what the harbor district is for. Just like the military district builds land units, the hatch would build sea units and probably allow for sea connections
|
|
#
?
Jun 25, 2016 17:15
|
|
|
Phobophilia posted:Yes? It was? Are you kidding? Civ 3 was absolutely savaged by every Civ community on the net when it was released and it took both expansions before Civ 2 fans started grudgingly half-accepting it. Civ 4 definitely did not get panned at release the way 3 and 5 did, but a big part of that was probably how unpopular 3 was.
|
|
#
?
Jun 25, 2016 20:57
|
|
|
Civ3's reputation was that it had some neat ideas but they were poorly implemented and it basically sucked until they made the ideas actually work in civ4. There's some people that are staunch civ3 supporters, but they're basically contrarian weirdos.
|
|
#
?
Jun 25, 2016 22:11
|
|
|
Yeah, I got started on Civ3, and I love it dearly, and it was super nostalgic to see it flash by in that trailer... but it was kinda bad compared to Civ4, which did what Civ3 was trying to do better in basically every way. Civ5 needed a couple expansions. Civ3 needed a sequel. Which may have been why Civ4 was pretty okay on release. Hopefully the same pattern holds for Civ6 and it's good to start with thanks to the lessons of Civ5.
|
|
#
?
Jun 25, 2016 22:57
|
|
|
I think the idea with civ 6 is that it's going to be to civ 5 what civ 4 was to civ 3 what a sentence
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2016 05:12
|
|
|
MMM Whatchya Say posted:I think the idea with civ 6 is that it's going to be to civ 5 what civ 4 was to civ 3 i can't wait for when seven eats nine
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2016 05:14
|
|
|
Making empires break apart is just a fail state for human players and is easily avoided with any skill in the mods that include it. I think catering to the roleplayers is just a bad idea.
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2016 05:20
|
|
|
Panzeh posted:Making empires break apart is just a fail state for human players and is easily avoided with any skill in the mods that include it. Yeah paradox is for roleplayers; civ is for board gamers
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2016 12:43
|
|
|
It's true, Civ is not primarily a simulation game, but it kind of markets itself as one.
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2016 14:03
|
|
|
exmachina posted:Yeah paradox is for roleplayers; civ is for board gamers Which is weird since to me EU4 is a better 'competitive' game than Civ 5
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2016 14:07
|
|
|
exmachina posted:Yeah paradox is for roleplayers; civ is for board gamers And paradox players still pitch a screaming fit if anything derails their map-painting, so i don't think most people actually want 'roleplaying'.
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2016 14:54
|
|
|
MMM Whatchya Say posted:It's true, Civ is not primarily a simulation game, but it kind of markets itself as one. I mean, it's historically themed and since almost everyone who tries to make this sort of game goes with a sci-fi/fantasy theme it's easy to associate the historical theme with marketing as a simulation. StashAugustine posted:Which is weird since to me EU4 is a better 'competitive' game than Civ 5 That's more because civ5 just isn't very good as a game played by humans. To be fair, competitive civ is really off-putting to people because it's a very cut-throat, early war focused game since that's the most profitable way to win a civ game.
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2016 14:54
|
|
|
The roleplaying allure of Civ is that you get to make your own history in a fictional world, rather than your own history playing off of actual history in our actual world. I myself am at least partly in it for the roleplaying, which is why I hate Civ 5 diplomacy so much.
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2016 16:02
|
|
|
Panzeh posted:Making empires break apart is just a fail state for human players and is easily avoided with any skill in the mods that include it. Good to inflict on your enemies though, fucks me up real bad and maybe helps you finish em off or make friends with the other half.
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2016 16:20
|
|
|
Panzeh posted:That's more because civ5 just isn't very good as a game played by humans. To be fair, competitive civ is really off-putting to people because it's a very cut-throat, early war focused game since that's the most profitable way to win a civ game. Which again kinda sucks since if you're playing it the right way you end up missing half the game and eliminating players left and right.
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2016 16:29
|
|
|
I like the roleplaying things like Theodora's Sacred Sites. Going on church-building sprees in every city while Greek fire-slinging dromons guard the coasts feels perfectly Byzantine.
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2016 16:57
|
|
|
MMM Whatchya Say posted:It's true, Civ is not primarily a simulation game, but it kind of markets itself as one. Calling Civ an empire simulator is like calling Star Fox a flight simulator.
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2016 17:10
|
|
|
Panzeh posted:Making empires break apart is just a fail state for human players and is easily avoided with any skill in the mods that include it. I wonder though if players recognizing the empire breaking apart as a fail state isn't the point of using it as a game mechanic? If empire cohesion is used as the counter to ICS and players adjust their strategies accordingly, then it will have been effective even if players are able to avoid their empires breaking apart. It also throws a bone to the roleplayer faction (who are certainly not the majority but probably a decent subset) and is certainly more lore friendly than your entire empire being unhappy about that new territory you claimed and refusing to work until you get them more marble.
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2016 19:23
|
|
|
CalvinandHobbes posted:I wonder though if players recognizing the empire breaking apart as a fail state isn't the point of using it as a game mechanic? If empire cohesion is used as the counter to ICS and players adjust their strategies accordingly, then it will have been effective even if players are able to avoid their empires breaking apart. It also throws a bone to the roleplayer faction (who are certainly not the majority but probably a decent subset) and is certainly more lore friendly than your entire empire being unhappy about that new territory you claimed and refusing to work until you get them more marble. Also, in a more nuanced game breakaways might not be an entirely bad thing. This probably won't happen in Civ since at its core it's a very basic 4X with relatively straightforward ideas about power and control. But in you could conceivably have, for example, a system where amicably letting colonies go gives you an extra-close ally or even satellite state that lets you get some of the benefits of that territory (via favorable trade and diplomacy) without the overhead of administering and defending it yourself, making it strategically viable to allow and even plan for some territories to split off.
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2016 19:56
|
|
|
CalvinandHobbes posted:I wonder though if players recognizing the empire breaking apart as a fail state isn't the point of using it as a game mechanic? If empire cohesion is used as the counter to ICS and players adjust their strategies accordingly, then it will have been effective even if players are able to avoid their empires breaking apart. It also throws a bone to the roleplayer faction (who are certainly not the majority but probably a decent subset) and is certainly more lore friendly than your entire empire being unhappy about that new territory you claimed and refusing to work until you get them more marble. It seems like a bizarre way to counter ICS and an overly complicated system that adds nothing if that's the point of it. The happiness penalty for ICS is a problem with global happiness as a mechanic more than anything else. Gabriel Pope posted:Also, in a more nuanced game breakaways might not be an entirely bad thing. This probably won't happen in Civ since at its core it's a very basic 4X with relatively straightforward ideas about power and control. But in you could conceivably have, for example, a system where amicably letting colonies go gives you an extra-close ally or even satellite state that lets you get some of the benefits of that territory (via favorable trade and diplomacy) without the overhead of administering and defending it yourself, making it strategically viable to allow and even plan for some territories to split off. Civ really isn't that kind of game at all and it would never really be optimal against micromanagement in a normal 4x. If the late game slogs are to a point where you want to make puppets to deal with it, the solution is cutting down the level of management, not adding some weird automation to make it work.
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2016 01:32
|
|
|
Panzeh posted:Civ really isn't that kind of game at all and it would never really be optimal against micromanagement in a normal 4x. If the late game slogs are to a point where you want to make puppets to deal with it, the solution is cutting down the level of management, not adding some weird automation to make it work. By "overhead" I'm referring to mechanical in-game costs of owning/developing/maintaining territory, not the time spent as a player doing micro.
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2016 01:59
|
|
|
Gabriel Pope posted:By "overhead" I'm referring to mechanical in-game costs of owning/developing/maintaining territory, not the time spent as a player doing micro. That is, de-facto, punishing the player for expanding. Good job.
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2016 03:32
|
|
|
Aerdan posted:That is, de-facto, punishing the player for expanding. Good job. Not really, since 1) the idea that you have to pay costs in order to gain benefits is not "punishing" the player for anything and 2) a system where founding colonies and letting some of them spin off is ultimately beneficial for you is by definition beneficial and explicitly rewards expanding--just in a different and less snowball-y way than your basic 4X. Getting off topic though, since as I noted I don't think it's a realistic direction for Civ to take.
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2016 03:45
|
|
|
Aerdan posted:That is, de-facto, punishing the player for expanding. Good job.
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2016 03:51
|
|
|
I've always been fond of having the option to relinquish control of things to the AI. In the early game, or playing on a high difficulty level, you'd want total control because every action at that point is crucial. But once you've gotten big and dominant, you don't really need the finesse that micromanagement grants. e: Like holy poo poo, warfare in civ 5 would be immensely less tedious for me if i could just give control of my units to the computer and give it general orders like "take that city". I know the AI is awful at its own game, but sometimes I'd prefer a few terrible decisions over having to control all of my units manually. Fister Roboto fucked around with this message at 05:48 on Jun 27, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2016 05:44
|
|
|
There seems to be a general consensus that vassal states and the like should be included and I really hope they bring that back.
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2016 05:49
|
|
|
Ghostlight posted:Correct. This is something both IV and V already do because the alternative is Infinite City Sprawl. There are ways to make ICS less efficient without making convoluted things that require you to give away parts of your empire to AIs. I mean, what's proposed for colonies is literally a "create vassal" button. Honestly, though, there are ways one could make it so you could have an empire sprawl without making it a management mess which would have beneficial effects on the game, too. Something akin to "minor cities" which provide benefits but don't have the a seperate city management menu, but they still expand your territory and such. This would allow empires to have some buffer zones to fight over that don't necessarily wreck each other. In this case, allowing expansion wouldn't introduce a huge amount of micromanagement and would allow more of a gentle civ4 style solution to ICS, which was basically a penalty that lifted as the game went on. Most of the civ5 design decisions legislating out tons of cities were designed with the late game hell of civ4 in mind, but they struck me as approaching it the wrong way. Instead of making late game management easier by changing the nature of the way cities worked, they just legislated it out in the game mechanics.
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2016 11:17
|
|
|
"Soft cap on number of cities that gradually rises" is definitely the way to deal with ICS. Civ 5 hosed up by having too few points where your ideal number of cities rose - it was basically 4 cities at the start then infinite when ideologies showed up.
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2016 12:33
|
|
|
You should be able to create huge, bloated Empires that suffer in a lot of ways but get benefits from it too. In Civ 3 you could really go mad with conscription but then that game relied massively on massive stacks. It should be an option though, even if you have to take your policies down darker paths to allow it.
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2016 12:57
|
|
|
Jastiger posted:There seems to be a general consensus that vassal states and the like should be included and I really hope they bring that back. I really hope that they bring them back too. I liked how much it changed up politics and warfare to force a country to capitulate and become a vassal, then you have an ally. Although, I've found that generally Vassals and AI suck at war. I hate going to war with an AI ally since it seems like they never contribute to the war effort. It's usually my forces that end up taking cities and they show up at the very end or not at all. But that could just be the AI sucking at fighting.
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2016 16:41
|
|
|
Hamlet442 posted:I really hope that they bring them back too. I liked how much it changed up politics and warfare to force a country to capitulate and become a vassal, then you have an ally. Although, I've found that generally Vassals and AI suck at war. I hate going to war with an AI ally since it seems like they never contribute to the war effort. It's usually my forces that end up taking cities and they show up at the very end or not at all. But that could just be the AI sucking at fighting. Having a million city-states on your side in Civ5 when you declare war does serve as a distraction to the AI forces, though. I mean, there'll still be a million units to chew through, but it seems to me (completely unscientifically) that invading goes a bit more smoothly when you have allies on your side than when you don't. The AI is also more willing to ask for peace in such situations vs. when it's just you vs. them with no city-states involved. In an ideal world it'd also be significant that the AI isn't getting any friendship bonuses from those city-states, but in practice the way their economies are implemented I doubt it matters.
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2016 16:56
|
|
|
Luckily it looks like Civ 6 will allow players to take control of their city-state allies' armies in war time, so you won't have to rely on lovely combat AI (at least not for city-states, anyway). I think if you go to war with another Civ as an ally then there needs to be some sort of mechanic to ensure they pull their weight, or get rightly shat on diplomatically for not doing so.
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2016 18:54
|
|
|
JeremoudCorbynejad posted:I think if you go to war with another Civ as an ally then there needs to be some sort of mechanic to ensure they pull their weight, or get rightly shat on diplomatically for not doing so. I disagree. Asking civs to join you in warfare should be largely symbolic unless they spot an opportunity. I don't want to have to race my ally for who gets to conquer the enemy's capital, but I don't mind if they nibble up a few border cities that are left undefended because the enemy's main force is fighting my armies.
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2016 19:00
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 13, 2024 21:40 |
|
|
TooMuchAbstraction posted:I disagree. Asking civs to join you in warfare should be largely symbolic unless they spot an opportunity. I don't want to have to race my ally for who gets to conquer the enemy's capital, but I don't mind if they nibble up a few border cities that are left undefended because the enemy's main force is fighting my armies. Then it should work the other way around for the AI. One of the more annoying things in Civ 5 is an ally asking you to declare war on another civilization but they don't even bother to show up for the war, so you end up capturing everything and get the warmongering penalty for a war they started. Then that penalty stays for centuries and then they denounce you and declare war on you for being a warmonger.  Edit: I just picked up Hearts of Iron 4 and it has an interesting mechanic to war and allies. The game calculates how much effort your faction placed toward the conflict and that gives you points toward demands while suing for peace. So if you contributed nothing, you don't get to ask for much when the peace conference comes up. But if you did most of the damage and contributed the most in the war, you get to make the most demands. Hamlet442 fucked around with this message at 19:24 on Jun 27, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2016 19:15
|
|