|
Hamlet442 posted: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. That came up in my last game - I was using the CBP, and Alexander asked me to declare war on the Soiux. As I was playing a military game anyways, I agreed. And because it was in the Medieval era, I looked at the score for the offer - Alex was making a request that amounted to over 300,000. So I demanded everything from him I could get, including his vassalization. He agreed. And a couple dozen turns later (due to needing to get my forces into place), the Soiux had lost their capital and were my second Vassal. Now, of only vassalization only did anything for diplomacy, instead of just taxing them and extracting demands. Alex got 25% tax rate, while the Soiux get 0% because one wasn't a douchbag.
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2016 19:47
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 14, 2024 12:38 |
|
|
Hamlet442 posted: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. Yeah, it's well-established that diplomacy in Civ5 is completely broken. In Civ4, you got positive AI modifiers from people who didn't like the civ you declared on, and negative from allies of the civ you declared on, regardless of how the war went. Successfully persecuting wars mostly meant a) less war weariness in your cities (citizens don't like losing); b) getting to steal/raze cities from the enemy, and c) the enemy getting increasingly desperate to vassal themselves to someone else. Note how only that last one has any remotely diplomatic consequence.
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2016 19:48
|
|
|
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. Understandable, but I'd like to see the mechanic implemented in such a way that these aren't problems. I don't know exactly where I'd start because I haven't thought about it much, but it would be nice if you could agree with an ally, in advance, what you were going to take - akin to the secret protocol buried in the Molotov–Ribbentrop Pact prior to WWII. I wouldn't expect it to be easy though - the AI would have to be able to make a strategic judgement that is probably far beyond its abilities. I'd love to see an attempt, some kind of simple implementation based on the value of cities (in terms of what they contain and what resources they have access to) and their locations (the AI would want cities it could incorporate into its own empire, and not isolated cities). And if the AI takes a city you wanted in the course of the war, or vice versa, they transfer it to you. Of all the things I want from Civ though that's pretty low on the list. I normally do my wars by myself anyway
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2016 19:53
|
|
|
I have some vain hopes that the casus belli system will mean you know exactly how much you can bite off without enraging world opinion.
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2016 20:04
|
|
|
Gort posted:I have some vain hopes that the casus belli system will mean you know exactly how much you can bite off without enraging world opinion. It's so much simpler, and I suspect a lot more fun, for the AIs to just arrange in 2-4 blocs that all hate the other blocs and want to see every civ in them ground into the dirt. Then you just pick a bloc and kill that bloc's enemies, because nobody you care about cares about what you're doing. Having to carefully arrange casus belli for specific sub-portions of an enemy civ, or else be branded a warmonger, just doesn't seem like a good time to me.
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2016 20:17
|
|
|
TooMuchAbstraction posted:Having to carefully arrange casus belli for specific sub-portions of an enemy civ, or else be branded a warmonger, just doesn't seem like a good time to me. I think 'capture enemy city that shares a border with me, but not other cities of the same player' would be something to look into. A way to work against forward-settling if you will.
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2016 20:22
|
|
|
TooMuchAbstraction posted:It's so much simpler, and I suspect a lot more fun, for the AIs to just arrange in 2-4 blocs that all hate the other blocs and want to see every civ in them ground into the dirt. Then you just pick a bloc and kill that bloc's enemies, because nobody you care about cares about what you're doing. The trouble with blocs is that at the end of the day, Civilisation is a game with a single winner. It makes perfect sense for players in that game to hate on the most powerful opponent, since they're closest to causing them to lose. Where it gets dumb is when they have an arbitrary "This person conquered cities" hate-modifier rather than a more specific "This person is going to make me lose" hate-modifier. It shouldn't matter how you got close to winning, the other Civs should be trying to stop you even if all you did was build four cities and wait for your spaceship to complete. If you want it to be a cold-war style game of alliances and blocs, you first need to implement some kind of allied victory.
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2016 20:42
|
|
|
Gort posted:If you want it to be a cold-war style game of alliances and blocs, you first need to implement some kind of allied victory. Agreed. It would be cool to have players sorted into three teams once Ideology comes around, and force the top three players to choose different ideologies. Then there could maybe be a world war to spice things up in the late game.
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2016 20:50
|
|
|
Gort posted:The trouble with blocs is that at the end of the day, Civilisation is a game with a single winner. It makes perfect sense for players in that game to hate on the most powerful opponent... It sounds like you're promoting the idea of AI civs as "players out to win" rather than as role-players out to provide an interesting obstacle/"terrain" for the human player(s) to fight over. In which case, yes, basing diplomatic opinions on how powerful someone is makes sense. But I personally feel that the "players out to win" design goal guarantees that the diplomacy game is much less interesting, because of that bias towards hating powerful civs. Since the game is about becoming powerful, it de facto also becomes about becoming hated, which means that the diplomacy game is a lot more shallow. "What does it matter if Persia is getting a little peeved at me? Darius is going to be a lot peeved at me when I finish my current war with Japan, even though he hates Japan as much as I do. So there's no point in currying favor with him to turn this relationship around." Shared victory is fine, but even without that you should be able to have civs that are friendly or ambivalent towards you even when you're on the cusp of achieving a domination victory. Like, in Civ4 you could own half the planet, and the other civs in your bloc might still vote for you for world leader (diplo victory) if you played your cards right. Did it benefit them as players? Of course not, they were actively helping themselves to lose (in the "not winning" sense of "lose"). But as role-players it made sense: they felt that you'd be the best possible world leader. Even if they'd rather have the job themselves, they knew that wasn't likely, so they voted for you instead. After all, better you than that rear end in a top hat in the other bloc.
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2016 20:54
|
|
|
Edit: didn't mean to post this, cat maybe
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2016 20:56
|
|
|
TooMuchAbstraction posted:It sounds like you're promoting the idea of AI civs as "players out to win" rather than as role-players out to provide an interesting obstacle/"terrain" for the human player(s) to fight over. In which case, yes, basing diplomatic opinions on how powerful someone is makes sense. But I personally feel that the "players out to win" design goal guarantees that the diplomacy game is much less interesting, because of that bias towards hating powerful civs. Since the game is about becoming powerful, it de facto also becomes about becoming hated, which means that the diplomacy game is a lot more shallow. I always thought it might be interesting to depart from the "win the game at the end" formula of the Civ games. Have each era have objectives, like the shared projects (World's Fair, International Space Station, etc), and you get stars for completing each one, maybe fewer stars for being second in a category. So in the ancient era the objective might be to build the most wonders, or have the largest population. In the renaissance era there might be a reward for conquering the most cities not on your starting continent. The space race becomes an objective, but not one that ends the game. Spreading your ideology might be an objective. The game then becomes about more than just crushing the other civs or being impossible for them to crush while you cruise to a peaceful victory.
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2016 21:23
|
|
|
Gort posted:The trouble with blocs is that at the end of the day, Civilisation is a game with a single winner. I think it's possible to have blocs even in a winner-takes-all game... it would depend on how its implemented, but I can think of a few games where it pays off to ally with another player and co-operate in conflict and trade to get ahead of the other players (or maintain parity with an opposing bloc). A backstab is inevitable of course, but that only serves to make it even more interesting... backstab too early and opposing blocs might sneak ahead of take advantage of the fallout, backstab too late and you might find the backstab has already happened and it was your back that was stabbed
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2016 21:32
|
|
|
Gort posted:"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. This was the fundamental flaw that sunk CIV for me after BNW. It was exacerbated by the AI being allowed to be as wide as it wants on high difficulties and makes every game play out the same, which wasn't a problem before they stamped out ICS as a viable stategy. There should be a trade off between rushing out extra cities and balancing empire resources, but forcing you to play 3-4 city tall instead of adapting to your environment killed my enjoyment of a game that is meant to be different every time. There were already a lot of advantages built into the core game that benefit tall play, from Golden Ages rewarding happier empires to National Wonders, but you can only take these things so far until you effectively eliminate all variety in playstyles.
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2016 21:32
|
|
|
Flagrant Abuse posted:Clearly the solution is to play as Armenia. One of the most fun games I've ever played was where I secured a good Desert Folklore start before my neighbour founded the first religion. Using my massive faith (sustained by my outlying cities) to earn several Mamikonians, I conquered my neighbour in time to enhance the religion. Then I took over the world. This is Fister Roboto posted:Who says the Egyptian leader has to be from the classical era? How about Shajar al-Durr, the first sultana of Mamluk Egypt? You're amazing. I think you should be the SA Forums' Unique Leader.
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2016 23:09
|
|
|
My fave civ 5 game was when the Byzantines became a auora worshipping, circumpolar (both ofc), cultural powerhouse. All that stained glass and pretty lights inspired like half the great works of the world. And it all started when I kept getting garbage starts and when I ended up in Antarctica after the sixth try I was like gently caress this, WE'RE DOING IT
|
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2016 03:34
|
|
|
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cY44PrLpKTQ hey it's time to say hello to Victoria
|
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2016 15:01
|
|
|
ElNarez posted:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cY44PrLpKTQ Huh. This is the first time in the entire main series that Elizabeth will be sitting out a game. Guess she's earned a break.
|
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2016 15:06
|
|
|
ElNarez posted:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cY44PrLpKTQ Sounds like Vicky would be an absolute monster on archipelago/small continents maps.
|
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2016 15:07
|
|
|
Huh, once more we see a civ with a leader different than last game. Really makes you think.
|
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2016 15:10
|
|
|
Can't get Youtube, what're her abilities?
|
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2016 15:31
|
|
|
StashAugustine posted:Can't get Youtube, what're her abilities? A buff to archaeology by British Museum, the unit Sea Dogs which can 'bully weaker naval units and capture enemy ships', Redcoats which fight better off their capital's continent and can disembark for no movement, and the district Royal Navy Dockyards which gives bonus movement for ships built there, bonus gold from dockyards on other continents, and Great Admiral points.
|
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2016 15:36
|
|
|
Victoria is still a prior leader, though. Theodore and Tokimune are the only series newbies so far. It does rekindle hope to people wanting a change from Gandhi. Maybe Asoka will return from IV. It'll be interesting to see who helms Spain in light of this; Philip II's technically been their only other ruler in the main series. StashAugustine posted:Can't get Youtube, what're her abilities? UA- British Museum - Archaeological Museums have extra Artifact slots, and each Museum gives more Archaeologists. UU- Sea Dog - can capture enemy ships UU- Redcoat - stronger when fighting on a continent other than the capital city's continent, and can disembark without using a movement point Unique District - Royal Navy Dockyard - bonus movement for naval units built there, bonus gold for Dockyards on other continents, and Great Admiral points. Hogama fucked around with this message at 15:39 on Jun 28, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2016 15:37
|
|
|
StashAugustine posted:Can't get Youtube, what're her abilities? Museums have more artifact slots and create more archaeologists (which implies to me that you get a set number of archaeologists per museum or something). Unique harbor district gives bonus movement to units built in it and extra gold for harbor districts on other continents. Redcoat rifle unit has extra strength on separate continents from the capital and doesn't use movement to disembark. Seadog ship unit can capture other ships (and can "bully" other units, not clear what that means).
|
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2016 15:38
|
|
|
StashAugustine posted:Can't get Youtube, what're her abilities? Sea Dogs, good at loving you up at sea Royal Navy Dockyard that is good at making things to gently caress you up at sea Redcoats, good at loving you up on your continent after loving you up at sea and they have a special ability called British Museum, which allows them to make more archeologists that take more stuff from you continent after they hosed you up
|
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2016 15:38
|
|
|
MMM Whatchya Say posted:Huh, once more we see a civ with a leader different than last game. Really makes you think. Yeah at this point I think it's safe to assume they're going to avoid ALL of the usual leaders, with the sole possible exception of Gandhi because of the "Our words are backed with NUCLEAR WEAPONS!" meme/tradition. In my personal opinion this is a dumb and bad thing to do, but it doesn't matter and if the game is good I'll buy it and play the hell out of it anyway.
|
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2016 15:38
|
|
|
I'm feeling really bold and hoping they go all the way and don't even include Gandhi, a guy that was never the ruler of India. People would probably be upset if they did that I guess though? E: Eric the Mauve posted:In my personal opinion this is a dumb and bad thing to do Why?
|
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2016 15:40
|
|
|
Just make their leader Indira Gandhi e: it'd even make the nuke thing make sense!
|
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2016 15:41
|
|
|
Indira Gandhi would probably make for a decent leader is she wasn't so recent E: specifically the recency makes all the bad poo poo that happened at the end of her reign harder to ignore, as opposed to historic warmongers Jump King fucked around with this message at 15:48 on Jun 28, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2016 15:46
|
|
|
MMM Whatchya Say posted:Indira Gandhi would probably make for a decent leader is she wasn't so recent Well, she was India's alternate leader back in 2.
|
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2016 15:56
|
|
|
That was before they started trying to be tasteful. Actually, the bigger problem for Indira is that they're making unique traits based on the era the leader lived in. They're probably going to go with somebody from the Mughal empire or something like that to get fun stuff like war elephants, super canons, and funky rocketry stuff.
|
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2016 16:12
|
|
|
What about a Mughal leader? Would that just piss off too many Hindu's? There's also the fact that they aren't that well known I guess, the only one I can think of is Shah Jahan.
|
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2016 16:19
|
|
|
Shah Jahan is good as a cultural leader and builder. Akbar would also work as an economic and military power if they wanted to go down that route E: gently caress it split the difference and have Nur Jahan while Jahangir does opium in the background Jump King fucked around with this message at 16:43 on Jun 28, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2016 16:28
|
|
|
MMM Whatchya Say posted:That was before they started trying to be tasteful. A war-like Indian leader would be a really cool way to turn the usual Civilization trope on its head.
|
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2016 16:36
|
|
|
Unfortunately, one Firaxis dev already referred to Gandhi in an interview, so I suspect we're stuck with him.
|
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2016 16:39
|
|
|
quote:Where it gets dumb is when they have an arbitrary "This person conquered cities" hate-modifier rather than a more specific "This person is going to make me lose" hate-modifier. It shouldn't matter how you got close to winning, the other Civs should be trying to stop you even if all you did was build four cities and wait for your spaceship to complete. Civ 5 had that 'you're trying to win/trying to win the same as me' modifier. People DESPISED it(Mostly because it triggered even in the Ancient Age), so they removed it.
|
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2016 16:49
|
|
|
Does Victoria look really weird to anyone else? Edit: Looked online, she looked really weird
|
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2016 17:28
|
|
|
I'd love to see a challenge mode where you play as one of the worst leaders from a civilization. England as Richard II. Rome as Caligula. Spain as Charles II. America as Herbert Hoover. etc.
|
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2016 17:45
|
|
|
Gort posted:Does Victoria look really weird to anyone else? Everyone Looks Really Weird is the art direction for this game
|
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2016 17:53
|
|
|
Eric the Mauve posted:Everyone Looks Really Weird is the art direction for this game Yeah it's a cartoony game, the leaders are going to be caricatures of their real personas.
|
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2016 17:56
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 14, 2024 12:38 |
|
|
Peas and Rice posted:I'd love to see a challenge mode where you play as one of the worst leaders from a civilization. How would you make this fun, though? I mean, you can easily make a civ where their "special abilities" are that they're worse at various things than normal, but is that really going to make the game more fun?
|
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2016 17:57
|
|