|
I think Victoria looks the least weird of the three we've seen actually.Cythereal posted:Unfortunately, one Firaxis dev already referred to Gandhi in an interview, so I suspect we're stuck with him. Can you link this? All the interviews I've seen have had some very careful wording about unconfirmed things like Gandhi.
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2016 17:57
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 14, 2024 14:20 |
|
|
toasterwarrior posted:A war-like Indian leader would be a really cool way to turn the usual Civilization trope on its head.
|
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2016 18:01
|
|
|
TooMuchAbstraction posted: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? I suppose it would be fun in the same way intentionally nerfing yourself to provide a greater challenge is fun - something you'd do only when you were bored with the regular game. Kinda like the one-city challenge, but instead it's a bad-leader challenge.
|
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2016 18:19
|
|
|
TooMuchAbstraction posted: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? "X civ is good at everything but Y" is arguably a more interesting approach to civ design than "X civ is good at Y." I think giving well-rounded bonuses with obvious holes is the best approach, but mechanically the effect is pretty much the same except that balancing around penalties is vastly easier since there are fewer moving parts. Psychologically, most players are whiny babies but you might be able to get away with it by keeping the tone deliberately lighthearted with a cast of known fuckups.
|
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2016 18:46
|
|
|
Depends on the kind of penalty, though. Both India and Venice have penalties in Civ V, but they don't become apparent if you stick to Tall. These are the interesting kind of penalties that you have to adjust your strategy to work around them. Penalties like -25% gold because the leader loved extravagant orgies would be terrible.
|
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2016 21:01
|
|
|
Sounds like England feels more "British" than "English". Why can't they just call it Britain? They don't want to preempt a Celtic civ?
|
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2016 21:49
|
|
|
Echo Chamber posted:Sounds like England feels more "British" than "English". Why can't they just call it Britain? They don't want to preempt a Celtic civ? The Japanese leader for this game predates Japan as a nation. You can't take their choices literally.
|
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2016 21:55
|
|
|
It's always been England in Civ, even when though it obviously covers Great Britain/ the British Empire as well.
|
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2016 22:01
|
|
|
RagnarokAngel posted:The Japanese leader for this game predates Japan as a nation. You can't take their choices literally.
|
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2016 22:01
|
|
|
Echo Chamber posted:Sounds like England feels more "British" than "English". Why can't they just call it Britain? They don't want to preempt a Celtic civ? Ask the Scottish what they think of Victoria.  quote:Depends on the kind of penalty, though. Both India and Venice have penalties in Civ V, but they don't become apparent if you stick to Tall. These are the interesting kind of penalties that you have to adjust your strategy to work around them. Penalties like -25% gold because the leader loved extravagant orgies would be terrible. Yeah, this was more like what I was imagining. It is more difficult to design and still make fun, although it definitely helps when you nerf one thing but increase another. It limits play styles but does make things more of an interesting challenge. Peas and Rice fucked around with this message at 22:17 on Jun 28, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2016 22:14
|
|
|
Echo Chamber posted:Sounds like England feels more "British" than "English". Why can't they just call it Britain? They don't want to preempt a Celtic civ? The Celts are a common entrant in the series, so yeah probably.
|
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2016 22:22
|
|
|
Sea dogs and rough riders! I am beginning to really like these more "cinematic" units. Also, it seems that England and America are destined to hate each other, given their uniques......
|
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2016 23:49
|
|
|
If new leaders are going to be a Thing in CiVIlization, who'll replace Montezuma for the Aztecs? Nezahualcoyotl could be interesting for a more religious rather than war-oriented civ.
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2016 00:19
|
|
|
RagnarokAngel posted:The Japanese leader for this game predates Japan as a nation. You can't take their choices literally. Uh... no? He's like 500 years after they established a centralized government. I mean, you could argue about what exactly constitutes a "nation", but the idea of a single cultural Japan was well entrenched by that point.
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2016 00:27
|
|
|
MMM Whatchya Say posted:Can you link this? All the interviews I've seen have had some very careful wording about unconfirmed things like Gandhi. I remember an interviewer asking something like "Is Gandhi still OP?" and Ed responded with "Gandhi is always OP" which doesn't necessarily confirm it, but maybe the OP is referring to a different exchange. A more tenuous confirmation might be that in the original announcement trailer there are only two images of leaders : Gandhi and Teddy, and obviously one of them is already confirmed.
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2016 01:09
|
|
|
Peas and Rice posted:I'd love to see a challenge mode where you play as one of the worst leaders from a civilization. Dan Quayle mode. MAKE IT HAPPEN, FIRAXIS.
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2016 01:31
|
|
|
Mameluke posted:If new leaders are going to be a Thing in CiVIlization, who'll replace Montezuma for the Aztecs? Nezahualcoyotl could be interesting for a more religious rather than war-oriented civ. There's two montezumas they've been switching between
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2016 01:48
|
|
|
RagnarokAngel posted:The Japanese leader for this game predates Japan as a nation. You can't take their choices literally. In your definition, so does Tokugawa and Nobunaga.
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2016 02:01
|
|
|
Overflight posted:Dan Quayle mode. MAKE IT HAPPEN, FIRAXIS. I'm modding this in on release. Everyone has to struggle against the weight of their civilization's unique collective flaws to win!  ...it probably wouldn't be much fun, actually. 
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2016 02:48
|
|
|
Peas and Rice posted:I'd love to see a challenge mode where you play as one of the worst leaders from a civilization. already have to play as the farcical teddy roosevelt
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2016 02:55
|
|
|
Combed Thunderclap posted:I'm modding this in on release. Everyone has to struggle against the weight of their civilization's unique collective flaws to win! Pope Leo X : Gold income doubled, unhappiness doubled, upkeep doubled Marshal Philippe Pétain: Random Barbarian spawns every few turns Richard II: At war with everyone at all times Caligula: Every 8 turns one of your cities loses a population, gold income locked at 0. Charles II: Food and Gold income halved; starving cities spawn barbarians Pick a Civ, try to last 100 turns. I'd play it, it'd be fun.
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2016 03:06
|
|
|
There was that Fall of Rome scenario that came with civ 5 where the Roman policy tree just unlocked worse and worse penalties. It was quite fun, in a strictly apocalyptic way.
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2016 03:24
|
|
|
Twilight Matrix posted:already have to play as the farcical teddy roosevelt
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2016 04:17
|
|
|
Overflight posted:Dan Quayle mode. MAKE IT HAPPEN, FIRAXIS. If you like Civ IV, I have a treat for you.
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2016 05:52
|
|
|
The "worst leaders" thing would make a neat Scenario, perhaps. Cuts down on the number they'd have to come up with too. ...does anyone actually play Scenarios?  I know I never did.
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2016 06:16
|
|
|
AlphaKretin posted:The "worst leaders" thing would make a neat Scenario, perhaps. Cuts down on the number they'd have to come up with too. Rhye's and Fall was a pretty good scenario in 4, if a bit unwieldy. Maybe it was technically a mod but I enjoyed the epic scale, the way it adhered to Earth history, and offered you the option to jump into newly spawned nations. There were individualized win conditions for each nation which were interesting and took the dullness out of replaying the same (Earth) world map. Revolutions could be annoying, especially some of the scripted events but on the other hand tended to keep the borders spicy and prevent stagnation. The version I played wasn't perfectly balanced and seemed to have some bugs and script trigger errors but overall I think it was the best Civ 4 scenario that still played like a normal civ game. I played a bunch of the Civ 5 scenarios but the novelty tended to wear off for me quicker than it would take to finish a typical Civ game. The achievements at least provided somewhat of a goal if you care about that sort of thing, I guess.
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2016 06:50
|
|
|
The way to curb ICS is to make new colonies a resource sink until they are established and having cities built in crappy terrain remain uneconomic. Large population centres should also grow faster than small ones as long as there's sufficient food available. IMO.
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2016 08:55
|
|
|
Ratios and Tendency posted:The way to curb ICS is to make new colonies a resource sink until they are established and having cities built in crappy terrain remain uneconomic. Large population centres should also grow faster than small ones as long as there's sufficient food available. IMO. That's how I remember it working in Civ4.
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2016 09:32
|
|
|
Ratios and Tendency posted:The way to curb ICS is to make new colonies a resource sink until they are established and having cities built in crappy terrain remain uneconomic. Large population centres should also grow faster than small ones as long as there's sufficient food available. IMO. This is literally what happens in Civ 4. New cities cost money due to maintenance and then begin making money with tile improvements and buildings (to both increase the amount of money the city makes and to reduce their maintenance). It's more crippling early on since you have less ways to mitigate the maintenance cost and make money, and then it gets better later on once you do.] I could go into meticulous detail and point out a bunch of techs and how they each help but.
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2016 09:56
|
|
|
I loved Civ IV's expansion model. Doing a rapid expansion gambit early game was wonderfully rewarding (dopamine-wise) when it worked out. Watching it occasionally crash and burn was fun, because you knew what you were signing up for when you started down that road.
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2016 10:17
|
|
|
AlphaKretin posted:The "worst leaders" thing would make a neat Scenario, perhaps. Cuts down on the number they'd have to come up with too. I am a big fan of scenarios and I wish there had been a much greater number of them in Civ 5. The Into the Renaissance scenario in Civ 5 was superb, though not very well balanced (useless for MP). Fall of Rome is also good. I hope Civ 6 comes with, at least, a good scenario editor.
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2016 14:09
|
|
|
I liked the Steampunk scenario from CiV G&K.
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2016 14:41
|
|
|
Chucat posted:This is literally what happens in Civ 4. I never played any 4. Was ICS a big deal?
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2016 14:49
|
|
|
Ratios and Tendency posted:I never played any 4. Was ICS a big deal? yes
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2016 14:53
|
|
|
no, it was not infinite city sprawl is a problem when you're pumping out identical cities all geometrically spaced apart, with the same tile improvements, and which each give a consistent boost to your overall empire, leading to your power increasing exponentially you do not do that in civ4, because cities conformed to the terrain and to the resource bonuses aka you have no idea what the gently caress you're talking about
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2016 15:43
|
|
|
Yeah, Civ4 cities were heavily reliant on having good tiles to work. A city with just a few plains/grasslands and some hills would be a net drain on your economy even after you got improvements in place and infrastructure built in the city -- which would take ages because the city wouldn't really be able to grow effectively. When people talk about ICS, they're referring mostly to Civ 3: 
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2016 15:49
|
|
|
Phobophilia posted:aka you have no idea what the gently caress you're talking about I suspect, though I can't be certain about this, that majormonotone means ICS was a big deal (i.e. big problem) for the series and Civ 4 dealt with it nicely by having a balanced maintenance mechanic. No need to be so hostile, we're all gandhis here.
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2016 16:16
|
|
|
JeremoudCorbynejad posted:No need to be so hostile, we're all gandhis here. MY WORDS ARE BACKED WITH... reasonable logic and debate.
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2016 16:19
|
|
|
Civ 3's corruption measures were meant to combat the rampant ICS of the prior titles, but due to the mechanics, it just encouraged the strategy again. Civ 1 cities could be placed directly next to each other, though.
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2016 16:32
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 14, 2024 14:20 |
|
|
If a 4x balanced around ICS I think it would be cool
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2016 16:44
|
|