|
ICS is tedious and anti-fun but Sid Meier noted that once gamers figure out the optimum strategy they will continue to do it, even if they hate it. There's just no going back once you figure it out. So ICS is bad.
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2016 18:19
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 14, 2024 07:47 |
|
|
Yeah, the trick is to make playing optimally fun.
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2016 18:40
|
|
|
And to have multiple ways to play "optimally" that are equally fun.
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2016 18:45
|
|
|
RagnarokAngel posted:ICS is tedious and anti-fun but Sid Meier noted that once gamers figure out the optimum strategy they will continue to do it, even if they hate it. There's just no going back once you figure it out. So ICS is bad. It was fun once when I read a guide in how to do it because I was like, "Holy poo poo look at all these cities," but after that it becomes way too tedious.
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2016 19:31
|
|
|
MMM Whatchya Say posted:If a 4x balanced around ICS I think it would be cool If you changed the way cities work it could work but 4x games tend to focus on zany sci-fi/fantasy settings and roleplaying poo poo over trying to find good mechanics.
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2016 19:34
|
|
|
Peas and Rice posted:I'd love to see a challenge mode where you play as one of the worst leaders from a civilization. I think you mean America as Barack HUSSEIN Obama II.
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2016 19:40
|
|
|
ChristopherRobin posted:I think you mean America as Barack HUSSEIN Obama II. I was intentionally trying to avoid modern politics but gently caress it: Ba-lack HUSSEIN Osama II, leader of the Socialist United States of America Special abilities: +25% income (tax-raising liberal) Defensive buildings 25% less effective (Benghazi-like attacks) Military units stationed in cities reduce population by 1 / turn (they're sent away to FEMA camps) Universal Health Care social policy reduces happiness by 1 per national wonder (Obamacare) Disbanding military units provides 50% more gold (takes away your guns)
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2016 19:56
|
|
|
ICS sucks because when I have two cities each choice on what to build is a big deal, but if I have 200 cities every choice is nigh-meaningless, affecting 0.5% of my empire.
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2016 20:44
|
|
|
RagnarokAngel posted:ICS is tedious and anti-fun but Sid Meier noted that once gamers figure out the optimum strategy they will continue to do it, even if they hate it. There's just no going back once you figure it out. So ICS is bad. He was then quoted as saying "I've fixed all these problems in my new game that will redefine AI and game design, Black and White"
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2016 20:48
|
|
|
Gort posted:ICS sucks because when I have two cities each choice on what to build is a big deal, but if I have 200 cities every choice is nigh-meaningless, affecting 0.5% of my empire. I've noticed this kind of thing in every 4X I've played: as the game progresses, the importance of the decisions you're making decreases exponentially. That's why I hardly ever finish a game, preferring to restart around halfway through I doubt Civ VI will fix this.
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2016 21:01
|
|
|
Jay Rust posted:I've noticed this kind of thing in every 4X I've played: as the game progresses, the importance of the decisions you're making decreases exponentially. That's why I hardly ever finish a game, preferring to restart around halfway through Maybe that's the point of 4X, reach a level of power that makes everyone else's efforts pointless, and either keep playing just to gloat over your puny opponents, or start a new game. The mechanical victory conditions are there just to pin down a logical end to the game if you feel you need one. Gripping end-game battles are for level-based games. Marketing New Brain posted:He was then quoted as saying "I've fixed all these problems in my new game that will redefine AI and game design, Black and White" Wrong designer.
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2016 21:37
|
|
|
Gort posted:ICS sucks because when I have two cities each choice on what to build is a big deal, but if I have 200 cities every choice is nigh-meaningless, affecting 0.5% of my empire. Well, that and because of the lack of importance managing the cities becomes less interesting and more tedious. When I go wide in V I typically do it exclusively through warfare just so I can puppet cities and not have to worry about micromanaging them.
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2016 21:48
|
|
|
Like the only times I can think of for when you'd want to just slam down cities without much rhyme or reason behind it in Civ 4 would be: 1) You've got some combination of Currency, Great Lighthouse or the Cothon and you're playing on a map with at least 3(?) different islands that you can place cities on rather easily because at that point the trade routes you're getting should overpower the city maintenance. But at that point you're running an actual gameplan based around a trade route economy and you're not just mindlessly ICSing. 2) You hack the game so you start with Communism researched and immediately revolt into State Property. Even then you're still using your brain, at least I think so. Chucat fucked around with this message at 22:46 on Jun 29, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2016 22:40
|
|
|
Rexides posted:Maybe that's the point of 4X, reach a level of power that makes everyone else's efforts pointless, and either keep playing just to gloat over your puny opponents, or start a new game. The mechanical victory conditions are there just to pin down a logical end to the game if you feel you need one. Gripping end-game battles are for level-based games. Early in the genre you would get a conquest victory only when you conquered everyone and everything. Later the designers realized it wasn't that great and let you do some percentage of the map or capitals or something like that and it became more bearable. Throwing in fun stuff like revolutions or Antareans made it less of a cakewalk as well.
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2016 00:02
|
|
|
According to the civfanatics guys, we have an agenda for Japan: tokimune likes anyone with a strong army, provided they also produce lots of faith or culture. A pretty good fit for a leader who fought off a few Mongol invasions!
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2016 07:28
|
|
|
Rexides posted:Maybe that's the point of 4X, reach a level of power that makes everyone else's efforts pointless, and either keep playing just to gloat over your puny opponents, or start a new game. The mechanical victory conditions are there just to pin down a logical end to the game if you feel you need one. Gripping end-game battles are for level-based games. Most of the good board games are designed so that a victory condition hits while the game is still in question. It's the only way to really do it, IMO. Otherwise you spend turns going through the motions. And yeah, the first 100-200 turns are the ones that are playtested and well thought out and tend to be the interesting turns of a 4x game. The last 400 are just mopping up.
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2016 11:49
|
|
|
Tree Bucket posted:According to the civfanatics guys, we have an agenda for Japan: tokimune likes anyone with a strong army, provided they also produce lots of faith or culture. A pretty good fit for a leader who fought off a few Mongol invasions! Hmm, I wonder if all leader agendas will be outward looking. I suppose that makes sense in terms of the player being able to predict how an AI opponent will react to them, but it seems odd that none of the leaders will be isolationist, or focused on their own economy, or whatever. I suppose you could also try to use this to predict which leaders will be revealed. IE: All the leaders need to be people who had famous foreign policies, in one form or another.
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2016 11:53
|
|
|
Panzeh posted:Most of the good board games are designed so that a victory condition hits while the game is still in question. It's the only way to really do it, IMO. Otherwise you spend turns going through the motions. Yeah, but most board games have fewer moving parts. Settlers of Catan, for example (I assume that's one of the games you are talking about), has 23 tiles (with expansions), five resources, and one type of military unit that has only one way to interact with the game. It's very easy to design these kind of victory conditions when the variables are so few with so small value range. The best you can do with 4X is try to deprecate the pressure levers the players build up as the game progresses, and Civ is really bad at that. If I build a strong army in ancient times, it carries over forever. The upgrade costs should be expensive enough so that at some point a weaker player would be able to compensate with new and more powerful units, or maybe it should be impossible to upgrade some units after a certain point. For example, the "Swordsman" upgrade path could go like this: code:Other things that players rely on to drive their growth could become similarily deprecated. Religion/Faith/Missionaries are an obvious candidate, who should gradually be replaced by Ideology/Culture, and if you ask me, even money or production should fall into the same pattern.
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2016 12:22
|
|
|
Rexides posted:The best you can do with 4X is try to deprecate the pressure levers the players build up as the game progresses, and Civ is really bad at that. If I build a strong army in ancient times, it carries over forever. The upgrade costs should be expensive enough so that at some point a weaker player would be able to compensate with new and more powerful units, or maybe it should be impossible to upgrade some units after a certain point. Ancient armies carrying on for the rest of the game is really only a problem in Civ5, in 4 upgrades were indeed expensive enough that you generally only did it in emergencies. Being unable to upgrade units further at some point seems unnecessary. also I wouldn't call Catan good (but it's still a good example since a lot of people have played it)
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2016 13:54
|
|
|
Staltran posted:also I wouldn't call Catan good (but it's still a good example since a lot of people have played it) I agree, not my favorite. I'd rather have the 7 Wonders model. Which is basically point victory, but without loving someone up irreparably during the course of the game.
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2016 14:02
|
|
|
Tree Bucket posted:According to the civfanatics guys, we have an agenda for Japan: tokimune likes anyone with a strong army, provided they also produce lots of faith or culture. A pretty good fit for a leader who fought off a few Mongol invasions! Apparently the same article confirmed building districts with Faith. Also, new mechanics video today: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cQzQR9SKYQo Builders replace both Workers and Work Boats.
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2016 17:07
|
|
|
Clarste posted:Hmm, I wonder if all leader agendas will be outward looking. I suppose that makes sense in terms of the player being able to predict how an AI opponent will react to them, but it seems odd that none of the leaders will be isolationist, or focused on their own economy, or whatever. I suppose you could also try to use this to predict which leaders will be revealed. Tokimune's agenda is pretty neat though. All the agendas seem designed to be predictable and somewhat controlable, but also drive conflict between the AI and the player/ other AIs. If you want to make friends with Tokimune, you know what you need to do, but you may not be willing or able to have both elements in place.
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2016 17:13
|
|
|
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.
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2016 17:17
|
|
|
They could use both Montys I suppose But their agendas would be similar. More blood for the Blood God right?
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2016 18:19
|
|
|
Khagan posted:They could use both Montys I suppose But their agendas would be similar. More blood for the Blood God right? Give 'em the ol' Double Monty, like the twins from The Shining. Put 'em in pastel blue dresses too, why not?
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2016 18:22
|
|
|
Well of Souls says there's a day/night cycle in the game, too. Also, Tea is a new bonus resource that yields extra science.
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2016 18:25
|
|
|
Cythereal posted:Well of Souls says there's a day/night cycle in the game, too. Isn't that just* the end of turn "animation" though? *Actually it's very cool.
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2016 18:46
|
|
|
The day/night cycle is purely cosmetic, and can be set to specific times if you'd like to play in full daylight or eternal twilight.
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2016 18:50
|
|
|
Hogama posted:The day/night cycle is purely cosmetic, and can be set to specific times if you'd like to play in full daylight or eternal twilight. I believe they also said there'd be options to adjust the duration. Like it could be set to cycle through over a few turns or over the course of the entire game
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2016 18:55
|
|
|
Getting me more and more hyped for this game.
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2016 18:56
|
|
|
Hogama posted:Builders replace both Workers and Work Boats. Thank God, I hated dealing with work boats. And it's also a good confirmation that embarkation is back as well, which actually made amphibious assaults not a pain in the rear end.
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2016 19:12
|
|
|
Civ 5 never really hit the same notes for me as 4, and I was never really sure why. This looks like it might though, so I'm pretty excited.
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2016 19:14
|
|
|
GrandpaPants posted:Thank God, I hated dealing with work boats. And it's also a good confirmation that embarkation is back as well, which actually made amphibious assaults not a pain in the rear end. It was the Beyond Earth solution and I'm glad they're incorporating ideas from that game, which I still love.
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2016 19:19
|
|
|
Mazz posted:Civ 5 never really hit the same notes for me as 4, and I was never really sure why. This looks like it might though, so I'm pretty excited. They're vastly different games. Civ 4 I still think has better mechanics, but Civ 5 is just so drat friendly.
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2016 19:19
|
|
|
I liked Civ V more than IV, but that may be because I played it first, and mostly with both expansions. Excited for VI nonetheless. Ready to create a British Empire the Moon always Shines on.
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2016 21:07
|
|
|
I'd like a mechanic that makes reviving Civs an actually attractive option. Yes, you can do it for a permanent World Leader vote in Civ V, but the Civ is usually so completely behind on tech and utterly crushed they'll never have more than 2 diplomatic votes again. Vassal states could work; but If the rubber banding on tech costs was exaggerated (ie. Decreases greatly for each person who knows the tech), are there any issues that would cause?
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2016 21:40
|
|
|
I hope Civ VI includes a Randomize Personalities option that actually works, such that any leader you meet might actually have any other leader's personality, because as far as I was ever able to tell the option in Civ V didn't actually do anything. Or perhaps it was just because Civ V didn't have meaningful diplomacy and every AI leader except Monty and Alex behaved in pretty near the same way anyway. Yes I know that in modern Civ randomizing personalities will make the game easier because leaders' personalities are designed to synergize with their uniques, but I don't care. I much prefer having to actually figure out what kind of person my neighbor is, rather than going "oh hello Haile Selassie, okay, now I know exactly what my neighbor is going to do and can plan accordingly." I don't find attractive the prospect of knowing that anytime Civ X and Civ Y are in the same game they're going to be BFFs because that's how they're programmed.
|
|
#
?
Jul 1, 2016 02:27
|
|
|
I guess it really depends on what the random second secret traits are like. Have any examples of those been given yet?
|
|
#
?
Jul 1, 2016 02:44
|
|
|
Yep, from the Analyst page : - Leader wants to have the biggest navy in the world. - Leader wants to concentrate on culture for this play-through. No details on how these agendas affect the player, but since agendas seem to be designed to encourage interaction I would guess that if, for example, Victoria wants to have the biggest navy in the world and you actually have the biggest navy, that will give you some negative modifiers towards her. I expect we'll see agendas which conflict directly with ones we already know about, so we'll get a civ (maybe the Aztecs?) which loves it when you declare war on players other than them, so that if you have Teddy and [Aztec Leader] on your continent it will be hard to be friends with both at the same time.
|
|
#
?
Jul 1, 2016 05:38
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 14, 2024 07:47 |
|
|
How long before launch are system requirements usually released?
|
|
#
?
Jul 1, 2016 10:00
|
|
