|
Twibbit posted:I am hoping as well since I like playing civ on my couch, but I have a powerful game PC as well so I won't be out of luck if the game takes too much You could always stream the game from your PC to whatever system you use from your couch. It's not like Civ demands fast reflexes.
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2016 16:39
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 15, 2024 18:31 |
|
|
Anals of History posted:Also, more sewers => everyone votes How does social media come before universal suffrage though
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2016 16:41
|
|
|
"Hmm, we could go for this 'democracy' thing, or try out nukes first. Decisions, decisions..."
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2016 16:43
|
|
|
Hogama posted:Estadio do Maracana Wonder building. Sean Bean narrated. What about his Portuguese, though?
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2016 16:44
|
|
|
Hogama posted:Estadio do Maracana Wonder building. Sean Bean narrated. I hope there's an achievement for occupying that tile with a German unit
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2016 16:45
|
|
|
StashAugustine posted:How does social media come before universal suffrage though
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2016 16:53
|
|
|
beer_war posted:What about his Portuguese, though?
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2016 17:04
|
|
|
Preorder cancelled. Just kidding. Never preorder.
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2016 17:08
|
|
|
Is there a writeup on how amenities and housing work? I'm not sure how they factor into happiness/city population. I liked a lot of what I saw of the live play. Barbarians are apparently a hell of a lot more of a thing, the religion overlay and makes apparent what was mostly guesswork before, policies and legacy government bonuses looked neat, diplomacy modifiers hopefully actually mean something now, city-states look a lot more interesting, and it sounds like tech quotes continue after you close the window. Gimme gimme gimme.
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2016 17:10
|
|
|
 Amenities work like a local Happiness system, hence things like Montezuma's ability for Luxury Resources to provide Amenities to extra cities and such. You need at least parity to prevent loss of growth and yields from unhappy citizens. Housing is a more powerful growth limiter; I don't know if anyone's shown what happens when they're full or overcrowded, but 5 Housing for 4 Citizens resulted in 50 turns for population growth, so you'll always want to keep available Housing well above what you'd like your city population size to be.
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2016 17:39
|
|
|
Hogama posted:Housing is a more powerful growth limiter; I don't know if anyone's shown what happens when they're full or overcrowded, but 5 Housing for 4 Citizens resulted in 50 turns for population growth, so you'll always want to keep available Housing well above what you'd like your city population size to be. There was one screen of the Civilopedia that came up. If I remember right, if you are 1 below your housing cap, growth drops by I think 50%, and if you are at or above the housing cap, growth drops to 25%, and you can't get more than 5 pop past the housing limit. This is a multiplier applied after your normal food/growth is calculated (so after any penalties from lack of Amenities).
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2016 18:13
|
|
|
Am I missing something in Civ V or do I really have to select every bomber one at a time and have them slowly play their ridiculously long animation every time I want to bomb a city? Is there no way to like multiple-select all bombers in a city and tell them to get bomby?
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2016 19:11
|
|
|
Quick movement option setting. That applies to all units however. Otherwise you have to mod.
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2016 19:25
|
|
|
Baronjutter posted:Am I missing something in Civ V or do I really have to select every bomber one at a time and have them slowly play their ridiculously long animation every time I want to bomb a city? Is there no way to like multiple-select all bombers in a city and tell them to get bomby? You can't multi-select but you can skip the animations (without mods) by doing it in Strategic View.
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2016 19:49
|
|
|
OpenlyEvilJello posted:You can't multi-select but you can skip the animations (without mods) by doing it in Strategic View. Animation skip isn't a mod, it's an option you can (and should) enable. I mean, the airplane attack animations are like 5x longer than any other units' animations, but eventually you'll want to skip everything to make the game as fast as possible.
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2016 21:07
|
|
|
There is a very popular mod that speeds up aircraft animations, too, in case you like animations in general but just find those ones obnoxious. I actually think that the implementation of aircraft in Civ 5 was pretty obnoxious in general - let's do one unit per tile, but you can stack a dozen units with ten range in a city that completely trivialise warfare. I'd have rather seen having bombers in the area give bonuses to your other units, so having aircraft is a powerful help to your army, but doesn't replace it (except for one jeep which captures cities for you).
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2016 21:12
|
|
|
After war there is a Peace Table, where you can for example negotiate who keeps the conquered cities or are they returned to the original owner. Nice addition along with the Casus Belli things. Some Great People like Generals and Admirals 'retire' after their era so you can't have Nelson leading your navy in Modern era.
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2016 21:14
|
|
|
Harmonia posted:After war there is a Peace Table, where you can for example negotiate who keeps the conquered cities or are they returned to the original owner. Those sound neat, but it does make the Generals/Admirals less valuable, which can suck. Still, I'm liking everything I've seen so far, it looks like Better Civ V with some tweaks for more flavor.
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2016 21:17
|
|
|
Harmonia posted:After war there is a Peace Table, where you can for example negotiate who keeps the conquered cities or are they returned to the original owner. Sounds like they're going a little Paradox in the diplomacy, this is a good move! I've found it hard to go "back" to civ style games after playing EU4 and such. Countries having diplomatic reasons/excuses to do things and actual consequences for being too much of a warmonger is a welcome addition to civ.
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2016 21:26
|
|
|
thelazyblank posted:Those sound neat, but it does make the Generals/Admirals less valuable, which can suck. They provide an additional bonus when they retire.
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2016 21:36
|
|
|
Baronjutter posted:Sounds like they're going a little Paradox in the diplomacy, this is a good move! I've found it hard to go "back" to civ style games after playing EU4 and such. Countries having diplomatic reasons/excuses to do things and actual consequences for being too much of a warmonger is a welcome addition to civ. I do like Paradox diplomacy, but some of the Civ 6 diplomacy doesn't make a great deal of sense. Like in the livestream, Victoria compliments the player on his large population. Why on earth would she like that? It's actively disadvantageous for an opposing player to have a large population - she should be less co-operative with such a player since they're a threat. Likewise with the inevitable "We like that you're a threat to our tourism/science/military victory" - it doesn't make sense.
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2016 22:28
|
|
|
Gort posted:I do like Paradox diplomacy, but some of the Civ 6 diplomacy doesn't make a great deal of sense. Like in the livestream, Victoria compliments the player on his large population. Why on earth would she like that? It's actively disadvantageous for an opposing player to have a large population - she should be less co-operative with such a player since they're a threat. It's a return to Civ IV style "opposing civs are puzzle obstacles to be solved" AI, which was one of the loudest and most persistent complaints about V. (I think it's largely misplaced--the problem with Civ V's AI was that it was bad, not that there was anything fundamentally wrong with what it was trying to do. But the masses have spoken  )
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2016 22:32
|
|
|
Gort posted:I do like Paradox diplomacy, but some of the Civ 6 diplomacy doesn't make a great deal of sense. Like in the livestream, Victoria compliments the player on his large population. Why on earth would she like that? It's actively disadvantageous for an opposing player to have a large population - she should be less co-operative with such a player since they're a threat. It doesn't seem to me that it's victory based but based upon your use of expansion cities and production. China might hate you if you build wonders he covets, but Cleopatra will like you if you have a big military. It's just a forced way of creating a complex relationship system with the AI. Surely it doesn't expand to "let me flutter my eyelashes at your spaceship!" but it's a reflection of the game's approval of whatever your civilization is currently focused on. In the Livestream Victoria also dislikes the player because they have Cities on Continents where she doesn't. That's just as much "sense" making as her appreciating your large population since she can't realistically settle every continent right away. Complimenting isn't the same as fealty or uncompetitiveness, I think it's just the game saying "Your Opponents have this judgement on your civilization's current state."
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2016 22:37
|
|
|
It's definitely a step up from Civ IV though. The problem with IV was that there was basically no puzzle- it was static, and involved open information entirely. Now you have to learn it via spies, and hidden agendas mean that the precise likes/dislikes change each game. The uniqueness of agendas should also add a lot of variety to the game- instead of a leader just being more/less warlike/culture/religion-focused, they also have specific behaviors that drive them.
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2016 22:37
|
|
|
Yeah, the problem with early Civ 5 AI was not that it hated you for trying to win, it was that it had insane conceptions of what "trying to win" meant, so you got hated for trying to win a science victory in 1500 BC. If you're going to make a game where only one player can win, the rest of the players do have to start eating each other the moment someone looks like they're going for gold, otherwise they're just not playing to win. If you want to win hand-in-hand with another player, there should be some form of allied victory. Tricky to design, but that's what professional game designers are for. OfChristandMen posted:In the Livestream Victoria also dislikes the player because they have Cities on Continents where she doesn't. That's just as much "sense" making as her appreciating your large population since she can't realistically settle every continent right away. Complimenting isn't the same as fealty or uncompetitiveness, I think it's just the game saying "Your Opponents have this judgement on your civilization's current state." I mean, I haven't seen any numbers, but Victoria calling you up, saying she's impressed, and smiling at you while delivering a message sounds like she likes you. Civs that like you tend to co-operate more with you, which means that if you're already winning by some metric, the diplomatic game design makes the game easier for you. If it was human players they'd be saying stuff like, "Jeff's out in front in tech - he'll have artillery soon. Let's clobber him first." I don't think "Victoria hates you for being on a continent she isn't on" makes any sense either, so I guess we agree on that. It seems like a bad choice to try and get an AI to spread their empire as indefensively as possible, as well. Gort fucked around with this message at 22:43 on Aug 4, 2016 |
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2016 22:38
|
|
|
Gort posted:I mean, I haven't seen any numbers, but Victoria calling you up, saying she's impressed, and smiling at you while delivering a message sounds like she likes you. Civs that like you tend to co-operate more with you, which means that if you're already winning by some metric, the diplomatic game design makes the game easier for you. If it was human players they'd be saying stuff like, "Jeff's out in front in tech - he'll have artillery soon. Let's clobber him first." In the game they were playing, she still disliked the player even after saying that. It mitigated some of the larger penalties she already had, but overall she still hated them after saying that.
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2016 22:49
|
|
|
Clarste posted:In the game they were playing, she still disliked the player even after saying that. It mitigated some of the larger penalties she already had, but overall she still hated them after saying that. OK, but she only still disliked them because she has that illogical "I hate you for being on a different continent to me" modifier, and Victoria isn't going to be the only AI that gets positive diplomatic modifiers towards a player for being in a strong, winning position on some metric. It makes no sense for AIs to like a player that's winning - that's just going to lead to the usual Civ problem of "I just sat there generating tons of science/tourism/diplomatic influence, and none of the AI tried to stop me winning", while a player who's doing badly will be hated by everyone, which leads to the other Civ problem of AIs declaring war on each other over trivial reasons when they should be stopping the player who goes on to win unopposed.
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2016 22:57
|
|
|
Players have complained loudly about the mere concept of an AI that plays to win. Most players would much prefer the AIs to be roleplaying and to not give a poo poo about winning. In such a case the AI should like or dislike you due to things that have nothing directly to do with winning. In other words, your arguments are flawed not because they're illogical, but because they derive from a different set of premises from those being used to design the game.
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2016 23:00
|
|
|
I guess. It'd be nice if they made a game where the AI could both roleplay and act in their own best interests though. Like if Victoria got something out of you having a high population, I could totally see her calling you up and telling you what a good boy you are and wanting to co-operate with you.
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2016 23:11
|
|
|
TooMuchAbstraction posted:Players have complained loudly about the mere concept of an AI that plays to win. Most players would much prefer the AIs to be roleplaying and to not give a poo poo about winning. In such a case the AI should like or dislike you due to things that have nothing directly to do with winning. On the other hand, people are dumb and don't really know what they want. Virtually none of the behaviors that people complained about in Civ V had anything to do with "playing to win."
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2016 23:14
|
|
|
The quirks and desires of actual people/leaders aren't always rational either.
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2016 23:14
|
|
|
Gabriel Pope posted:On the other hand, people are dumb and don't really know what they want. Virtually none of the behaviors that people complained about in Civ V had anything to do with "playing to win." The AI has, as far as I'm aware, never been all that competent at winning Civ. It's just that in Civ5 it roleplayed being an entity that cared about winning, and that pissed people off. I'll agree that people often don't know what they want, but if Firaxis continued in Civ6 to make the AIs transparently try to stop you from winning, they'd have a player revolt on their hands. The majority of players want some kind of alt-history sim game, not a board game.
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2016 23:23
|
|
|
Having a negative opinion of civs on a different continent sounds pretty reasonable for an imperialist colonialist, actually
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2016 23:24
|
|
|
CharlieFoxtrot posted:Having a negative opinion of civs on a different continent sounds pretty reasonable for an imperialist colonialist, actually Yeah, they just need to change the text to make more sense. She could say something about what savages you must be having never experienced her culture or something.
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2016 23:35
|
|
|
If you think of friendliness as a measure of the civ's willingness to declare war on you, the positive modifiers for havin a high population/science/gold/whatever makes more sense. If the AI thinks you're doing well, they'll be hesitant to attack and may want to be your ally but if you're on the weaker side and on a different continent, Liz is coming for ya.
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2016 23:53
|
|
|
Victoria praising the player for having the largest population is one of the possible Hidden Agendas. It's designed to throw some variety into diplomatic relations, and also give some kind of additional goal towards improving standing should you desire it. There could be the flip-side of having a penalty for having low relative population (or even not the highest), and you may not be be able to outpace some of the AIs, so it might wind up making her gravitate towards another civ's alliance. That's the rationale behind it as far as I understand, anyway.
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2016 23:54
|
|
|
I'm sure some people will also dislike you for having a large population or something like that. It's a weird thing to complain about though, I've never heard people want more harsh punishments for players doing well. The crab bucket or monkey ladder diplomacy is usually seen as a negative rather than a positive. It works alright in multiplayer (though it's something board game designers try to avoid these days) but I don't think it's something they should try to emulate in single player since they're not going to be as nuanced or competent as humans and it ends up making diplomacy more static since everybody would be an rear end in a top hat and nobody will be your ally.
|
|
#
?
Aug 5, 2016 01:24
|
|
|
I like it, it's basically just taking what made Civ4s diplomacy fun (stuff like Isabella hates you if you have a different religion or loves you if you have the same religion) and doing more with it.
|
|
#
?
Aug 5, 2016 01:28
|
|
|
It's basically any Civ game where all the AIs are untrustworthy psychopaths though, right? I mean I get that all Civs are trying to win so they will all betray you at some point and don't just become your BFF forever like some games
|
|
#
?
Aug 5, 2016 01:37
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 15, 2024 18:31 |
|
|
Sorry for Civ5 posting but I've been trying to play on "terra" maps because I had so much fun with the overseas land rush in Civ4 with the same setup, but no one loving colonizes off their home continent. Even in our starting continent there's all these very close by islands with great luxuries and no one builds more than 5-6 cities then just stops. Is the Ai programmed to always go "tall" ? Civ5 drives me nuts with how much land is empty in the late game. I really hope the world better fills up in 6.
|
|
#
?
Aug 5, 2016 01:40
|
|