|
TooMuchAbstraction posted:The UK's world wonder should be a gigantic cup of tea. Someone needs to build it in reality so it can be in Civ7. As a Brit, I am furious to learn that the title of world's biggest cup of tea belongs to some Sri Lankan But it's ok we'll send over a couple of frigates and show them savages what's what 
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2016 18:02
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 14, 2024 20:16 |
|
|
Xelkelvos posted:Also, I'm curious as to who the Modern Era Great Prophets are L Ron Hubbard E: the UK also has Stonehenge which is a legit wonder.
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2016 18:03
|
|
|
JeremoudCorbynejad posted:As a Brit, I am furious to learn that the title of world's biggest cup of tea belongs to some Sri Lankan I miss the good old days. Life is so complicated now.
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2016 18:38
|
|
|
Peas and Rice posted:L Ron Hubbard I didn't want to say that one myself, but there's always Joseph Smith for Industrial Era and Jerry Falwell and Sun Myung Moon for Modern Era
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2016 18:48
|
|
|
Comedy option: Osama Bin Laden 
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2016 20:13
|
|
|
If you really wanted to make civ weird and board gamey I think it'd be pretty fun to just have a list of 30 diverse win conditions and give everyone two random ones at the start, just to make everyone play toward entirely different goals. I've thought for a while that "own every natural wonder" would be a pretty fun victory, just for making you expand in a really weird, difficult way. Giving history a set of arbitrary victory conditions is absurd anyway, why not have fun with it.
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2016 20:24
|
|
|
RagnarokAngel posted:Hexes are superior my friend. With squares you have to do some weird 1-2-1 poo poo on the diagonals because otherwise it's the superior movement option, effectively giving less choice. I would possibly agree except for how my biggest memories of civ 5 is never being able to move anywhere coz another unit was already there.. I say "gently caress the hex"
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2016 20:29
|
|
|
echinopsis posted:I would possibly agree except for how my biggest memories of civ 5 is never being able to move anywhere coz another unit was already there.. I say "gently caress the hex" Thing is, you can do "many units per tile" on a hex map. I still reckon one unit per tile could be fixed if they made the map bigger and made units faster - the main problem with it is the lack of space on the map for you to put units in.
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2016 20:53
|
|
|
echinopsis posted:I would possibly agree except for how my biggest memories of civ 5 is never being able to move anywhere coz another unit was already there.. I say "gently caress the hex" What are you talking about, there's plenty of room 
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2016 20:55
|
|
|
It has nothing to do with hexes, anyway. You'd get the same problem in Civ 4 if it had 1UPT.
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2016 21:36
|
|
|
JeremoudCorbynejad posted:What are you talking about, there's plenty of room A little disingenuous to use pics from a game with mods specifically to promote this type of behaviour
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2016 22:38
|
|
|
I wasn't trying to make a point, I just find the screenshot amusing and this was a good excuse to post it I think echinopsis is just pulling our leg anyway
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2016 23:00
|
|
|
Gort posted:Thing is, you can do "many units per tile" on a hex map. That was my idea for a solution- scale everything up, and make tiles represent smaller individual areas. Give all units increased movement points, and give ranged units a greater range but implement an Advance Wars style firing shadow. Suddenly we have a tactical combat system where melee front line units are necessary to protect range and siege units, and flanking mounted units could get up in the face of ranged units with no fear or retaliation (balancing the fact ranged units can attack without retaliation). The 'tiles represent less area' would also work well with the unstacked cities and district system now.
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2016 23:07
|
|
|
Prophet chat: are Jim Jones and Steve Jobs too controversial? Because the former is infamous for his cult and Apple might as well be one.
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2016 23:13
|
|
|
JVNO posted:That was my idea for a solution- scale everything up, and make tiles represent smaller individual areas. Give all units increased movement points, and give ranged units a greater range but implement an Advance Wars style firing shadow. Suddenly we have a tactical combat system where melee front line units are necessary to protect range and siege units, and flanking mounted units could get up in the face of ranged units with no fear or retaliation (balancing the fact ranged units can attack without retaliation). There's technical limitations that would go hand in hand with scaling up the entire game. Like, the map would be twice as big, or three times, etc, if you wanted to increase the scale to an extent that it would ease the congestion issues that come from 1UPT, and that would have ramifications on all kinds of things, both in terms of gameplay (everyone would have twice as many cities, or at least cities that are twice as complex), and on the computing power needed to run the game.
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2016 23:26
|
|
|
Red Bones posted:There's technical limitations that would go hand in hand with scaling up the entire game. Like, the map would be twice as big, or three times, etc, if you wanted to increase the scale to an extent that it would ease the congestion issues that come from 1UPT, and that would have ramifications on all kinds of things, both in terms of gameplay (everyone would have twice as many cities, or at least cities that are twice as complex), and on the computing power needed to run the game. Rather than twice as many cities, I suspect you'd just make it so cities had twice as much area-of-control, but half as many useful tiles (so half the tiles would have no useful output at all, say). Which is pretty inelegant. The issue with computing power is legitimate, though, as pathfinding would become much more expensive with a larger map. Not to mention that when you have twice as much room to play in, your inclination will be to throw twice as many units into the fights, which doesn't help things at all!
|
|
#
?
Aug 8, 2016 00:17
|
|
|
TooMuchAbstraction posted:Rather than twice as many cities, I suspect you'd just make it so cities had twice as much area-of-control, but half as many useful tiles (so half the tiles would have no useful output at all, say). Which is pretty inelegant. A slightly more elegant solution would be to have the city grow twice as fast, but each tile has half the output.
|
|
#
?
Aug 8, 2016 00:21
|
|
|
TooMuchAbstraction posted: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. Ugh. Baronjutter posted:As someone who totally ignores victory conditions and just enjoys playing and seeing what narratives form I just want the AI to behave like other countries. I wish we were much more beholden to our people or internal groups and their opinions and the direction we took out countries was much more based on that rather than some pre-planned optimal victory strategy. Like going to war with a long time ally would get your people extremely upset, betraying a country you have rich trade ties with would see your merchant/capital class potentially revolt. I guess I'd just love to see more eu4/paradox style diplomacy and internal politics where everyone is guided by their own politics and goals rather than meta-game level "victory conditions". Darkrenown posted:Speaking of Wonders, I realise this is a rather spergy complaint, but it bothers me that Stonehenge has to be built next to a source of stone when one of the wondrous things about the real Stonehenge is that it is explicitly not near a source of stone and exactly how the huge stones were moved hundreds of miles to build it is still unknown. Agree with this. Red Bones posted:If you really wanted to make civ weird and board gamey I think it'd be pretty fun to just have a list of 30 diverse win conditions and give everyone two random ones at the start, just to make everyone play toward entirely different goals. I've thought for a while that "own every natural wonder" would be a pretty fun victory, just for making you expand in a really weird, difficult way. Giving history a set of arbitrary victory conditions is absurd anyway, why not have fun with it. This would also be a really great idea. But of course you should always be able to conquer everyone. ate shit on live tv fucked around with this message at 02:07 on Aug 8, 2016 |
|
#
?
Aug 8, 2016 01:45
|
|
|
My biggest complaint in CivV was the 1upt thing. It would be better if you could multi select units and order them to "muster." Then you could take that stack (that could get bigger with technology advances) and transport them easily to the front lines. The caveat would be the units couldn't attack directly out of the stack, they'd have to "deploy," then next turn they could attack. While in a stack the they'd have heavy defensive disadvantages so that fast units like Cavalry could raid your "stack" of units, preventing you from deploying anymore of them. Essentially cutting off your supply lines. Obviously such a system would require tweaking, like maybe you could only "muster" in your own territory, etc. But either way, managing late game armies was lovely and was the main thing that made me stop playing CivV.
|
|
#
?
Aug 8, 2016 02:14
|
|
|
1UPT was just a mess in so many ways. It caused traffic jams, it totally gimped the AI in warfare, it was annoying to manage, and it enabled that ridiculous exploit where you could detect enemy/barbarian units in the fog of war by spamming your cursor everywhere. Maybe it could work in different circumstances but they didn't enable said circumstances at all.
|
|
#
?
Aug 8, 2016 02:17
|
|
|
Powercrazy posted:Obviously such a system would require tweaking, like maybe you could only "muster" in your own territory, etc. But either way, managing late game armies was lovely and was the main thing that made me stop playing CivV. Such a system would not work only because, again, AI will get stuck in mustered states all the time and get decimated by the player. The issue with 1UPT is not the limitation but that fact that the AI is terrible at playing it. The dev team did not really dedicate a lot of resources to AI because that's expensive and the vast majority of casual Civ players wouldn't care. I doubt that's gonna change much with Civ VI but I hope they at least spend some time tweaking the tactics for it. I think the the annoying things of getting stuck in trying to pass narrow terrain can be easily fixed by allowing units to shuffle places but I think the AI will also get confused with that.
|
|
#
?
Aug 8, 2016 02:23
|
|
|
I think the devs' #1 priority regarding AI should be to make it as moddable as possible. Let the modscene try to make a good AI; they can focus on making an acceptable AI and providing the content and framework that the modders can build on. Civ5 wasn't readily moddable except in fairly basic ways. Civ6 will, hopefully, be much better about that.
|
|
#
?
Aug 8, 2016 02:35
|
|
|
GuyUpNorth posted:Prophet chat: are Jim Jones and Steve Jobs too controversial? Because the former is infamous for his cult and Apple might as well be one. Jim Jones is 100% controversial. Jobs is probably a Great Engineer.
|
|
#
?
Aug 8, 2016 02:49
|
|
|
Honestly, a lot of it is that the AI is poo poo at prioritizing unit movements. You see this with their inability to lay down improvements, both as enemy civs and as the 'automated worker' feature. You also see this with their scouting; it's not methodical in the least; units just randomly change direction every few turns. That incapacity also leads to their incompetent shuffling about while invading. (Sidenote: unit-swapping is actually doable, just order a unit to move into the same tile as another unit, provided both have moves remaining.)
|
|
#
?
Aug 8, 2016 02:54
|
|
|
Xelkelvos posted:I'd support this. Joseph Smith is probably a little early for modern, but only a little.
|
|
#
?
Aug 8, 2016 02:55
|
|
|
TooMuchAbstraction posted:I think the devs' #1 priority regarding AI should be to make it as moddable as possible. Let the modscene try to make a good AI; they can focus on making an acceptable AI and providing the content and framework that the modders can build on. Civ5 wasn't readily moddable except in fairly basic ways. Civ6 will, hopefully, be much better about that. People have been asking Total War devs to make battle AI moddable for 12 years now, and it still hasn't happened. Just too much effort for them for something that less than 1% of the player base will use (according to their figures of how many people use any mods at all in their games). Not holding my breath for Civ. I just hope they improve it significantly here, given that all the base systems are the same for it. Rad Russian fucked around with this message at 03:03 on Aug 8, 2016 |
|
#
?
Aug 8, 2016 03:01
|
|
|
Powercrazy posted:Then play paradox games? The thing I hate about paradox games is that you can't actually "win." The thing I like about Civ is that you can, indeed that is the actual point of the game. I want something in between - Rome and Medieval 2 Total War were great at balancing "spread across the map and recreate the Roman empire" with "build every city to be perfect" while still (generally) keeping the battles challenging. My biggest complaint about Civ 5 is if I want to play a wide, "perfect city" game, I need to set the difficulty to King or Prince to not be completely hamstrung by happiness, because I want to see my color cover the entire gigantic map. But once I get going, I'm usually so far ahead of the AI by technology and economy I can buy any of my advanced units and simply crush them, which isn't nearly as fun. But if I play on higher difficulties, I can't go wide at all. (I haven't tried playing on a higher difficulty and just disabling happiness in the RAS though). Xelkelvos posted:Jim Jones is 100% controversial. Jobs is probably a Great Engineer. I could swear I've had Jobs as both an Engineer and a Merchant.
|
|
#
?
Aug 8, 2016 03:14
|
|
|
Peas and Rice posted:I could swear I've had Jobs as both an Engineer and a Merchant. Not unless it was a mod. According to the wiki: Great Engineers posted:Archimedes Great Merchants posted:Aretas III
|
|
#
?
Aug 8, 2016 03:22
|
|
|
Off the top of my head Martin Luther King Jr., Desmond Tutu, Mother Teresa, and John Paul II could all be good modern/atomic age great prophets.
|
|
#
?
Aug 8, 2016 04:06
|
|
|
Powercrazy posted:Ugh. There are a huge number of differences between Paradox games and Civ though, it's not just that Paradox games tend to be more narrative while Civ tends to focus more on competition. The map and units are totally different for example, and Civ games are very discretely turn based while Paradox games are more continuously real time. Maybe those sound like small differences, but they make the games feel totally different in my opinion, and I prefer the feeling of Civilization. Civilization 6/7/8/whatever could
|
|
#
?
Aug 8, 2016 04:13
|
|
|
Cythereal posted:Not unless it was a mod. According to the wiki: No, I'm certain I've also seen him as a great engineer. He was only added with Brave New World. The wiki must be outdated, or maybe he was patched out later on.
|
|
#
?
Aug 8, 2016 04:31
|
|
|
Takkaryx posted:Off the top of my head Martin Luther King Jr., Desmond Tutu, Mother Teresa, and John Paul II could all be good modern/atomic age great prophets. My religion of Social Justice will reign supreme 
|
|
#
?
Aug 8, 2016 05:21
|
|
|
Combed Thunderclap posted:My religion of Social Justice will reign supreme Nah man, MLK is gunna be a general and lead his Social Justice warriors to a Civ world domination victory
|
|
#
?
Aug 8, 2016 05:37
|
|
|
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leonard_Howell would be a good choice for a modern great prophet. e: Bob Marley as both a great prophet and great musician, where's my check Firaxis Fister Roboto fucked around with this message at 06:38 on Aug 8, 2016 |
|
#
?
Aug 8, 2016 06:29
|
|
|
The Dalai Lama might be a modern great prophet. Unless they want to sell the game in China, I guess.
|
|
#
?
Aug 8, 2016 07:18
|
|
|
JeremoudCorbynejad posted:I wasn't trying to make a point, I just find the screenshot amusing and this was a good excuse to post it I don't hate hex that much but 1UPT and hex is significantly worse than whatever we used to have. Just my experience though 
|
|
#
?
Aug 8, 2016 08:17
|
|
|
CharlieFoxtrot posted:I hope there's an achievement for occupying that tile with a German unit "gain 7 times the income if owner of the occupying unit is Germany"
|
|
#
?
Aug 8, 2016 09:06
|
|
|
First I hated 1UPT in Civ 5, then I got used to it. And when you get used to it, you realize how bad the AI is at playing it and combat becomes very easy
|
|
#
?
Aug 8, 2016 13:14
|
|
|
Baronjutter posted:As someone who totally ignores victory conditions and just enjoys playing and seeing what narratives form I just want the AI to behave like other countries. I wish we were much more beholden to our people or internal groups and their opinions and the direction we took out countries was much more based on that rather than some pre-planned optimal victory strategy. Like going to war with a long time ally would get your people extremely upset, betraying a country you have rich trade ties with would see your merchant/capital class potentially revolt. I guess I'd just love to see more eu4/paradox style diplomacy and internal politics where everyone is guided by their own politics and goals rather than meta-game level "victory conditions". Interestingly, this kind of thing was implemented very rudimentarily in the old turn-based space strategy game Imperium from the early 90s: The player (as the emperor of his realm), is forced to go through regular elections every 50 turns. If you do too many things to upset your people, you can actually lose and be replaced by one of your underlings. This of course means immediate game over, no Paradox-style shenanigans. (As I said, very rudimentary.)
|
|
#
?
Aug 8, 2016 13:46
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 14, 2024 20:16 |
|
|
Libluini posted:Interestingly, this kind of thing was implemented very rudimentarily in the old turn-based space strategy game Imperium from the early 90s: The player (as the emperor of his realm), is forced to go through regular elections every 50 turns. If you do too many things to upset your people, you can actually lose and be replaced by one of your underlings. Civ4 has some elements of this as well, mostly in that cities get pissed (extra unhappiness) if you do certain things diplomatically, like stab an ally in the back or ignore a UN declaration. And of course they also get war weariness as wars continue and especially if they go poorly.
|
|
#
?
Aug 8, 2016 13:58
|
|