|
TooMuchAbstraction posted: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. Imperium has all that too, just think planets instead of cities: People getting pissed enough can even lead to direct uprisings. If that happens on your homeworld, your game ends with a nice picture of some angry dude with a sword holding your head. It's all very elaborate and only works with your own population. Enemy AIs are always enemies and just have a percentage chance of attacking you. They like you, the percentage goes down, they hate you, the percentage goes up. And of course ships of even openly allied nations will take shots at each other if they pass each other in deep space, so generally sooner or later everyone will hate you. It's like Civ4's AI as programmed by two perpetually drunk college students. The election mechanic was just thrown in for good measure, because the programmers apparently thought there weren't enough ways to kill yourself with in Imperium yet
|
#
?
Aug 8, 2016 14:19
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 30, 2024 23:05 |
|
|
Panzeh posted:Civ is not for dumb narrative players, leave that narrative bullshit to Paradox games. Civ is a game where you Play To Win The Game. Peas and Rice posted:Comedy option: Osama Bin Laden
|
|
#
?
Aug 8, 2016 14:48
|
|
|
You know I think the ai playing to win would be fun but rather than make the ai a ratfucking scumbag, they should make the ai good enough to win the game in their own right without dogpiling on whoever is leading.
|
|
#
?
Aug 8, 2016 15:04
|
|
|
Elias_Maluco posted: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 Yea. It totally neuters the game when a major game system (Combat) can be trivialized by two archers and a cavalry until you finally win a space race, or decide to grind through with a conquest victory. Give me Civ4 stacks plus Zone of Control but with hexes.
|
|
#
?
Aug 8, 2016 15:29
|
|
|
Powercrazy posted:Yea. It totally neuters the game when a major game system (Combat) can be trivialized by two archers and a cavalry until you finally win a space race, or decide to grind through with a conquest victory. Give me Civ4 stacks plus Zone of Control but with hexes. You suck.
|
|
#
?
Aug 8, 2016 15:31
|
|
|
I mean if the combat is going to suck make it suck in a way that the human can't exploit the poo poo out of it without thinking
|
|
#
?
Aug 8, 2016 15:33
|
|
|
I'm gonna counter all the 1UPT hate with my own observation that I find the combat in Civ 5 like a billion times more fun than the combat in Civ 4, and I'm glad they kept it for Civ 6. Sure, I wish they had done a better job with the AI using it, but I hated stacks of doom. I'm curious to see how the support units and army corps work in this game, along with the new movement rules. One thing is it seems like going wider will be be better than in Civ 5, so there should potentially be more space to work with in terms of borders, and the addition of fighting over districts makes raiding more valuable.
|
|
#
?
Aug 8, 2016 15:42
|
|
|
I'd rather play a game with good mechanics and bad AI than a game with bad mechanics that the AI can handle.
|
|
#
?
Aug 8, 2016 15:46
|
|
|
Civ V combat is both bad and hard for the computer to figure out
|
|
#
?
Aug 8, 2016 15:47
|
|
|
Kajeesus posted:I'd rather play a game with good mechanics and bad AI than a game with bad mechanics that the AI can handle. considering good AI seems to be the absolute hardest thing to code, same
|
|
#
?
Aug 8, 2016 15:47
|
|
|
Kajeesus posted:I'd rather play a game with good mechanics and bad AI than a game with bad mechanics that the AI can handle. Yeah, I played a bit of Civ 4, but wasn't a huge fan of the doomstacks, and I like the 1UPT concept a lot better. I think that the Civ 6 mechanic is a happy medium, at least. Basically. I'll take mechanics I like more over an AI who can use them.
|
|
#
?
Aug 8, 2016 15:52
|
|
|
Powercrazy posted:Give me Civ4 stacks  Look, I get that people want to abstract military might as an extension of their industrial and scientific power instead of having to play a tactical minigame (which the AI sucks at), but even if Civ would go that way again then there must be a better way to implement that thing than loving stacks.
|
|
#
?
Aug 8, 2016 16:15
|
|
|
no one seems to be giving a gently caress because its not a sexy feature that is getting lots of press, but there is limited stacking when you combine units into corps and armies on the other hand, it does mean that you're not going to be able to "stack" resource-dependent units, which could make them useless in the late game when you have enough production to exclusively move around armies and on yet the other hand, how well is this playtested for the lategame? because it could easily devolve into whoever can get enough production to build armies. what are the power jumps as you move through eras, and what are the equivalent hammer costs?
|
|
#
?
Aug 8, 2016 16:23
|
|
|
I dont like doomstacks either, but in the 1UPT just moving your army around is such a nuisance that it makes me never want to wage any war edit: it manages to be at the same time easy (in SP at least) and huge boring annoyance, its a bad system. The way they doing in CIv 6 seems promising though. But still, if they want tactical combat in the game, I think they should go all the way and do something like in AoW/Master of Magic Elias_Maluco fucked around with this message at 16:27 on Aug 8, 2016 |
|
#
?
Aug 8, 2016 16:23
|
|
|
Why do people hate stacks so much? They allow the AI to actually put up a challenge which seems like everyone should enjoy...oh wait. I get it. 
|
|
#
?
Aug 8, 2016 16:27
|
|
|
Stacks are fine in theory, reinforcing them is a massive pain in the rear end and there's a lot of other side issues
|
|
#
?
Aug 8, 2016 16:29
|
|
|
StashAugustine posted:Stacks are fine in theory, reinforcing them is a massive pain in the rear end and there's a lot of other side issues But all the downsides, are still better then unit carpets.
|
|
#
?
Aug 8, 2016 16:30
|
|
|
Yeah it's not like 5 had good combat anyway. You can have good 1UPT combat (Unity of Command) and good stack combat (Europa Universalis, sort of) but Civ just doesn't have good combat.
|
|
#
?
Aug 8, 2016 16:33
|
|
|
*puts 3 archers on a chokepoint, watches as the ai slam entire army into it, pats self on back for being a strategic genius*
|
|
#
?
Aug 8, 2016 16:37
|
|
|
StashAugustine posted:Yeah it's not like 5 had good combat anyway. You can have good 1UPT combat (Unity of Command) and good stack combat (Europa Universalis, sort of) but Civ just doesn't have good combat. It's not a combat game, but combat is a core mechanic. That's why Civ4 stacks were perfectly adequate. They were easy to move, easy to understand, and by utilizing map features and the promotion system, they provided some minimal tactical depth, but most importantly, they scaled into the late game, 1upt doesn't.
|
|
#
?
Aug 8, 2016 16:46
|
|
|
I'm not really disagreeing with you, I'm just pointing out that people saw all the disadvantages and questionable implementations and then boiled it down to "stacks are bad therefore 1UPT is good," not realizing that 1UPT has just as many problems. And yeah 1UPT lets you murder entire armies with basic tactical thinking and stacks are feel-bad attritionfests so people tend to gravitate to what makes them feel good even if it's not actually better.
|
|
#
?
Aug 8, 2016 16:50
|
|
|
Toplowtech posted:Or concentrate on building all the wonder and then complain when other players conquer all your cities. I like the new army changes. Being able to partially stack a few of your units into armies sounds like a good mechanism and allows for more strategies. They should absolutely use terrorism in the game as a modern branch of espionage or penalties for dick diplmatic moves or happiness negatives. It would add a dimension of strategy and help the little guys gently caress with the assholes rolling everyone.
|
|
#
?
Aug 8, 2016 17:03
|
|
|
Powercrazy posted:It's not a combat game, but combat is a core mechanic. That's why Civ4 stacks were perfectly adequate. They were easy to move, easy to understand, and by utilizing map features and the promotion system, they provided some minimal tactical depth, but most importantly, they scaled into the late game, 1upt doesn't. I don't like 1UPT, I just vastly prefer it to stacks, which usually turned war into "who is better at stacking a giant pile of units into one tile?"
|
|
#
?
Aug 8, 2016 17:22
|
|
|
Senerio posted:I don't like 1UPT, I just vastly prefer it to stacks, which usually turned war into "who is better at stacking a giant pile of units into one tile?" Or in game mechanics, who has the most production and tech.
|
|
#
?
Aug 8, 2016 17:23
|
|
|
I like the Civ 6 method a lot better than the stacks from 4 and the 1UPT from 5. Limited stacking with optional accessories seems like a happy middle ground.
|
|
#
?
Aug 8, 2016 17:26
|
|
|
There were definitely tactics involved in Civ 4 combat, though. Scouting, stack composition, use of collateral damage, promotions... "Civ 5 combat is just building millions of ranged units and one fast unit for cities" is an equally simplistic yet valid criticism of Civ 5, but the difference was that Civ 4s AI was much more capable of playing its game than Civ 5s.
|
|
#
?
Aug 8, 2016 17:32
|
|
|
Senerio posted:I like the Civ 6 method a lot better than the stacks from 4 and the 1UPT from 5. Limited stacking with optional accessories seems like a happy middle ground. As long as it scales. If I can't easily control 100's of units, then it will be a failure.
|
|
#
?
Aug 8, 2016 17:49
|
|
|
e: n/m
|
|
#
?
Aug 8, 2016 18:12
|
|
|
MMM Whatchya Say posted:You know I think the ai playing to win would be fun but rather than make the ai a ratfucking scumbag, they should make the ai good enough to win the game in their own right without dogpiling on whoever is leading. That's impossible. An AI good enough to win is an AI that knows that step 1 of winning is bringing down the leader.
|
|
#
?
Aug 8, 2016 18:21
|
|
|
Powercrazy posted:As long as it scales. If I can't easily control 100's of units, then it will be a failure. _some civ (like the roman) will have special units who can stack in small numbers without penalties. 3 Centurions army make a legion. 3 english ships of line make an English fleet, GOLDEN HORSE HORDE for the mongol, etc... _some era/techs will allow you to stack more units and/or give more advantage/disavantage to one method over the other, with probably late era being about elite lone units and hordes being a middle age optimal method until firearms/canons(splash damage in a tile?). _whatever replace the culture system will probably offer you to choose for bonuses between either SOLO UNITS or STACKED units. _maybe an early age general or whatever system they use, allow for better stacking in early ages. Toplowtech fucked around with this message at 18:51 on Aug 8, 2016 |
|
#
?
Aug 8, 2016 18:46
|
|
|
Stack fighting was just finding the enemy stack and hitting it first with a lot of siege weapons and then using the rest to mop up the remains. If the enemy hit your stack first you lost. 
|
|
#
?
Aug 8, 2016 18:50
|
|
|
Rexides posted:
Well Firaxis's implementation of 1UPT certainly isn't that. Doomstacks have problems but they're simple, easy to understand, and make sense. Moving and attacking with a 1UPT army is an agonizing unfun timesink that still ultimately boils down to "do you have enough production to overcome the terrible AI's unit spam?" and only serves to distract from the actual good and fun parts of playing a Civ game.
|
|
#
?
Aug 8, 2016 18:51
|
|
|
It doesn't help that units will cancel their 10-20 turn movement because something temporarily ended up in the hex you told them to move to.
|
|
#
?
Aug 8, 2016 18:59
|
|
|
Super Jay Mann posted:Well Firaxis's implementation of 1UPT certainly isn't that. Seriously. For tactical games, 1unit per tile makes sense, it's fun, etc, but for civ it's a chore, and it sucks. A MoM style army system would be fun, but that only worked in MoM because heroes were relatively rare, and late game magic was ridiculous and literally game breaking (as in the game would crash).
|
|
#
?
Aug 8, 2016 18:59
|
|
|
stackchat Stacks wouldn't be all that terrible if the UI was well-designed for it. In Civ4 it was poo poo. I'd see a spearman on the map but what's this, there's a bajillion other things behind it? That I can only see by hovering over the unit and reading the brightly coloured list in 6pt font overlaying the brightly coloured map? I'm sure it was probably the best they could do at the time but by modern standards that kind of UI is a pile of wank, and it made Civ4 a very difficult game to get into when I made a serious attempt last year (though I did end up enjoying the game overall quite a lot). Make a good UI for stacks and I might get out of bed for them.
|
|
#
?
Aug 8, 2016 20:38
|
|
|
JeremoudCorbynejad posted:stackchat A lot of that just sounds like "Civ 4 is eleven years old" though, and Civ 5 has an exceptionally friendly UI. I think you can do 1 UPT well, and you can do stacks well, but they didn't do 1 UPT well in Civ 5 and it doesn't look like they're actually improving on that in Civ 6 (except maybe the corps/army system, which has not been shown in any way as far as I know) ----- My own fix for 1 UPT would be to effectively go back to Civ 1's mechanics. 1. You can stack as many units as you like. 2. When attacked, the best defender defends. 3. When attacked, the entire stack takes damage. Bam, no more traffic jams in peacetime, you can stack up a ton of units to force your way through a chokepoint but it's a big risk since it multiplies the damage a counterattack might do, and the AI can actually use the millions of units its difficulty bonuses give it. Any other form of "you can stack infinitely but it's probably not a good idea" is acceptable as well - it was crap in Civ 5 that you couldn't have a Great Prophet and a worker in the same city, and they've kept that garbage for Civ 6. Gort fucked around with this message at 20:54 on Aug 8, 2016 |
|
#
?
Aug 8, 2016 20:51
|
|
|
Yeah, this hybrid system they have planned could be amazing or it could be terrible, it all depends on how it's implemented. Which is pretty much the story of stacks and 1UPT anyway.
|
|
#
?
Aug 8, 2016 20:54
|
|
|
I wonder if quests and planetary wonders will make a comeback from Beyond Earth. They were neat, if occasionally rather silly if you got lucky. In my current game, my farms produce base +4 food, 1 production, 1 energy, and 1 science. In one particular city, I have five farm tiles that churn out 7 food, 5 production, 2 science, and 1 energy. Each.
|
|
#
?
Aug 8, 2016 21:14
|
|
|
just take a leaf from paradox and make overstacked units take attrition
|
|
#
?
Aug 8, 2016 21:17
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 30, 2024 23:05 |
|
|
Powercrazy posted:Yea. It totally neuters the game when a major game system (Combat) can be trivialized by two archers and a cavalry until you finally win a space race, or decide to grind through with a conquest victory. Give me Civ4 stacks plus Zone of Control but with hexes. how were stacks of doom even remotely fun, hell the game even automatically put the unit thats best at defending against the current attack type in place for you
|
|
#
?
Aug 8, 2016 21:26
|
|
