|
Or just go whole hog with stealing from Endless Legend and have stacks that cap out at a certain number of units and then play a combat minigame to determine combat.
|
#
?
Aug 8, 2016 21:28
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 14, 2024 12:23 |
|
|
berenzen posted:Or just go whole hog with stealing from Endless Legend and have stacks that cap out at a certain number of units and then play a combat minigame to determine combat. This, except without the minigame. Tactical combat in EL is the biggest drag. I would really like a system that somehow took your economic and technological throughput and converted it into some sort of power projection, with at most some high-level strategic decision-making. I have never been into Civ for the wargame-type play.
|
|
#
?
Aug 8, 2016 21:32
|
|
|
Powercrazy posted: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. Because I don't care if an AI is having fun or not.
|
|
#
?
Aug 8, 2016 21:35
|
|
|
berenzen posted:Or just go whole hog with stealing from Endless Legend and have stacks that cap out at a certain number of units and then play a combat minigame to determine combat. Endless Legend's combat was unimaginably terrible in every conceivable way. It took forever, the AI was just as bad and exploitable as Civ V, it was crammed full of pointlessly complicated fiddly bullshit, battlefield spawns routinely hosed up... I'm really struggling to think of any redeeming factors at all. After the first playthrough I pretty much automated every single combat except when I wanted to cheese the AI to win fights I had no business winning. As an automated engine, the idea of throwing limited stacks against each other with minor bonuses for having reinforcing units in the neighborhood worked out ok, but they still could have stripped out 90% of the combat mechanics and had a superior combat system.
|
|
#
?
Aug 8, 2016 21:36
|
|
|
Endless Legend was a giant ball of great ideas executed just well enough that it was playable. Except winter. Winter was loving stupid. The Human Crouton fucked around with this message at 22:15 on Aug 8, 2016 |
|
#
?
Aug 8, 2016 21:50
|
|
|
CharlieFoxtrot posted:I would really like a system that somehow took your economic and technological throughput and converted it into some sort of power projection, with at most some high-level strategic decision-making. I have never been into Civ for the wargame-type play. Oh my god, all my money for this. Something like:
et cetera, and then they just compare numbers and the bigger number wins. Make the game be about city-building, opportunity costs, and picking the right time to strike, not about shuffling units around.
|
|
#
?
Aug 8, 2016 21:55
|
|
|
so uh Through The Ages
|
|
#
?
Aug 8, 2016 21:56
|
|
|
I quite like Seven Wonders, where you just compare the military scores of your neighbours with your periodically and get points if yours is higher.
|
|
#
?
Aug 8, 2016 22:01
|
|
|
TooMuchAbstraction posted:Oh my god, all my money for this. Something like: Ok, it could be a bit more engaging than Spreadsheet Championship, but it's definitely the direction civ should take.
|
|
#
?
Aug 8, 2016 22:34
|
|
|
Rexides posted:Ok, it could be a bit more engaging than Spreadsheet Championship, but it's definitely the direction civ should take. It always struck me as odd that military operations were basically a totally different game from the rest of the game.
|
|
#
?
Aug 8, 2016 22:56
|
|
|
TooMuchAbstraction posted:Oh my god, all my money for this. Something like: I think part of the reason that military works the way it does in civ is to give you something to do every turn, though. You've got long term planning and improving tiles inside your borders which all take multiple turns, and then you can do things militarily every turn. Even if you're not at war, there's barbarians to poke. Civ is just a collection of fairly shallow systems, so if you replaced the military game with what you're suggesting you'd mostly just be dealing with like, optimising tile improvements, which on its own doesn't actually sound that fun to me because it isn't a very deep system in Civ. I'm not saying that the military game is actually that fun in practice, mind you, but I think that's the idea behind it. I'd like a historical city builder, but I don't think it should be Civ.
|
|
#
?
Aug 8, 2016 23:30
|
|
|
Its fun to build and command your armies. Its not fun when even moving then around is a pain, like it is in Civ 5 1UPT was a terrible idea. You either have tactical combat (like MoM, AoW and Endeless Legend), or you dont. Personally, Ive rather have something like EU edit: and by that I mean: no tactical combat, but more strategy depth then "pile up a lot of units" Elias_Maluco fucked around with this message at 23:49 on Aug 8, 2016 |
|
#
?
Aug 8, 2016 23:42
|
|
|
Man, we had this same conversation on page one of this very thread, and nothing got resolved then either Obviously this means that the truth is somewhere in the middle
|
|
#
?
Aug 8, 2016 23:50
|
|
|
Teron D Amun posted: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 Well "fun" is subjective, but I don't see what "the best defensive unit defends" has to do with that.
|
|
#
?
Aug 9, 2016 00:10
|
|
|
Powercrazy posted:Well "fun" is subjective, but I don't see what "the best defensive unit defends" has to do with that. Seriously, that was literally the only reason to stack units in civ4. Otherwise it was sub-optimal to expose units to more collateral damage than necessary by stacking up.
|
|
#
?
Aug 9, 2016 00:27
|
|
|
You all forget that civ4 combat is not just about stacks, but also about one-turn wins or losses. Unlike civ5 combat which is about dealing damage within a certain range of values Therefore, civ4 combat has not only a chess-like component, but also has a poker-like component. You know the approximate odds, and some of their hand, and you can tilt odds in your favour with some clever play, but ultimately you want to work on increasing the size of your pot so you can clean them out.
|
|
#
?
Aug 9, 2016 00:43
|
|
|
Panzeh posted:Seriously, that was literally the only reason to stack units in civ4. Otherwise it was sub-optimal to expose units to more collateral damage than necessary by stacking up. Big stacks are also better at protecting the units that are capable of retreating from combat. And of course for defending cities.
|
|
#
?
Aug 9, 2016 00:44
|
|
|
I greatly prefer Civ5's combat to Civ4's. I just wish the AI wasn't completely useless at it.
|
|
#
?
Aug 9, 2016 01:00
|
|
|
Phobophilia posted:You all forget that civ4 combat is not just about stacks, but also about one-turn wins or losses. Unlike civ5 combat which is about dealing damage within a certain range of values True. There were also some neat tricks you could do with cavalry vs siege weapons, and of course various sources of collateral damage especially in the late game (bombers, tactical nukes) made "stacks of doom" giant liabilities unless you were very strategic with your invasion planning. Not too mention that you had the previous 250 turns to build your advantage with minimal combat if you were good at the game. Also one turn combat was much preferable imo. Two unit's enter, one unit leaves* 
|
|
#
?
Aug 9, 2016 01:22
|
|
|
Panzeh posted:Seriously, that was literally the only reason to stack units in civ4. Otherwise it was sub-optimal to expose units to more collateral damage than necessary by stacking up. Splitting your stacks was asking to be defeated in detail, and this is not a trade off for saving a sliver of health.
|
|
#
?
Aug 9, 2016 01:22
|
|
|
I think I just find EU4 combat fundamentally more satisfying than anything Civ can realistically do
|
|
#
?
Aug 9, 2016 01:40
|
|
|
Jay Rust posted:Man, we had this same conversation on page one of this very thread, and nothing got resolved then either Welcome to a video game sequel anticipation thread on SA.
|
|
#
?
Aug 9, 2016 05:13
|
|
|
I think 1 UPT would be better received of multiplayer was better.Trasson posted:That's impossible. An AI good enough to win is an AI that knows that step 1 of winning is bringing down the leader. Not necessarily. You don't like, have to give it sentience to get it to just play well. I don't necessarily try to bring down the leader in every game like this I play. Instead of tearing down somebody else you can just better yourself. Of course, the best AI would ratfuck the poo poo out of everything and try to screw you over in every way possible, but I don't think that should be the default system.
|
|
#
?
Aug 9, 2016 13:03
|
|
|
A good AI would just ragequit once it realizes that it cannot win.
|
|
#
?
Aug 9, 2016 13:48
|
|
|
Scythia's video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3PfDkGcSNE0 This means no Mongols in vanilla, but I welcome our new steppe overlords.
|
|
#
?
Aug 9, 2016 15:27
|
|
|
The Kurgan
|
|
#
?
Aug 9, 2016 15:31
|
|
|
I welcome our new, fabulous barbarian overlords EDIT: UA: Building Light cavalry or their UU (The Saka Horse Archer) gives two units instead of one. Leader Ability (Tomyris): All units receive a bonus against wounded units and heal a little after a kill. Agenda: Hates surprise declarations of war. UU, Saka Horse Archer: Highly mobile and doesn't require horse resources to construct. (15 Combat Strength, 25 Ranged Strength, 1 Range, 4 Movement, Costs 100 production (technically 50 since you get two), becomes available during the Classical era) UI, Kurgan: Gives faith and gold with a bonus for being built next to pastures. Can't be built on hills or next to each other. (Seems like it on it's own gives 1 faith, bonus yield might be 1 faith per surrounding pasture) Dat UA 
|
|
#
?
Aug 9, 2016 15:49
|
|
|
Gabriel Pope posted:I welcome our new, fabulous barbarian overlords The Mongols called, they want their title as supreme cavalry masters back.
|
|
#
?
Aug 9, 2016 16:03
|
|
|
Cythereal posted:The Mongols called, they want their title as supreme cavalry masters back. Genghis gonna have to step up his hair game if he wants to compete widdat
|
|
#
?
Aug 9, 2016 16:04
|
|
|
Tomyris is cool and I'm glad more people will learn about her now but I was really not expecting the Scythians (who historically did approximately gently caress all) as one of the first civs.
|
|
#
?
Aug 9, 2016 16:05
|
|
|
scythia is a pretty exciting out of nowhere choice, even if its kinda taking the place of the mongols
|
|
#
?
Aug 9, 2016 16:07
|
|
|
out of nowhere choices are cool and good
|
|
#
?
Aug 9, 2016 16:08
|
|
|
I can't wait to see the YouTube comments on this Civ video
|
|
#
?
Aug 9, 2016 16:11
|
|
|
Gabriel Pope posted:I welcome our new, fabulous barbarian overlords So half the hammer cost, essentially. I wonder if you can still donate units to city states because this could turn out to be an efficient method for building allies
|
|
#
?
Aug 9, 2016 16:11
|
|
|
CharlieFoxtrot posted:I can't wait to see the YouTube comments on this Civ video "feminists!!" summed it up for ya
|
|
#
?
Aug 9, 2016 16:17
|
|
|
Scythia looks like a fun civ to play as. 
|
|
#
?
Aug 9, 2016 16:21
|
|
|
Scythia is gonna be boss.
|
|
#
?
Aug 9, 2016 17:07
|
|
|
Is it me or do cities have two health bars? Anyone know what that's about?
|
|
#
?
Aug 9, 2016 17:16
|
|
|
Gabriel Pope posted:I welcome our new, fabulous barbarian overlords So torn about what's been revealed about the game so far. Some changes and features seem intriguing, map-like fog of war is awesome and I'm really liking the whole districts mechanic, but I really loved the Art Deco aesthetics and more realistic-looking leaders of Civ V. In fact, the look of that game was my favourite of all Civs by far, so I'm finding the more cartoony style of Civ VI really unappealing in comparison, especially when it comes to leaders. Doesn't help that Cleopatra and Queen Victoria look like they're about one step away from breaking into Dreamworks smugfaces whereas the leader of Japan and Montezuma seem much less cartoony. Seeing as I spend just as much if not more time playing Civ games to relax and build pretty-looking empires rather than for the gameplay itself, it looking pretty just in a right way is a very, very serious concern. 
|
|
#
?
Aug 9, 2016 17:16
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 14, 2024 12:23 |
|
|
Pretty sure walls have their own individual health bar now.
|
|
#
?
Aug 9, 2016 17:17
|
|
