|
Panzeh posted:Because spherical maps are not really good in a gameplay sense and the gimmick made planetary annihilation annoying as gently caress to play. if it's big enough (the size of a normal civ map I think), the local zone will be the same as a flat map. Also I want germans to fly their zepplins across Antarctica to strike at the treacherous horse lords of south america
|
#
?
Aug 15, 2016 23:26
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 14, 2024 01:20 |
|
|
Aerdan posted:...You mean like the Celts, Denmark, Korea, No one there is on the same scale as the main Civilization representatives for sure, but are all orders of magnitude larger and more prominent than the Inuit. They also had major interactions with many of the mainline Civs, that I don't think the Inuit can claim. Most of them also hold claim to being a modern country - Ireland, Poland, Thailand, etc. Like I won't be offended if they're added into the game, and I'm all for a variety of representation, but I think there's still a wealth of civilizations and cultures that can be added into the game that aren't primarily an excuse to make worthless snow tiles slightly less worthless.
|
|
#
?
Aug 15, 2016 23:38
|
|
|
Russia should be able to do stuff with snow tiles i mean one of the major reasons they were so difficult to invade is that the place is drat near impossible to march on in the winter.
|
|
#
?
Aug 15, 2016 23:57
|
|
|
Polynesia isn't even a civilisation - it's a collection of descendant cultures spread across literal oceans. It's in because it a) offers a hook for gameplay mechanics and b) representation. The Inuit, as a collective, are many times more populous than both the Rapa Nui, from which Polynesia get their unique improvement, and the Shoshone of BNW. They have just as much if not more history with the other mainline civs than any member of Polynesia does, having been encroached upon first by Vikings then by the European whalers. There's no reason and there's certainly precedent for putting in an Inuit nation that a) offers a hook for snow/tundra/sea resource-based gameplay mechanics, and b) gives recognition to a marginalised culture with almost two thousand years of history behind it.
|
|
#
?
Aug 16, 2016 00:22
|
|
|
It's totally fine for Snow tiles to be worthless, especially early game, along with Swamp and Desert.
ate shit on live tv fucked around with this message at 00:26 on Aug 16, 2016 |
|
#
?
Aug 16, 2016 00:24
|
|
|
Powercrazy posted:It's totally fine for Snow tiles to be worthless, especially early game, along with Swamp and Desert. I've always thought that they should make tiles be more productive as you progress technologically, so you could eventually found viable settlements in previously uninhabitable places.
|
|
#
?
Aug 16, 2016 01:11
|
|
|
Glass of Milk posted:I've always thought that they should make tiles be more productive as you progress technologically, so you could eventually found viable settlements in previously uninhabitable places. Founding settlements is almost never worth it later in the game. There are games that have this kind of mechanic and it's kinda bad unless cities don't improve that much from when they start(see moo1). I guess you could make swamps, deserts, and tundra amazing tiles that kickstart a city to being really good but that seems a bit hokey.
|
|
#
?
Aug 16, 2016 01:13
|
|
|
Panzeh posted:Founding settlements is almost never worth it later in the game. There are games that have this kind of mechanic and it's kinda bad unless cities don't improve that much from when they start(see moo1). I remember founding cities in mid-lategame in Civ4 and having them be reasonably productive. Generally that involved either a good site on an island, or needing a forward operating base for warfare. Of course it's not worth it in Civ5, where city growth is glacial and the game artificially penalizes your tech/culture rate based on how many cities you have. But it doesn't have to be that way.
|
|
#
?
Aug 16, 2016 01:24
|
|
|
They've already added the Scythians to VI and they were pretty much just as marginal as the Inuit.
|
|
#
?
Aug 16, 2016 01:46
|
|
|
TooMuchAbstraction posted:I remember founding cities in mid-lategame in Civ4 and having them be reasonably productive. Generally that involved either a good site on an island, or needing a forward operating base for warfare. As you noted, the only reason you'd do this in Civ4 is because it was in an inaccessible spot (an island) or for reasons unrelated to production. Otherwise you would have settled it earlier. That's because the basic formula of Civ means that you should always build cities until whatever limiting mechanism makes them unproductive. If the limiting mechanism is only the opportunity cost of building a settler instead of something else, you get ICS. If it's the many penalties of Civ V, you get a much more limited number of cities. Either way though, you should always expand up to that point as fast as possible. Therefore, if you're settling a city late game it's because: a) Technology has unlocked a reduction in the penalties for founding a city, so you suddenly can afford a new city. b) Technology has improved the production of cities so that the benefit of founding a new one is worth the penalty. c) You have been voluntarily crippling yourself by waiting to found a city you could afford. d) You could afford a city but have no room to build it. e) You need a city for other (likely military or strategic resource) reasons and those reasons justify the penalty. E is a pretty game-specific factor that doesn't come up much, and designing for players to voluntarily cripple themselves isn't usually a good idea. Making bad tiles productive could help with case D where someone is trapped in the Arctic, but that's also a pretty edge case. Case A is how I wish they would design the game with progressive reductions to the penalties as tech (or social policies) advance allowing you to slowly ramp up city numbers, but snow tile production doesn't affect it much (allows more choice of sites for the later cities potentially). In order for Case B to be true, you'd have to give massive bonuses to the tiles and make them better than grassland/plains/mountain tiles, which I don't think people would like. Ultimately, I don't think it makes much of a difference if they give snow tiles production late game or not because it's not likely to factor much into city location decisions so it's pretty much a non-issue.
|
|
#
?
Aug 16, 2016 01:51
|
|
|
Maybe its just me but I'd love to see the Civ series tackle weather / seasons. Not sure exactly how they could do it. Maybe certain resources either appear/disappear depending on season. Or at the very least change value in the amount of happiness or whatever they give. I guess it doesn't make too much sense when a turn is large chunks of time.
|
|
#
?
Aug 16, 2016 02:25
|
|
|
blackmongoose posted:Ultimately, I don't think it makes much of a difference if they give snow tiles production late game or not because it's not likely to factor much into city location decisions so it's pretty much a non-issue. Caveman to Cosmos did this which was kind of neat (also building culture to unlock unique units/buildings was a novel idea too). xgalaxy posted:Maybe its just me but I'd love to see the Civ series tackle weather / seasons. What would this add to the game besides make happiness management (even more) annoying? ate shit on live tv fucked around with this message at 02:43 on Aug 16, 2016 |
|
#
?
Aug 16, 2016 02:41
|
|
|
"And then it was winter for the next 10 years."
|
|
#
?
Aug 16, 2016 03:10
|
|
|
I'd prefer there be biblical events like giant floods and pillars of salt, all that kind of Old Testament wrath of God stuff in the ancient era, with it slowly going away until you get to the future era and can unleash global warming to cause massive floods, nano plagues, orbital bombardments, etc, which cause your citizens to slowly lose technology and begin interpreting those events as the wrath of angry gods.
|
|
#
?
Aug 16, 2016 03:15
|
|
|
I wish late game cities got up to par faster. There should be something that encourages you to settle in every era, but you also shouldn't be barfing out cities until the entire planet is covered in 1080CE. Better tech (or possibly cultural focus? I like the split tech/culture tree concept) should let some city sites that would be rear end backwards early game be completely worth grabbing later on, after years of being wilderness. Part of this is that new cities don't seem to be able to catch up that well. Maybe something food related like cities will rapidly grow until food parity and then gate it based on tech/physical farmland size. I also would like to see more ancient era great writers and poo poo. Sort of seems at odds, but if culture expands borders, and bigger borders mean better food, or better agricultural tech means better food... Idk, at least at my level of play it seems like doing anything but getting more food is shooting yourself in the foot and that's kinda crap.
|
|
#
?
Aug 16, 2016 03:27
|
|
|
xgalaxy posted:Maybe its just me but I'd love to see the Civ series tackle weather / seasons. Endless Legend does this, but it was definitely more of a "winter is coming" long winter type of thing. It was sort of interesting, since it sucked to wage war in winter, so the winter was spent basically cranking out units/working on infrastructure, so that you can wage war when it was not-winter.
|
|
#
?
Aug 16, 2016 03:32
|
|
|
SniperWoreConverse posted:I wish late game cities got up to par faster. There should be something that encourages you to settle in every era, but you also shouldn't be barfing out cities until the entire planet is covered in 1080CE. That's what I was saying earlier re: Civ4: if you found a decent city site that for whatever reason wasn't founded in the early land rush, you could get it up to speed in maybe 20-30 turns, especially if you used gold-buy to get some basic infrastructure up. Civ4's building costs were balanced on the assumption that your cities would need to spend a fair amount of their time working on units, which meant that any one city that didn't need to build units could build infrastructure noticeably faster if it had decent production. It helps that you didn't need to have a huge population to have good production. Civ5's massive focus on population meant that even if your city has all the infrastructure in the world, it'll still be a lovely city because it has 10 population while your core cities each has 30+.
|
|
#
?
Aug 16, 2016 03:35
|
|
|
Ps, I'd be down with adding civs likelike Inuit as for-real "serious" civs, but it would require a serious look at why they didn't become a superpower irl and what kinds of circumstances in actual history would have to be different to make that happen. It just needs to be basically plausible and I'm down. I'm also for adding more "unconventional" civs like Greco-Bactria and more Africans and Americans and stuff like that.
|
|
#
?
Aug 16, 2016 03:36
|
|
|
Regarding mid/late-game city founding, there could be an "immigration" (population) bonus that comes in later eras for founding cities that could be increased by natural wonders or luxury resources inside the city zone. Combine that with late game techs that increase yields or available buildings/districts for tiles and it might make it worthwhile and not too onerous to keep track of. Rushing buildings in new cities with gold was, from a game perspective, generally never as good a use of the money as rushing buildings in larger cities, but you could have some sort of "manifest destiny" civic that reduced the cost of rushing buildings in small cities. Or steal a page out of the original Colonization's book and have civics or a wonder that auto-builds certain things at different population levels.
|
|
#
?
Aug 16, 2016 04:12
|
|
|
Glass of Milk posted:Rushing buildings in new cities with gold was, from a game perspective, generally never as good a use of the money as rushing buildings in larger cities, Why? I still play on prince. TooMuchAbstraction posted:That's what I was saying earlier re: Civ4: if you found a decent city site that for whatever reason wasn't founded in the early land rush, you could get it up to speed in maybe 20-30 turns, especially if you used gold-buy to get some basic infrastructure up. Civ4's building costs were balanced on the assumption that your cities would need to spend a fair amount of their time working on units, which meant that any one city that didn't need to build units could build infrastructure noticeably faster if it had decent production. It helps that you didn't need to have a huge population to have good production. Yeah, that sucks about 5. I only ever played 5 and like two games of 1&2, with a sprinkle of alpha centauri (that I never beat) and beyond earth (that I never beat) SniperWoreConverse fucked around with this message at 04:27 on Aug 16, 2016 |
|
#
?
Aug 16, 2016 04:25
|
|
|
You shouldn't go crazy rushing infrastructure in filler cities in Civ4. If there's a patch of grassland with no food resources unsettled before T200, you just put in the basic stuff: granary, courthouse, lighthouse if on coast, forge, then workshop everything around it and hand-build a factory and power plant. So simple stuff with a high RoI, it's not going to work cottages, so it doesn't want science/gold multipliers. It won't be huge, so it won't need happy buildings. Just use it to pump units or build wealth. Civ4 was very much about triangulating whatever gives the best RoI and whether it fit into your short-term or long-term goals. If you're bottled in and need to break out in an early war, just focus on food and production to set up for an axe or chariot or horse archer timing rush. If you're constricted to 6 or so cities, set yourself to bulb though liberalism and set up a cuirassier or cavalry rush. If you have a ton of backfill land, then you can safely fixate on long-term growth and cottage spam everything in anticipation of a spaceship.
|
|
#
?
Aug 16, 2016 04:42
|
|
|
Every nation already in Civ is already a stereotype controlled by an immortal entity with perfect knowledge of the arrow of progress over millennia and where every nation starts with a roughly similar clean slate. It has never been realistic and I am perfectly OK with it continuing to be even less realistic in the future. I am also always suspicious, as I am with Paradox gamers, when the "But my realism" flag gets thrown down conveniently when underrepresented peoples are discussed, except even moreso here
|
|
#
?
Aug 16, 2016 04:56
|
|
|
I'd much rather have the Inuit than something like Brazil.
|
|
#
?
Aug 16, 2016 05:11
|
|
|
I don't want an Inuit civ just so somebody could live on snow; I don't think anyone was saying that. I want an Inuit civ because they're cool and have a unique cultural flavor.
|
|
#
?
Aug 16, 2016 08:11
|
|
|
Kajeesus posted:I don't want an Inuit civ just so somebody could live on snow; I don't think anyone was saying that. I want an Inuit civ because they're cool and have a unique cultural flavor. I mean can't it be both? It's a weird thing to get hung up on the "why".
|
|
#
?
Aug 16, 2016 08:16
|
|
|
who would be the leader of the Inuit
|
|
#
?
Aug 16, 2016 08:16
|
|
|
I caught a new video of civ 6 gameplay today and I've got to say my opinion of the graphics has completely changed. I thought it was looking all iphone game and simplistic but having seen this video it's actually looking really good. I'm probably late to the party here since I've not really been following it but drat I'm looking forward to this game now.
|
|
#
?
Aug 16, 2016 08:20
|
|
|
SniperWoreConverse posted:Why? I still play on prince. Because higher populations means more tiles worked, so buildings with percentage increases are higher, and those that give "+1 for every 2 pop" also give better yields. That's only from a powergaming perspective. Obviously, things are situational strategically and what not.
|
|
#
?
Aug 16, 2016 08:22
|
|
|
Panzeh posted:Because spherical maps are not really good in a gameplay sense and the gimmick made planetary annihilation annoying as gently caress to play. it's actually fine, it's not really a gimmick for a world war simulator to be played on something that actually represents a world
|
|
#
?
Aug 16, 2016 08:23
|
|
|
There's a really good Inuit Civ that a modder made for civ 5. It might be too good, honestly, but I mean, they get a lot of bonuses because their start bias is otherwise inhospitable snow tiles. The modder also did a neat trick where the game selects a normal, non-snow start location for the civ (I think it's usually tundra?), and then the mod picks up the starting units and any luxuries/resources nearby, and moves it all over to a snowy part of the map. So you'll have like, some deer wandering around in the snow, or some dyes. I like it as a civ because it's about making the snow work for you by building the UTIs and harvesting sea resources, so it's a lot more satisfying than simply being given a flat "snow tiles give 1 food in your territory". The person who makes it makes a ton of other interesting civs, so I'm hopeful that they'll continue their work on Civ 6 when it comes out.
|
|
#
?
Aug 16, 2016 08:26
|
|
|
SniperWoreConverse posted:Ps, I'd be down with adding civs likelike Inuit as for-real "serious" civs, but it would require a serious look at why they didn't become a superpower irl and what kinds of circumstances in actual history would have to be different to make that happen. It just needs to be basically plausible and I'm down. That's a lot of words for saying "No Inuits" I don't see the Civ games as some kind of award of recognition for real civilizations, where someone has to prove their worth to be included in. It should be weird and diverse and fun and even when the tiny soldiers die and their cities burn in nuclear fire you don't have to contemplate anything deeper than what you are going to do on your next turn. I'd rather they remove some flavor of European Colonial Power so that they have more space for civs like the Inuit, even if it's hard to choose between, say, Germany or Netherlands.
|
|
#
?
Aug 16, 2016 08:44
|
|
|
Chalks posted:I caught a new video of civ 6 gameplay today and I've got to say my opinion of the graphics has completely changed. I thought it was looking all iphone game and simplistic but having seen this video it's actually looking really good. I'm probably late to the party here since I've not really been following it but drat I'm looking forward to this game now. lewis is a giant scrub who gets his rocks off stomping over the even worse yogscast players marbozir had a pretty good civ6 video as well. in general, civ6 pr seems to be much more forward with its mechanics than what happened with civ5. on the other hand, there are a ton of systems and mechanics that have never been explored in earlier civ games, and im worried that it'll get exploited to poo poo the moment the game goes gold
|
|
#
?
Aug 16, 2016 08:44
|
|
|
Chalks posted:I caught a new video of civ 6 gameplay today and I've got to say my opinion of the graphics has completely changed. I thought it was looking all iphone game and simplistic but having seen this video it's actually looking really good. I'm probably late to the party here since I've not really been following it but drat I'm looking forward to this game now. I think it mostly looks fine. The only things that really bother me are that the trees look dumb and the plains and grassland textures look real flat, but otherwise I've come around on the art style. If you meant mechanically then yeah, I am really excited. I've liked nearly everything they've shown. The only thing I don't like is that you need to have 2 movement to enter difficult terrain and that is 100% the opposite direction they need to be going in.
|
|
#
?
Aug 16, 2016 09:12
|
|
|
Powercrazy posted:What would this add to the game besides make happiness management (even more) annoying? it could affect tiles but it would have to be balanced in a way that it wont become tiresome to manage - but thats more along the lines of climate changes rather than weather weather itself, like rain, could have an effect on combat though - it could turn floodplains into marshlands that are difficult to pass, rain stops any airplanes from attacking those tiles, artillery getting an accuracy penalty in misty weather and so on
|
|
#
?
Aug 16, 2016 09:39
|
|
|
Ghostlight posted:They have just as much if not more history with the other mainline civs than any member of Polynesia does, having been encroached upon first by Vikings [About the Inuit] When was that, do you think? The only point at which I am aware of any meaningful interaction between Norse and Inuit people was in the later days of the Norse settlement in Greenland, and by then the Norse settlers weren't encroaching on anyone but rather in a terminal decline. (Also it was a couple of centuries after people had stopped going Viking.)
|
|
#
?
Aug 16, 2016 10:11
|
|
|
echinopsis posted:it's actually fine, it's not really a gimmick for a world war simulator to be played on something that actually represents a world Losing half of your screen space to useless space while not being able to have a useful minimap and making scrolling tricky while making the edge of the map you do get to see pretty useless due to the angle is a big gameplay/interface problem.
|
|
#
?
Aug 16, 2016 10:35
|
|
|
I think a civ that can use tiles that are garbage for everyone else would be kind of weird, in that they would not even be competing with the other civs for land in the conventional way. OTOH, these games have never been particularly worried about balance, so what the hell. gently caress round maps. Flat maps were good enough for actual human history, they're good enough for my pretend one.
|
|
#
?
Aug 16, 2016 10:45
|
|
|
Failboattootoot posted:I think it mostly looks fine. The only things that really bother me are that the trees look dumb and the plains and grassland textures look real flat, but otherwise I've come around on the art style. If you meant mechanically then yeah, I am really excited. I've liked nearly everything they've shown. The only thing I don't like is that you need to have 2 movement to enter difficult terrain and that is 100% the opposite direction they need to be going in. In terms of the movement changes I'm not too upset about early game exploration and expansion being slowed a bit. Maybe it's naive, but exploring the map is one of my favourite parts of the game so extending this phase by having "hard to reach" areas of the world seems like it may be a good thing. I guess that technologies or improvements will reduce the impact of terrain penalties so presumably this mechanic will only affect the early game.
|
|
#
?
Aug 16, 2016 10:48
|
|
|
Groke posted:[About the Inuit]
|
|
#
?
Aug 16, 2016 12:02
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 14, 2024 01:20 |
|
|
Orcs and Ostriches posted:Am I the only person that doesn't want an inuit civilization added by default? I get it - there exist some people who live in the snow. But to put them in a game with history creating empires like Rome, China, Persia, England, etc., seems thematically wrong for the scope of the game. Hey I mean, say what you will about the viability of an Inuit civ but they did do a lot of classic civ stuff: destroying and displacing earlier native cultures, spreading out over a large territory, engaging in warfare over said territory, trading with other nearby civilizations, to the best of my knowledge they're also the only Native North American group to do extensive iron working. Not really base civ material but it could be a fun dlc down the line that could add something a bit different to the game. E: would make more sense than Canada IMO
|
|
#
?
Aug 16, 2016 13:25
|
|
