|
The Deleter posted:I mean if you meet a new person and they aren't up for a friendly greeting stab then they're not worth knowing imo. What you have to consider is the following: 1. Iceland was settled by people who were kicked out of Viking-era Norway (mostly) for being antisocial assholes. Take a moment to consider where the bar for that had to be set, in that time and place. 2. Greenland was later settled from Iceland, by some people who failed to get along with their neighbours there. Since "getting along with your neighbours" encompassed vendettas and arson, that's got to imply some rather bad attitudes. 3. Finally, the attempt to settle Vinland was made by some guys who were too ornery for Greenland. If you'd expect those fellas to get along nicely with the natives they met there... you've got an overly optimistic view of human nature.
|
#
?
Aug 16, 2016 22:07
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 15, 2024 03:52 |
|
|
MMM Whatchya Say posted:It's a story almost too kickin' rad to be believed, but the inuit actually made extensive use of some iron meteorites and cold forged them into tools. They traded with cultures to the south for native copper. The tools are characteristically crude of course, but it is a neat piece of history and according to some recent research, the inuit killed to get their hands on this stuff. I mean, I recognize this is all stretching a bit for when it comes to civ, given that the central concept of the series is the city, something the inuit did not really do.
|
|
#
?
Aug 16, 2016 22:12
|
|
|
MMM Whatchya Say posted:It's a story almost too kickin' rad to be believed, but the inuit actually made extensive use of some iron meteorites and cold forged them into tools. They traded with cultures to the south for native copper. The tools are characteristically crude of course, but it is a neat piece of history and according to some recent research, the inuit killed to get their hands on this stuff. I've read that meteoric iron was fairly commonly used among all peoples that had any form of metalworking--the hard part of using iron isn't working it, it's smelting ore into a usable metal, which is a step meteoric iron skips.
|
|
#
?
Aug 16, 2016 22:13
|
|
|
MMM Whatchya Say posted:It's a story almost too kickin' rad to be believed, but the inuit actually made extensive use of some iron meteorites and cold forged them into tools. They traded with cultures to the south for native copper. The tools are characteristically crude of course, but it is a neat piece of history and according to some recent research, the inuit killed to get their hands on this stuff. Tibet & Inuit sky iron shared domination victory or i'm canceling my preorder
|
|
#
?
Aug 16, 2016 22:34
|
|
|
Kurtofan posted:Skraeling civ I think the Japanese had that bonus in Civ 5.
|
|
#
?
Aug 16, 2016 23:22
|
|
|
MMM Whatchya Say posted:I mean, I recognize this is all stretching a bit for when it comes to civ, given that the central concept of the series is the city, something the inuit did not really do. Neither did the Huns.
|
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2016 01:57
|
|
|
But the Huns threatened the civilized races and thus need to be properly represented to fully represent the glorious history of Europa
|
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2016 02:18
|
|
|
Can we get an Appalachian Coal Miner civ too please. I want to play the Blair Mountainuit.
|
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2016 02:24
|
|
|
No Civ 4 thread, is there? Trying to get my bearings.
|
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2016 04:46
|
|
|
Rinkles posted:No Civ 4 thread, is there? Trying to get my bearings. No, but that's all people talk about in here, so
|
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2016 05:02
|
|
|
I was looking for some general advice on micromanaging cities. I'm not very good at managing sliders/city roles. Like, how do I determine whether a city should farm specialists (and which type) or commerce? Midgame I have problems just remembering what my plan was for city B after trying to figure out what to do with city C - it's overwhelming. I also have close to no idea what I'm doing with diplomacy - can't judge very well whether a tech trade is advantageous or not. (I play at noble level) But more importantly I wanted to note my disappointment with Firaxis' abandonment of Civ 3's era specific leader portraits. 
|
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2016 06:19
|
|
|
For specialist cities you want a location with lots of big food resources, like pigs or corn, so that you have as few non-specialist citizens as possible. Industry cities are almost identical to specialist cities, but you'll want a lot more hills. For commerce cities you want lots of flat grassland with rivers, or flood plains, and at least one food resource for growth. As for what specialists to use, you should focus on scientists and engineers, though all the other ones have uses as well. With the caste system civic you can have unlimited scientists, but engineers are much harder to come by.
|
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2016 06:40
|
|
|
I take it generally scientist cities are better than commerce cities for research because they work towards great scientists? At a glance, it can be hard to tell which would generate more beakers, especially if you haven't fully grown the city.
|
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2016 06:50
|
|
|
Specialists are strong in the early game, but cottages are better in the late game once they've grown to towns and you get the civics that enhance them.
|
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2016 08:24
|
|
|
Germany! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kyfztARmagA Barbarossa, Leader Ability: Provides an additional Military Slot for governments and gives units bonus in combat vs city state units. Civilization Ability: Provides an additional district than the population limit would normally allow. Unique District: Hansa: Industrial zone replacement, gets production if placed next to commercial hubs, additional adjacent districts, or resources. Unique Unit: U-boat: Low production cost, and has high combat ability in deep ocean. Sounds like Germany's going to be a formidable foe... Wonder what his agenda is.
|
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2016 09:11
|
|
|
Is this like the first time ever Germany didn't get panzers as their unique unit?
|
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2016 09:13
|
|
|
Interesting, sounds like Germany is going to be the destroyer of City-States in VI rather than the Mongolians. Poor Belgium. 
|
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2016 09:16
|
|
|
I love how in Civ 5 the Germans got the Hansa which gave them a huge incentive to never conquer city states And then in Civ 6 Germany is like "Nah actually let's just conquer them instead" and the Hansa just shrugs because its replacement bonuses are pretty nice as well.
|
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2016 09:20
|
|
|
Both those abilities sound great in the early-game, merely okay in the late-game. Still, those tend to be the best types of bonuses in this sort of game.
|
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2016 09:24
|
|
|
It's a little weird that they went with Uboats for Barbarossa, despite the massive time difference. Uboats seem like they would have been more Bismark's thing. Uboats are, however, extremely German, so they fit that civ perfectly.
|
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2016 09:27
|
|
|
Grapplejack posted:It's a little weird that they went with Uboats for Barbarossa, despite the massive time difference. Uboats seem like they would have been more Bismark's thing. I would've bet on Teutonic Knights or something along those lines, U-Boat is a little weird.
|
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2016 09:33
|
|
|
Iunno, vanilla Germany in Civ V had Teutonic Fury, Landsknechten, Otto von Bismarck and Panzers. They've never been about doing a bunch of things from the same era.
|
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2016 09:57
|
|
|
I think in general they're trying to represent points from throughout a civ's known history, so they've got a little bit of many eras for Germany. The unit's flavor is tied to the civ here, not Barbarossa. If Teddy didn't have an extra unique of his own, all America would have is the P-51 Mustang. I can only assume that the bonus against City-State units still apply if someone uses the feature to pay to take command of them. The extra Military policy slot means Barbarossa'll always have an edge, and Germany's population-free bonus Districts mean smaller cities can bring more specializations online faster; if nothing else, it'll make it easy to fit in more Encampments.
|
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2016 09:59
|
|
|
Grapplejack posted:It's a little weird that they went with Uboats for Barbarossa, despite the massive time difference. Uboats seem like they would have been more Bismark's thing. Uboats are the civ's unique unit, they're not linked to Barbarossa.
|
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2016 10:07
|
|
|
Kajeesus posted:Iunno, vanilla Germany in Civ V had Teutonic Fury, Landsknechten, Otto von Bismarck and Panzers. They've never been about doing a bunch of things from the same era. Thay've been trying to match things up to the leader a little more in civ vi, that said, Kurtofan posted:Uboats are the civ's unique unit, they're not linked to Barbarossa. E: the phrasing they're doing is pretty directly setting up multiple leaders, probably for an expansion or something. Jump King fucked around with this message at 14:57 on Aug 17, 2016 |
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2016 14:34
|
|
|
The designers probably also said "hey, how can we get a unique submarine into the game?" and gave it to the one civilization that created a unique submarine. That wasn't the Red October of course.
|
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2016 14:57
|
|
|
Peas and Rice posted:The designers probably also said "hey, how can we get a unique submarine into the game?" and gave it to the one civilization that created a unique submarine. Give the USA the Hunley as a unique submarine that replaces the ironclad. Or the Gato for the WW2 version. The US submarine fleet in WW2 was much larger and far more effective than the German u-boat fleet, just less iconic.
|
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2016 15:00
|
|
|
I feel like the WW1 U-boats were more significant than the WW2 ones
|
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2016 15:24
|
|
|
Rinkles posted:I was looking for some general advice on micromanaging cities. I'm not very good at managing sliders/city roles. Like, how do I determine whether a city should farm specialists (and which type) or commerce? Midgame I have problems just remembering what my plan was for city B after trying to figure out what to do with city C - it's overwhelming. I also have close to no idea what I'm doing with diplomacy - can't judge very well whether a tech trade is advantageous or not. (I play at noble level) Commerce goes on rivers since rivers give a +1 commerce bonus. Floodplains are handy as they're river tiles with +1 food to help the city grow. Throw down lots of hamlets and they'll eventually grow into towns for monstrous commerce bonuses. Specialist cities have lots of food resources (or, failing that, floodplains) to help them grow quickly and support citizens who aren't producing any food. So there is a certain amount of overlap there, but really a good specialist city has a few tiles worth 4+ food, while a good commerce city has a lot of tiles worth 2-3 food. Production cities need hammers, and hammers means hills and/or improved strategic resources. They also need some food to help the city grow though. As for remembering what a city is for, you can always take notes. Simplest way would just be to rename the city and add a "(C)", "(S)", or "(P)" to the end of its name to remind you what it's for. The slider should always be generating as much science as possible (subject to your financial burden), unless you're going for a culture victory in which case it's at max science until you get your last culture-generating tech and then switches to max culture. Diplomacy: in general, tech trades are favorable to you -- they help you while also helping one of your opponents, so you net come out ahead compared to the rest of the pack. You can compare the beaker cost of the tech to see if your trading partner is trying to gouge you. There are some techs you may want to hold onto for strategic reasons (especially, ones that give key units or access to important scientific benefits), and you may want to hold onto a tech until after you've built the wonder it unlocks, assuming you care about the wonder, but otherwise, trade early and often. Every tech you buy from another civ is one less tech you have to research yourself. Note, however, that if you do trade away a tech, you should try to trade it away to as many civs as possible on the same turn -- otherwise, the civ you sold it to will turn around and do the same.
|
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2016 15:38
|
|
|
MMM Whatchya Say posted:Thay've been trying to match things up to the leader a little more in civ vi, that said, People keep saying this and going on and on and on about multiple leaders when it's far more likely that it's just going to be a return of that option from Civ 4 that lets you scramble which Civs the Leaders are in charge of. So a game with Queen Tomyris of Brazil or whatever.
|
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2016 16:36
|
|
|
I just had a thought. If generals still create citadels and steal territory in this game, could we steal wonders without even going to war? 
|
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2016 16:41
|
|
|
Captain Fargle posted:People keep saying this and going on and on and on about multiple leaders when it's far more likely that it's just going to be a return of that option from Civ 4 that lets you scramble which Civs the Leaders are in charge of. So a game with Queen Tomyris of Brazil or whatever. Could be both, or they're leaving themselves open to options. I figure at the very least there'll be an option to mod in additional leaders.
|
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2016 17:15
|
|
|
I'd much prefer additional Civs to additional leaders for existing Civs, so I'm hoping Captain Fargle is right on this one.
|
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2016 17:21
|
|
|
JeremoudCorbynejad posted:I just had a thought. If generals still create citadels and steal territory in this game, could we steal wonders without even going to war? Maybe, but that'd likely be Causus Belli like crazy.
|
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2016 17:22
|
|
|
Kurtofan posted:who would be the leader of the Inuit Les Stroud
|
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2016 17:35
|
|
|
JVNO posted:I'd much prefer additional Civs to additional leaders for existing Civs, so I'm hoping Captain Fargle is right on this one. Yeah It'd be a little disappointing if they just tracked over the sam civs a second time rather than working in a bunch of extra civs. Doing both would be fun though.
|
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2016 17:44
|
|
|
Kurtofan posted:Skraeling civ This isn't 40K - keep your skraelings out of my Civ game.
|
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2016 17:56
|
|
|
Serious answer for Inuit leader- Colonialist Legacies modders used Ekeuhnick, which is at least as valid a pick as Dido or Hiawatha. That is, a somewhat mythical figure whose existence is debated but evidence leans toward 'yes'. Alternatively, for an ice based civilization, you could use the Sami. PoizenJam fucked around with this message at 21:30 on Aug 17, 2016 |
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2016 21:28
|
|
|
Weren't they planning to add the Inuit, but the latter objected to whoever they chose as the leader?
|
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2016 22:10
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 15, 2024 03:52 |
|
|
Raserys posted:Weren't they planning to add the Inuit, but the latter objected to whoever they chose as the leader? Pretty sure that's the Pueblo.
|
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2016 22:12
|
|