|
And now it's on Youtube. I dunno about diplomacy, keeping in line with a civ's agenda helps keep some peace but there's a lot of modifiers that play into relations. With the examples given after declaring a surprise war, he was meeting Catherine's main agenda and was still only barely positive with her before the warmonger penalty. Guess I'll have to see the release balance on all the effects.
|
#
?
Sep 8, 2016 03:37
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 15, 2024 09:19 |
|
|
I think it's nice to have some give and take with Civs instead of them just being mad because you're obviously weaker (and an opportunistic target) or stronger (can I have your luxuries for free? how about some horses?). Before it was just kind of like looking at modifiers that you had little control over (I built your wonders, I settled lands close to you, I have a religion, your city states like me better than you, piss off) that didn't seem to give much interplay. At least now I can be sure that Teddy likes me badgering people on other continents or I can be sure that Norway is going to raid my poo poo if I don't build a navy. I think it's great that they're picking specific leaders with specific agendas to build AIs around rather than just picking their favorite historical leader and giving them anachronastic abilities and sliding scale care modifiers. I think it also does a good job of crafting an ethos of the civ in historical/futuristic terms rather than being like "oh joy, Hiawatha's going to expand everywhere", because that's what the Iriqouis were known for...
|
|
#
?
Sep 8, 2016 04:57
|
|
|
Also remember that there are going to be random AI national agendas in addition to the set personal ones. You might get a game where Harald respects that you have a strong navy but judging by your lack of culture you're clearly unsophisticated swine so have at you.
|
|
#
?
Sep 8, 2016 05:00
|
|
|
I think it would be worthwhile to decouple the objective assessment of a Civ ("has a big navy", "has low culture", "is a warmonger") from the subjective sentiment ("You took my city", "You adopted my religion", "You helped my enemy") in diplomacy. One should probably act as a shield for backstabbing, and the other should affect how favorable deals you can get, or something like that. It just seems to be that diplomacy is missing a lot by trying to distill everything into one value.
|
|
#
?
Sep 8, 2016 10:11
|
|
|
You reversed those terms subjective/objective, but yes I agree with you. Additionally as far as AI's are concerned Norway liking people that have a big navy and disliking people (and thus more likely to go declare war on) who don't is a good design decision as well. If you are a viking civ which, ostensibly Norway is, you'd want to raid people without a way to stop you. Same with England liking that you have more wonders then them, if you were able to build a bunch of wonders then you are more likely a peaceful civ, so they are more likely to buddy up with you. Whereas someone like Shaka would be more likely to declare war on you and claim those wonders for himself.
|
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2016 19:35
|
|
|
If Shaka takes a lot of cities with wonders will England start liking him for being a peaceful wonder builder? 
|
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2016 21:41
|
|
|
Poil posted:If Shaka takes a lot of cities with wonders will England start liking him for being a peaceful wonder builder? In Civ4 a late game Shaka wasn't a war monger, so I say yes.
|
|
#
?
Sep 10, 2016 07:08
|
|
|
I agree with this post in general except...Magil Zeal posted:Nah it was pretty easy to get bored with V really quick after release. Once you figured out that the terrain didn't matter and trading posts were -always- the best and the various other balance flaws (maritime city states) it kinda sucked the fun out of the game, along with the completely irrational/inscrutable diplomatic AI and general personal annoyance with 1UPT. All that was really messed up about IV on release was the multiplayer (which was, admittedly, a shitshow), the base game mechanics were solid and balance wasn't that out of whack. Someone doesn't remember 18-strength Cossacks, 16-strength Redcoats, and 30 hammer chops from Turn 0  . Fortunately all that nonsense got patched out relatively quickly.Nevertheless your overall point is sound. I don't really understand the revisionist history that Civ 4 was bad until the expansions, that absolutely was never true at all. V before expansions was just bad in comparison.
|
|
#
?
Sep 10, 2016 17:32
|
|
|
Have they mentioned what happens to tiles that you build districts onto? As in, do you keep any of their original tiles yields? Do you flatten off bonus features like sheep/deer etc? The thought hit me randomly, that if that happens, the location of expansions would be almost irrelevant for tall cities; they'll be flattening out the countryside regardless of what's on it, which is a shame.
|
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2016 02:30
|
|
|
I think the only difference is they replace improvements, so you'd still have the minor resource bonus. You'd have to go really tall for it to make a huge impact since it's 1 district to 3 pop, and it also would be self-regulating when you start replacing all your farms for space.
|
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2016 03:38
|
|
|
Some districts also get adjacency bonuses for things like being next to forests or farms, so it's not like they completely replace improvements, even for tall cities.
|
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2016 03:57
|
|
|
Ghostlight posted:I think the only difference is they replace improvements, so you'd still have the minor resource bonus. You'd have to go really tall for it to make a huge impact since it's 1 district to 3 pop, and it also would be self-regulating when you start replacing all your farms for space. Housing is the other new big cap on population size, since you need to have space to put all your dudes, some of which might involve building neighborhood districts.
|
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2016 05:09
|
|
|
There's nothing on Well of Souls about it, but I remember from somewhere that housing is a soft cap.
|
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2016 05:11
|
|
|
Adjacency bonuses/wonder locations mean that city location is going to be way way more important in Civ 6. And even very tall cities aren't going to be nothing but districts. 1) There are only like 11ish districts, and only one can be built in each city (and that includes things like harbors/aqueducts, which have placement requirements). You can build as many Neighborhoods as you want, I suppose. 2) Many districts want improvements for adjacency bonuses (like mines/quarries for Industrial Zones) 3) Many civs have unique improvements which you will want to use 4) Luxury/strategic resources are still around, you will still be improving those and probably working them 5) The majority of Food/Production will still come from the land, it seems. Industrial Zones provide hammers, but mostly from boosting other hammer sources. Pretty sure districts do not keep any base tile values. In the Religion vid released, they mouse over the Holy Site tile, and the only yield shown is Faith. You also don't have to 'work' districts. You get the value from the district+adjacency bonuses+buildings anyways. You can apparently put citizens in there as specialists (appears to be 1 citizen per building in the district). If you do want to build in the spot where a sheep/deer/etc is, you can now Harvest resources for a one-time bonus before putting the district there. Krazyface posted:There's nothing on Well of Souls about it, but I remember from somewhere that housing is a soft cap. It's sort of soft. If I remember right: Pop is 2 or more below Housing: Normal growth rate Pop is 1 below Housing (so growing into the last spot): -50% growth rate Pop is between 0 and 4 above Housing: -75% growth rate Pop 5 above Housing: Zero growth. So it is a soft cap, but Housing+5 is the hard limit.
|
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2016 05:37
|
|
|
Gully Foyle posted:It's sort of soft. If I remember right: I kinda dislike that. I'd prefer it if you didn't get penalties until you actually exceeded the available housing.
|
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2016 08:56
|
|
|
Hang on, are they still using the 1 pop eats 2 food system, or is getting completely revamped?
|
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2016 09:09
|
|
|
Gort posted:I kinda dislike that. I'd prefer it if you didn't get penalties until you actually exceeded the available housing. You could just mentally subtract 1 from your available housing and it would function identically.
|
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2016 09:40
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:You could just mentally subtract 1 from your available housing and it would function identically. Given the number is completely arbitrary, they should make it as easy as possible to interpret. KISS and all that.
|
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2016 10:10
|
|
|
Phobophilia posted:Hang on, are they still using the 1 pop eats 2 food system, or is getting completely revamped? Even if they changed the food demand per pop, it doesn't tell you anything to know it until you also know base yields for the common terrain types, farm bonuses, any other bonuses, leftover requirements for pop increase etc.
|
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2016 10:30
|
|
|
JeremoudCorbynejad posted:Given the number is completely arbitrary, they should make it as easy as possible to interpret. KISS and all that. KISS?
|
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2016 11:49
|
|
|
Keep It Simple, Stupid.
|
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2016 11:50
|
|
|
Ty
|
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2016 11:54
|
|
|
Phobophilia posted:Hang on, are they still using the 1 pop eats 2 food system, or is getting completely revamped? Although I haven't heard specifically that its still they system, I would be hugely shocked if that changed. That's been one of the few constants through pretty much every single Civ iteration since Civ 1. Gort posted:I kinda dislike that. I'd prefer it if you didn't get penalties until you actually exceeded the available housing. Yeah. Its possible they've changed it since. I guess it is meant to look as though the city is getting crowded, but not quite there yet. After that, the city is considered very crowded, but you can still pack them in to a certain point. It does make city location very important, as access to fresh water gives a big boost to housing. And since city size impacts number of districts and thus which buildings are available, housing limits are pretty interesting restrictions. Aqueducts can compensate once you get them, if you are one tile away from a river, lake, ocean, or mountain.
|
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2016 15:13
|
|
|
The way I think of it is, you want a certain amount of unused housing if you want people to be able to move around and be willing to start families. If 95% of houses (/apartments/condos/etc.) are in use, then there's still a decent supply of houses so the market isn't completely locked up. If 99% of houses are in use, then it becomes a lot harder for anyone to get their hands on a house. So you would expect things to stagnate as you approach maximum utilization.
|
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2016 15:45
|
|
|
It could also be that a minor growth penalty is not considered cause for concern but the 75% penalty for exceeding your max is where you need to start worrying, hence in terms of readability of important information, the "cap" is listed as where the 75% restriction comes in.
|
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2016 15:50
|
|
|
Is there a MOO thread anywhere?
|
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2016 15:55
|
|
|
TooMuchAbstraction posted:The way I think of it is, you want a certain amount of unused housing if you want people to be able to move around and be willing to start families. If 95% of houses (/apartments/condos/etc.) are in use, then there's still a decent supply of houses so the market isn't completely locked up. If 99% of houses are in use, then it becomes a lot harder for anyone to get their hands on a house. So you would expect things to stagnate as you approach maximum utilization. When you put it like that it does make sense thematically. People have an expectation though that bad things happen only after you reach a limit. But meh, it's a tiny quibble. Anyway I've not been paying much attention - does growth have two limiting systems then? Happiness (or amenities as it's apparently called now) and housing?
|
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2016 15:55
|
|
|
JeremoudCorbynejad posted:When you put it like that it does make sense thematically. People have an expectation though that bad things happen only after you reach a limit. But meh, it's a tiny quibble. Yes, Housing is much more dramatic. But negative amenities in a city reduces growth and all non-food yields. I believe it's a multiplier, not an additive thing though. So if you had an excess of 10 food/turn, but had -50% from Housing problems and -20% from Amenities, you'd end up with net 4 food/turn of growth. It's not really clear yet how the whole amenities system works. It's basically local happiness, but luxuries only provide amenities to a certain number of cities. I don't know if multiple copies helps, or how that number of cities is determined, or whatever. We also don't know if Golden Ages are a thing anymore.
|
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2016 16:15
|
|
|
So can I take over a continent with sprawling slums? Because if so I'm preordering this
|
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2016 17:42
|
|
|
Goodpancakes posted:So can I take over a continent with sprawling slums? Because if so I'm preordering this
|
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2016 18:35
|
|
|
I hope I can build a slummy city next to an opponent's fancy one and bring down its property values
|
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2016 18:54
|
|
|
JeremoudCorbynejad posted:I hope I can build a slummy city next to an opponent's fancy one and bring down its property values Win a cultural victory by having awesome culture but lovely economics so all of your population flees to more prosperous civs, taking your culture with them and displacing the prosperous civs' culture.
|
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2016 19:46
|
|
|
Apparently industrial zones reduce the beauty of neighboring tiles, but I don't think they've shown whether adjacency effects cross borders.
|
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2016 20:03
|
|
|
Phanatic posted:Is there a MOO thread anywhere? There's thread for MOO3, that count?
|
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2016 20:15
|
|
|
I'm gonna build a ton of slums around a nice harbor and put all my production into landing the Olympics.
|
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2016 22:05
|
|
|
What kind of district would a Nazi concentration camp be? Asking for a friend.
|
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2016 22:17
|
|
|
is there going to be a red light district in the game
|
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2016 22:18
|
|
|
Kurtofan posted:is there going to be a red light district in the game Dutch aren't in the base game, maybe in the expansion.
|
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2016 22:39
|
|
|
Kurtofan posted:is there going to be a red light district in the game Wait for the Amsterdam dlc
|
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2016 22:44
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 15, 2024 09:19 |
|
|
Tiger Millionaire posted:Wait for the
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2016 05:39
|
|
