|
enraged_camel posted:I think they need to drastically reduce the melee strength of ranged units. This would fix a lot. Ranged units should be eviscerated by melee units.
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2016 19:31
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 30, 2024 05:09 |
|
|
The problem with Civ combat since 5 is that they tried to cram tactical combat in the strategy layer. It makes little sense, its a pain to play and, at the top of it, the AI cant handle it Ive always said: either add true tactical combat, like Endless, AoW or MoM etc, or abstract it completely
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2016 19:36
|
|
|
Integrate XCOM tactical battles into this! Use your synergy, Firaxis
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2016 19:39
|
|
|
this is the published errata for the civ 2 board game which, while similar to the video game, is less complex- it doesn't have districts or diplomacy, for example. however, i still think it's a useful comparison as a lot of the systems are similar. https://images-cdn.fantasyflightgames.com/ffg_content/civilization/news/Civilization%20FAQ_v2.0.pdf there are a lot of situational rules in there. i always like to think that firaxis is somewhere in the background compiling a list of situations like these from player feedback here and on civfanatics and stuff and prepping to teach them to the AI in a patch but history shows that most of the weird stuff isn't getting fixed. the endgame of Civilization for me is multiplayer which sucks because it takes too long.
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2016 19:43
|
|
|
I'm just gonna guess the reason they don't do the things in the Community Balance Patch in future games is they know how many copies of the game have sold, and can see the downloading of the patch is a fraction of that.
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2016 19:44
|
|
|
Come to Crazy Trajan's Imperial Resorts, where you can enjoy all the amenities: swimming in the ocean, some ruins we don't actually own (yet), and you leave with a "healthy" glow!
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2016 19:45
|
|
|
I have never really gotten into Civ multiplayer. It's just a bit too much time investment and a bit too fiddly to do that when you could get totally wrecked by another person, in a process that could take dozens of turns (and thus hours)
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2016 19:45
|
|
|
Taear posted:So then there's no way to have a team victory at all in any way? Because that's sorta poo poo. A group of us who play together regularly have put Civ VI on the shelf for this very reason. You can't work towards a common goal or victory objective. As much as the team dynamic didn't work entirely great in Civ V with regards to the AI, they would put up much more of a fight on Immortal or Diety to give us a challenge.
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2016 19:45
|
|
|
Peas and Rice posted:Come to Crazy Trajan's Imperial Resorts, where you can enjoy all the amenities: swimming in the ocean, some ruins we don't actually own (yet), and you leave with a "healthy" glow! Excellent avatar/post combo. 
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2016 19:46
|
|
|
Remember how every single game of civ 5 you xbow rushed? V good.
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2016 19:47
|
|
|
Taear posted:I'm sort of glad they can't do that. They make so many units and if they weren't always so behind war would be pretty loving dull. If they weren't so behind, they wouldn't need to make so many units. The AI has ridiculous capability to spam units precisely because it's so bad at fielding an army. Improve the AI and you can ratchet down those bonuses, or simply play on a lower difficulty.
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2016 19:50
|
|
|
CharlieFoxtrot posted:Integrate XCOM tactical battles into this! Use your synergy, Firaxis I was sad that they didn't have either Giant Death Robots or the literal XCOM unit from the last game 
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2016 19:51
|
|
|
Never not build an early army out of the gate. Serves dual purpose of defense and also allows you to scout with your army. The past couple of games I've started the game by building three slingers while rushing archery and then expanding like I normally would. The only thing that would stop me from doing this is if I want to build Stonehenge to get an early religion, which would mean sitting around doing nothing for a while, but that is up to you. Slinger 3x, Builder, Settler has served me really well though as a general opening.
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2016 19:52
|
|
|
CharlieFoxtrot posted:I have never really gotten into Civ multiplayer. It's just a bit too much time investment and a bit too fiddly to do that when you could get totally wrecked by another person, in a process that could take dozens of turns (and thus hours) it actually informs why the lovely, last place out of 8 AI will attack your heavily fortified cities with slingers and catapults- when you're 4 hours deep in a game and you can't possibly win the only options are to quit, which pisses everyone off, or try to be a spoiler by using what you've got to throw what you can at a city in desperation. And without saltpeter or whateverthefuck you ain't getting anything better.
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2016 19:59
|
|
|
I think at this point I'd be fine with letting the AI automatically upgrade their units for free the minute they discover the new technology. I know the AI can be difficult to perfect but this shouldn't be a tough one to figure out.
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2016 20:10
|
|
|
DaddyBigBucks posted:A group of us who play together regularly have put Civ VI on the shelf for this very reason. You can't work towards a common goal or victory objective. As much as the team dynamic didn't work entirely great in Civ V with regards to the AI, they would put up much more of a fight on Immortal or Diety to give us a challenge. It's a bummer clearing out all the AI on the largest map you can have on multiplayer - which DEFINITELY isn't actually a huge map - and then just having to quit the game.
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2016 20:36
|
|
|
Cleopatra I don't need a big army I've got these mountain pass chokepoints with Legions garrisoned in forts, you idiot. gently caress off.
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2016 23:02
|
|
|
Playing a game as Gorgo with a buddy. Everyone hates me because I maintained a large military throughout the game and wasn't afraid the throw my weight around when someone did some poo poo I didn't like. I was okay that everyone kept denouncing me and that I have no friends except for my human friend. Honestly though, the most ridiculous thing about the AI is that even if it hates you it won't hesitate to constantly spam you with deals that are basically "you will give me luxuries AND cash while I give you NOTHING you disgusting warmonger." I spend more time quashing these deals than I do anything else. I still don't understand how tourism works even though I have a lot of it. I'm on the verge of a culture victory, but will probably lose to my friend who is very close to a science victory. This is what I get for some bad planning when it comes to seaside resorts and totally neglecting the 100% tourism bonus from trade routes to other civs card I've activated but hardly used. I think I'm going to try and win a culture victory while going much wider (I had 4 cities most of the game as Gorgo until I expanded a bit late) and playing as either Pete or Teddy. Still having a blast with this game overall.
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2016 23:31
|
|
|
John F Bennett posted:It almost seems as if the quotes were looked up by a bot and then just fed to Mr. Bean without being checked by a human first. I feel like you can't do anything with other civs. Trades never seem to be wanted if I initiate, and all of the other types of agreements you could make seem to be ignored. The most interaction I have with a civ is when I capture all of their cities and they beg for peace with the one shithole town they have left. All of the games I've played so far have just been me steamrolling everything after some minor initial hiccup. I just wish once you became a global superpower, exponentially ahead of everyone else in terms of culture, science, cities, gold, etc, that they'd be more amenable to dealing with you. Instead they still approach you asking for a "trade" that is literally you giving them something for free. So what if I have 6 chocolates and dupes of every other luxury, if you want it, give something in return. Sometimes they won't even give open borders, it's just silly. I've enjoyed the game but so far it's felt like really, really, really slow starcraft. Except I'm pumping out max late tech units while everyone else is still digging for minerals.
|
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2016 00:21
|
|
|
Has anyone here had a culture or science victory in a multiplayer game at all? Seems like it gets to the industrial era and there is one guy crushing everything around him while another player needs just one more civ to get a religious victory.
|
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2016 00:21
|
|
|
Zomborgon posted:I will say that the XCOM AI is pretty good at positioning and does get better at higher difficulties. I wonder what the differences are that drag down the Civ AI- perhaps higher unit density? It's because XCOM units have so much more movement points to actually work with. Civ 5/6 units can _maybe_ move two hexes in a turn if they're lucky, up until the Modern/Information eras.
|
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2016 00:32
|
|
|
Is there some reason why all of a sudden I have to re-agree to the privacy policy, and no matter how many times I mash "I AGREE" it won't go past that popup? Mac user here.
|
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2016 00:32
|
|
|
CharlieFoxtrot posted:Integrate XCOM tactical battles into this! Use your synergy, Firaxis Hmm yes tanks vs chariots on a tactical map sounds like a big improvement. I'm sure it'll never get old mopping up the AI's ancient era units in a series of tedious battles.
|
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2016 00:36
|
|
|
The game keeps starting be in the tundra except when I pick Russia, whereupon it dumps me into the desert.
|
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2016 00:42
|
|
|
Peas and Rice posted:Is there some reason why all of a sudden I have to re-agree to the privacy policy, and no matter how many times I mash "I AGREE" it won't go past that popup? Mac user here. Fun bug, it just happened to me as well on PC. I can accept the first popup, but then can't accept the second. Is there some reason Game Developers use lovely publishers? Why is 2K still around? Why does anyone use these people? e: Clicking Disagree to All seems to make it go away.
|
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2016 00:44
|
|
|
Powercrazy posted:Fun bug, it just happened to me as well on PC. I can accept the first popup, but then can't accept the second. Is there some reason Game Developers use lovely publishers? Why is 2K still around? Why does anyone use these people? Ha, I'll try that when I'm done reinstalling.  e: so much for dicking around the last couple hours of work, ugh. E2: The uninstall/reinstall fixed it. Peas and Rice fucked around with this message at 01:08 on Nov 8, 2016 |
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2016 00:47
|
|
|
Just played the "Ancient Rivals" multiplayer scenario - pretty good fun, and a good length for a multiplayer game (50 turns). Basically it's a standard Civ game but you win by being top in the most of the following areas: * Most wonders * Most tiles explored * Most tiles pillaged * Most civics researched If you tie in any area, the player with the highest score wins that area. I went China and was able to snowball Stonehenge into a culture-generating pantheon (giving me the most civics), and use my UA to build the Pyramids and Hanging Gardens too to snag the "most wonders" title. Meanwhile the other player built two scouts and found a third in a hut for a completely unassailable exploration lead, but was under too much barbarian pressure to compete for the pillaging title, so I ended up winning. Next up...  Global Thermonuclear War
|
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2016 00:53
|
|
|
Kibbles n Shits posted:Hmm yes tanks vs chariots on a tactical map sounds like a big improvement. I'm sure it'll never get old mopping up the AI's ancient era units in a series of tedious battles. aow is real good, actually
|
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2016 01:09
|
|
|
Cobbsprite posted:Doomstacks are bad and worse than 1UPT by ... at least an order of magnitude. Possibly two or three. I hear this a lot but nobody ever actually explains why "doomstacks" are so bad. They just say it like it's something we should all agree upon.
|
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2016 01:25
|
|
|
ded posted:This is how they die in 20 turns to barbs. rocket_Magnet posted:I know firaxis said they'd improved barbarians but this is ridiculous Barbarians swarm 
fade5 fucked around with this message at 02:03 on Nov 8, 2016 |
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2016 01:40
|
|
|
Magil Zeal posted:I hear this a lot but nobody ever actually explains why "doomstacks" are so bad. They just say it like it's something we should all agree upon. Unpleasant to build, collate, and (depending on options available) control. Hard to parse quickly: a 150 unit doomstack is far more dangerous than a 50-unit one, but in any sane display system these are going to look fairly similar. Difficult to calibrate expectations for: how large is a "decent" defensive army? That depends on how large everyone else's armies are and how the stack combat works. It may be one good garrison unit per city and five-ish roaming units, it could be ~5 units per city and 25ish roaming... 1UPT, by contrast, you get a unit or two per city and you're good to go. I'm not trying to say 1UPT is superior to infinite stacking; they both have their own problems. I think that particularly doomstacks are worse for new players to early-intermediate players to use and judge.
|
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2016 01:42
|
|
|
Magil Zeal posted:I hear this a lot but nobody ever actually explains why "doomstacks" are so bad. They just say it like it's something we should all agree upon. Where to start?
Civ VI is still a long ways from being perfect, but it's still a big step over Civ V, which was more of a lateral step from Civ IV that allowed the Civ VI concepts to come to fruition. Army/corp bonuses need to scale rather than being a flat bonus, and tile occupancy rules need work. I.e. religious units need to be on a completely separate layer from combat units - it's not like an army of tanks can find Jesus hiding in the middle of a a loving jungle. If all hell breaks loose, apostles/missionaries should either go into hiding or flee home.
|
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2016 02:07
|
|
|
Stacks were basically whoever builds the bigger rock wins. Might as well just compare production between two empires, choose the higher as a winner, and not have military units at all.
|
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2016 02:20
|
|
|
Didn't someone earlier in the thread say that in multiplayer Civ 4 no one used doomstacks and it just happened to be the most efficient way to beat down the AI because it is dumb
|
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2016 02:27
|
|
|
If you didn't see a war coming in Civ IV, you weren't paying attention to the AIs. If you didn't see the doomstack coming, you weren't scouting. If you get caught off guard, the doomstack could do actual damage. In 5 and 6, the carpet might pillage some improvements. Siege was king in 4, but there were ways to negate siege. Have enough first strikes to kill it before it can land a hit. Have enough flanking cavalry to kill the siege through the stack defenders. Use your economy to build equal or more siege to kill their doomstack with yours. Above all, the doomstack was built piece by piece by your empire. If your doomstack failed, it's because your empire failed. City defenses were massively important to keep the enemy busy sieging it down while you bring in reinforcements. If the enemy doesn't move around your city to pillage your roads, you got free passage to do that. The doomstack had a lot more going for it than people cared to learn, it seems.
|
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2016 02:29
|
|
|
Suicide catapults were lame as hell and I don't miss them.
|
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2016 02:31
|
|
|
The Human Crouton posted:Stacks were basically whoever builds the bigger rock wins. Might as well just compare production between two empires, choose the higher as a winner, and not have military units at all. Agreed. Tactical combat doesn't really fit into civ that well. Stacks were good game design that played well to The Game of Civilization strengths.
|
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2016 02:33
|
|
|
CharlieFoxtrot posted:Didn't someone earlier in the thread say that in multiplayer Civ 4 no one used doomstacks and it just happened to be the most efficient way to beat down the AI because it is dumb eh, it's a half-truth. positioning becomes super-important but the threat of having 50 whipped HA or knights go stand on a tile that can attack two of your cities is very real. in early wars you don't get very large stacks though and dislodging an axe-spear pair from a hill or forest is real expensive and just a single chariot can cause some real damage between lost worker turns and (the threat of) occupied or even pillaged resource tiles. a lot of it is ai issues though since the ai is so terrible at counter-attacking a player stack (it's got routines for building a counterstack, but they're a bit crude not all that effective) and predicting where an attack can come from, so for defense it keeps half a dozen longbowmen in every city, units that are terrible for anything but city defense, and force the player to go all-in on city siege with cats, trebs and macemen to have a chance at completing a conquest. positioning doesn't matter that much since the ai can't reasonably counter-attack with a bunch of longbowmen. anyone curious about how (pbem) multiplayer Civ IV works out should check realmsbeyond, they've got some stellar game reports there.
|
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2016 03:02
|
|
|
CharlieFoxtrot posted:Didn't someone earlier in the thread say that in multiplayer Civ 4 no one used doomstacks and it just happened to be the most efficient way to beat down the AI because it is dumb having played a decent amount of civ4 and both kicked and been kicked in the rear end, doomstacks absolutely do exist in mp civ4, and there are alot of tactical considerations to their use
|
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2016 03:03
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 30, 2024 05:09 |
|
|
Phobophilia posted:and there are alot of tactical considerations to their use this is absolutely true. the ai might be dumb about how to fight them but players aren't.
|
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2016 03:06
|
|