|
Replace the combat with EU4 combat imho
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2016 03:07
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 29, 2024 22:58 |
|
|
StashAugustine posted:Replace the combat with EU4 combat imho So, doom stacks?
|
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2016 03:13
|
|
|
I guess doom stacks that take several turns to whittle each other down. edit: Which I guess is just doom stacks. It's been a while since I've played IV.
|
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2016 03:16
|
|
|
Brannock posted: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. Game should add a movement when you hit the Medieval, another when you hit the Industrial, another when you hit Information. Would also add the benefit of speeding up the end game which is the worst part. I mean why do units take the same amount of time to move in the Ancient era as it does in the Modern era?
|
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2016 03:26
|
|
|
I'd like a "pseudo-earth" map type where spawn points aren't further seperated than shallow coast. It's dumb, we either have pangea maps where the seas largely don't matter or continents where certain players are totally isolated for half the game, neither of which is a good approximation of history.
|
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2016 03:27
|
|
|
Ratios and Tendency posted:I'd like a "pseudo-earth" map type where spawn points aren't further seperated than shallow coast. It's dumb, we either have pangea maps where the seas largely don't matter or continents where certain players are totally isolated for half the game, neither of which is a good approximation of history. Civ 4 had a 'Terra' map mode that was larger than usual. Every civ started in the 'old world' and there would a continent or two that was completely unsettled. Barbarians would eventually settle their own cities on this continent that you could conquer. It was great.
|
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2016 03:37
|
|
|
Kibbles n Shits posted:So, doom stacks? Yeah but: -armies retreat after a loss and automatically replenish so you don't have to individually rebuild ypur units -attrition puts a soft cap on the size of armies -sieges and combat are different- defeating an army allows you to occupy their land while they recover and sieges take time and attrition but no units for defense
|
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2016 03:37
|
|
|
Away all Goats posted:Civ 4 had a 'Terra' map mode that was larger than usual. Every civ started in the 'old world' and there would a continent or two that was completely unsettled. Barbarians would eventually settle their own cities on this continent that you could conquer. It was great. I wish this actually happened in Civ 6 if you ignore barbarian camps for too long...
|
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2016 03:57
|
|
|
Endless Legend had a pretty good way of doing it. It would probably make great generals more important, as it would let you have multiple units on one hex rather than a single one. What are some general starting suggestions? Basically, ever game has been building an army of warriors/spearmen and slingers/archers to deal with the barbarian problems and then striking out and founding cities. I don't bother building a district until my second city is founded, then depending on my situation at the time its either an encampment or campus.
|
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2016 04:27
|
|
|
You should be setting your first district early, even if you switch away to something else immediately, to lock in those low low prices before your research drives the cost up
|
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2016 04:29
|
|
|
CharlieFoxtrot posted:You should be setting your first district early, even if you switch away to something else immediately, to lock in those low low prices before your research drives the cost up This is a real dumb design decision imo. I assume it was put in as an anti-slingshot mechanism, but what it ends up doing is making new cities completely unable to contribute after the renaissance. 50 turns to build your unique district? Absurd. Not too mention that it makes Civ's that have unique districts even more powerful, and it makes Germany the undisputed best Civ, which he would probably still be with either one of his district traits, but both? geez.
|
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2016 06:27
|
|
|
Powercrazy posted:This is a real dumb design decision imo. I assume it was put in as an anti-slingshot mechanism, but what it ends up doing is making new cities completely unable to contribute after the renaissance. 50 turns to build your unique district? Absurd. I recommend diverting expiring trade routes to new cities ASAP if you really want to build them up quick. It makes a huge difference when the new cities have a higher population from the food on those internal routes. The additional hammers are nice, but I would pick a 4/4 internal (food/hammer) over a 2/5 internal every time (and especially over a 1/5). edit: to be clear I mean reassigning the caravan to the new city and creating the trade route from the new city, since destination cities on internal routes seem to get no benefit.
|
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2016 06:37
|
|
|
Maybe my perspective is skewed since my last game was as Germany, but it feels like once you have your productive core of maybe four or five cities, your city spam's return comes purely from jacking up your trade route numbers. Found a coastal city, chop all the trees around it for a harbor/commercial district, and it doesn't matter if it takes 120 turns to build anything else, you're already getting the full flat benefit from the extra trade routes
|
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2016 07:19
|
|
|
Mizaq posted:I recommend diverting expiring trade routes to new cities ASAP if you really want to build them up quick. It makes a huge difference when the new cities have a higher population from the food on those internal routes. The additional hammers are nice, but I would pick a 4/4 internal (food/hammer) over a 2/5 internal every time (and especially over a 1/5). edit: to be clear I mean reassigning the caravan to the new city and creating the trade route from the new city, since destination cities on internal routes seem to get no benefit. Yea, you definitely have to do that, but with how janky trade routes are it's not a fun thing to do. CharlieFoxtrot posted:Maybe my perspective is skewed since my last game was as Germany, but it feels like once you have your productive core of maybe four or five cities, your city spam's return comes purely from jacking up your trade route numbers. Found a coastal city, chop all the trees around it for a harbor/commercial district, and it doesn't matter if it takes 120 turns to build anything else, you're already getting the full flat benefit from the extra trade routes Don't base it off of Germany, they are already immune to most of the problems. Try other civs, like Greece, France, China, or England if you want to have fun juggling trade routes, and you'll see how lovely the mechanic is. ate shit on live tv fucked around with this message at 07:23 on Nov 8, 2016 |
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2016 07:21
|
|
|
Trade routes are amazing. They do get tedious to manage later on and could definitely benefit from automation but it's not a huge deal honestly. And I say that as someone who just finished a game with 35 trade routes.
|
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2016 07:54
|
|
|
The trade route menu is like one of eight different screens where I wish you could sort by yield and I don't think you can actually do that on any screen
|
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2016 08:01
|
|
|
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. This is one of the most insane things I've ever read in my entire life. It is so loving mindblowing that I figured it must be a fakepost. Are you okay? Did you fall recently and hit your head? Do you have early onset Alzheimer's? To compare the combat systems somehow trying to claim that whoever had the most hammers won in Civ 4, and then try to say the combat is deeper now is so incredible it defies all human logic. Have you ever actually played either of these games? Or do you just post things? In Civ 4, even if you were at disadvantage in terms of hammers you could still pull off decisive victories in combat because of (gasp) Good Game Design. There were multiple ways to outplay your opponents in planning and combat and also multiple ways to deal with disadvantages in production. 1UPT takes every single aspect of skill and thought out of the combat in these games. The AI has absolutely no idea how to do it, and there is never a situation past the early game where the player will ever be threatened by the AI militarily. If you actually expand in the early game in this 4X game you will never be threatened by any ai because of how 1UPT combat works and how they've designed combat units. You will always beat them because you have more hammers and actually manage your cities properly. And don't get me wrong - if these games actually had multiplayer features the combat would still be rotten poo poo. There is no moment where you feel good about a tactical move you made in combat or war and no moment where you felt you made a decisive decision or won a decisive victory. The combat is just grindy trash that is so boring it's disgusting. The post that you made is so beyond the realm that I couldn't help but comment on it. The combat in these last 2 games is loving garbage and I have no idea why they possibly thought 1UPT should return for another game. It needs to be either patched out or deleted in the first expansion to this otherwise promising game. Hoodrich fucked around with this message at 08:28 on Nov 8, 2016 |
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2016 08:23
|
|
|
Fryhtaning posted:Where to start? Oh My loving God! I wasn't prepared to be attacked in this STRATEGY GAME!!!!!!!!!!!!! What the gently caress is wrong with you?
|
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2016 08:31
|
|
|
Hoodrich posted:This is one of the most insane things I've ever read in my entire life. It is so loving mindblowing that I figured it must be a fakepost. You've had a pretty easy life, it looks like. Maybe expand your world enough so that something like this isn't as mind-blowing in the future.
|
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2016 08:37
|
|
|
The Human Crouton posted:You've had a pretty easy life, it looks like. Maybe expand your world enough so that something like this isn't as mind-blowing in the future. Not quite as easy as you have had, since apparently you find stack combat difficult.
|
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2016 08:39
|
|
|
Civ 1 had the best solution to this, which would work with a little modification. * You can stack units infinitely * When a hex with more than one unit gets attacked, the strongest defender defends * Every unit in the defending hex takes the damage the strongest defender takes So say you have a spearman and a catapult in a hex and an enemy horseman attacks it. The spearman defends since he's the stronger defender. He takes 25 damage, and your catapult takes it too. With these rules, you (and the AI) will never have a problem moving units around in peacetime. You're incentivised to spread your units out to avoid taking a ton of damage from a few attacks, but if you must ram 20 tanks through a single-hex mountain pass, that's something you can risk as well. ----- Civ 4's combat was pretty good, and had the advantage that the AI actually understood a single thing about it. To say that there was no way to be good at it or that it was just a case of directly comparing the production capacity of the two empires in question is false. It only feels that way now since we're used to being able to "cleverly" defeat hordes of clueless AI units with our genius strategy of building half-a-dozen archers and shooting the AI with them as they mill about.
|
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2016 09:05
|
|
|
I actually like the "doomstack" gameplay in civ4, maybe it's different in singleplayer, I played almost exclusively multiplayer in 4 but never played much of 5 because the online was supported worse then gamespy, and while yes whoever attacked first with their catapults tended to win the stack war there were plenty of times to split up to pillage or fortify on forested hills or pillage important roads. The only thing that I like about future civ combat systems is that they have a 100 HP bar so that you don't end up in a scenario where you lose multiple units to 90% chance to win fights, although it tends to end up with very little variance in how a fight turns out as a trade-off. I'd really just like to see a civ4 remake with hexagons and better online support, that would be my perfect game after how many weekends I spent playing 8+ hour 18 player earth maps. Ra Ra Rasputin fucked around with this message at 09:12 on Nov 8, 2016 |
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2016 09:08
|
|
|
enraged_camel posted:Trade routes are amazing. They do get tedious to manage later on and could definitely benefit from automation but it's not a huge deal honestly. And I say that as someone who just finished a game with 35 trade routes. A lot of things in this game could do with some automation. I'm looking at you spies and 20+ cities.
|
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2016 09:18
|
|
|
Yeah the end game is basically repetitively clicking on the same choices over and over long after all the important decisions were locked in. I'm not yet at the point where it's killing my desire to finish games but I'm getting there
|
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2016 09:21
|
|
|
Ra Ra Rasputin posted:I'd really just like to see a civ4 remake with hexagons and better online support, that would be my perfect game after how many weekends I spent playing 8+ hour 18 player earth maps. This. I have tried going back to Civ 4 in the past but Civ 5 and 6 really blow it out of the water in terms of accessibility.
|
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2016 09:26
|
|
|
CharlieFoxtrot posted:Yeah the end game is basically repetitively clicking on the same choices over and over long after all the important decisions were locked in. I'm not yet at the point where it's killing my desire to finish games but I'm getting there That was my big beef when I first tried beyond earth, trade routes income was so massive it was impossible to ignore them, but you also had to reassign the routes over and over and over until you had so many you were reassigning many every turn.
|
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2016 09:33
|
|
|
CharlieFoxtrot posted:Yeah the end game is basically repetitively clicking on the same choices over and over long after all the important decisions were locked in. I'm not yet at the point where it's killing my desire to finish games but I'm getting there The enormous list is what gets me. At least put "HERE IS WHERE THE TRADE ROUTE WAS TRADING WITH BEFORE"
|
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2016 09:35
|
|
|
Taear posted:Why can't the AI loving upgrade, it just doesn't make sense. Because it's poorer than poo poo. It takes less time for the AI to produce half a dozen modern unit from its core cities than it does for the AI to generate the gold needed to upgrade a single unit. This isn't an AI problem, it's an upgrade price balance issue--have you tried updating your armies? It's not gonna fuckin' happen.
|
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2016 10:03
|
|
|
I agree that upgrading is too expensive. It costs 200 gold to upgrade to crossbows.
|
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2016 10:07
|
|
|
Taear posted:The enormous list is what gets me. At least put "HERE IS WHERE THE TRADE ROUTE WAS TRADING WITH BEFORE" You mean the exact thing they had in Civ5 when trade routes were first implemented? Yeah, that'd be nice.
|
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2016 10:08
|
|
|
Away all Goats posted:You mean the exact thing they had in Civ5 when trade routes were first implemented? Yeah, that'd be nice. Ed Beach is the guy who did BNW so I can't fathom how they let such an obvious UI element slip through the net. More like Ed Botch!!!!!
|
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2016 10:10
|
|
|
John F Bennett posted:I agree that upgrading is too expensive. It costs 200 gold to upgrade to crossbows. Slinger - Archer is only 40 gold or 20 if you have the civic for it. The AI doesn't even do that. And yea I do mean just like Civ5 had with the trade UI. There's loads of things added in Civ5's UI that are missing from this. I can't imagine how you could be playtesting the game and not think the trade routes part and the loving Spy counterspy part is okay.
|
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2016 10:14
|
|
|
Fryhtaning posted:
1) What does that even mean? 2) Imagine that, being unprepared in a strategy game might cost you the game. Emphasizing forward-planning, watching your enemy, scouting, vision, and keeping your response forces ready. I have a difficult time seeing this as a negative. It's not even totally true, if you were declared out of nowhere you could whip your empire into the ground and hold them off. Maybe they take a city but you won't lose. 3) The list of unrealistic things in the game is several times the length of this list. 4) The dreaded cavalry/tank fork would suggest otherwise. Also people in IV were very aggressive about chopping not just because of the production bonuses, but also because it gave them nice flat killzones in their empire while defensive forces could hide in cities. You don't want to hit a stack sitting in a forest with +50% defense. Unless you completely and utterly outclass the enemy that will matter. 5) That's sorta fair, but war in Civ IV still heavily favored the defender because they could more easily seize the initiative and hide all their units in a city. 6) Sorta true but they had flanking to try and fix that. I'm not sure this is as big of an issue. 7) This is still fundamentally false. I first got really into Civ IV years ago after I read the multiplayer reports at the Realms Beyond website, and their Civ IV reports lead me to believe that stack combat is actually significantly more nuanced and tactical than it's given credit for. The fact that the AI can actually play the game using this system is also a major plus. The other is that doomstacks put more emphasis on the strategic part of the game rather than the tactical aspect, which is a plus given that Civ is a strategy game and overall strategy should matter more than small-scale tactics. The only major downside I see to the "doomstack" is the endgame stacks of 50-100+ units (though at least you can move them all with only a few clicks, it was still easier to manage 100 units in IV than 20 units in V/VI). I've come to accept that we're basically stuck with 1UPT and the absolute best I can hope for is relaxing the stacking rules involving civilian/religious units and maybe a wider variety of support units. One unit per tile still detracts from the game on basically every level, though. Probably my ideal system at this point would be something like the Endless form of stacking, with individual mixed-unit armies that increase in size over time, but without the tactical combat minigame, just use classic Civ stack combat of each unit attacking the stack individually, this would allow for collateral damage to return but it could be combined with the ranged units of V/VI, just with everything at range 1 (so like Civ III's bombard units). I wouldn't call for a necessary return to doomstacks but moving units around and waging war in VI feels even worse than it did in V which is quite the accomplishment. At the very least, can't they make the machine gun into a support unit and implement RPG launchers with range 2 (or something, I don't know) as the upgrade for field cannons? Going from 2 range to 1 range in VI feels just as lame as it did in V.
|
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2016 11:41
|
|
|
John F Bennett posted:I agree that upgrading is too expensive. It costs 200 gold to upgrade to crossbows. I completely disagree - upgrading units is far too cheap. Looking at Well of Souls (not at home atm to check ingame) archers are 50 production, crossbows 180. You're getting 130 production for 200 gold, which is crazy cheap. Buying an archer costs 200, buying a crossbow 720. It's cheaper to buy an archer just before researching machinery and then upgrade it than it is to buy a crossbow. If you have the 50% discount policy, you can then delete the crossbow and make a profit! Or you can build a crossbow and then delete it for 360 gold, which is nearly enough to upgrade two archers even without the policy. Then you've basically turned 180 cogs and 40 gold into 260 cogs. Even if you're unwilling to delete units for gold, upgrading is far more efficient than buying units. If upgrading isn't worthwhile, then buying new units certainly isn't either, and buying buildings probably isn't unless you have absolutely no need for a military. That leaves just buying tiles/great people - are you really spending everything on those? The problem isn't upgrade cost, it's AI cashflow.
|
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2016 12:07
|
|
|
I like the argument that stacks are unrealistic Its surely very realistic that 1 unit of archers occupy the same space than a whole loving city, and has a range distance equivalent to 2 cities. Also, bows can shoot further than rifles Elias_Maluco fucked around with this message at 12:24 on Nov 8, 2016 |
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2016 12:19
|
|
|
I had great fun with 1UPT when it was introduced in V, but two games later I have to give in and realize that Firaxis have no way of making an AI that knows how it works. If I have to sit down though and play Civ, I'd still take that over Civ 4 stacks. This is how much I dislike them. Instead of making a list of things I personally don't like about them, and having someone tell me why I am wrong and they are the best and most well designed thing, I'll instead describe how I want them to come back.
|
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2016 12:20
|
|
|
Quite sincerely I would love to see a 4X game drop units completely and do combat like paradox games do. In Civ, it could even go from levy based armies to standing armies as you advanceRexides posted:
This too Elias_Maluco fucked around with this message at 12:43 on Nov 8, 2016 |
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2016 12:24
|
|
|
Staltran posted:I completely disagree - upgrading units is far too cheap. Looking at Well of Souls (not at home atm to check ingame) archers are 50 production, crossbows 180. You're getting 130 production for 200 gold, which is crazy cheap. Buying an archer costs 200, buying a crossbow 720. It's cheaper to buy an archer just before researching machinery and then upgrade it than it is to buy a crossbow. If you have the 50% discount policy, you can then delete the crossbow and make a profit! Or you can build a crossbow and then delete it for 360 gold, which is nearly enough to upgrade two archers even without the policy. Then you've basically turned 180 cogs and 40 gold into 260 cogs. Even if you're unwilling to delete units for gold, upgrading is far more efficient than buying units. If upgrading isn't worthwhile, then buying new units certainly isn't either, and buying buildings probably isn't unless you have absolutely no need for a military. That leaves just buying tiles/great people - are you really spending everything on those? The problem isn't upgrade cost, it's AI cashflow. 
|
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2016 12:42
|
|
|
Hoodrich posted:Oh My loving God! I wasn't prepared to be attacked in this STRATEGY GAME!!!!!!!!!!!!! What the gently caress is wrong with you? Holy poo poo 
|
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2016 12:54
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 29, 2024 22:58 |
|
|
Elias_Maluco posted:Quite sincerely I would love to see a 4X game drop units completely and do combat like paradox games do. In Civ, it could even go from levy based armies to standing armies as you advance The problem I have with this is that Civilization is fundamentally a board game and when we aren't moving units on a grid we aren't playing Civilization anymore. Another game could do this kind of thing and I'd be down with that, but I don't think such a fundamental change would be the way to take Civilization. I do believe that units on a grid can work, but not with one-unit-per-tile. Rexides posted:
I say go the other way. One of the strengths of stack-based combat is you can have specialized units, and I'd prefer they embraced that. Have stack-killers, but make a unit class that counters them. Maybe even two, one that counters them offensively and one that counters them defensively. Suicide catapults felt lame to use, even if they functioned well enough in the overall game balance, but they can use Civ V/VI's ranged attack/Civ III's bombard to make it more workable. If Civ is going to be a game with combat units on a map that aren't overly abstracted then units should be interesting and meaningful. One of my favorite examples of this was Civilization IV's Machine Gun unit. It couldn't attack, at all. But it would destroy any infantry advance, and you basically needed tanks to counter it (incidentally, this sort of mirrored real-world trench warfare, not in a perfect way, but enough to be noticeable). Magil Zeal fucked around with this message at 13:12 on Nov 8, 2016 |
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2016 13:02
|
|