|
One of my apostles is stuck under a bunch of units from another civ. I can't move it anywhere and the game won't let me delete it or make it sleep or anything, and the game won't let me move on without giving it orders. I have to declare a surprise war on a civ I have no issues with in order to go to the next turn. 
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2016 13:19
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 14, 2024 01:48 |
|
|
Rather disappointed that merging my carriers into a fleet resulted in one unit that can only carry 2 planes. That feels real useful. I would prefer to move one unit rather than 3 around the map but if I can't actually carry 6 planes I guess I just need to click 3 times as often. Oddly, unless I just missed it, you cannot merge planes into air fleets or similar, so I guess I am doomed to click-hell regardless. On a similar note, it seems a waste to merge nuke subs since 3 of them can launch 3 missiles per turn while 1 Fleet can only launch 1, so 
|
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2016 13:25
|
|
|
Darkrenown posted:Rather disappointed that merging my carriers into a fleet resulted in one unit that can only carry 2 planes. That feels real useful. I would prefer to move one unit rather than 3 around the map but if I can't actually carry 6 planes I guess I just need to click 3 times as often. Oddly, unless I just missed it, you cannot merge planes into air fleets or similar, so I guess I am doomed to click-hell regardless. 
|
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2016 13:28
|
|
|
Magil Zeal posted:The problem I have with this is that Civilization is fundamentally a board game No, it's fundamentally a video game. I know that we use the boardgame analogy when people complain about it not being simulationy enough, but the core of the game is about making the choices your current yields give you so that you increase your yields more efficiently and make even more powerful choices later on. Don't get me wrong, I know what you really mean, and I also love to move little spearmen and tanks on the map, and deciding that putting my archer on a plains across the river might be a better choice for the next five turns than keeping him on a hill is really stimulating, but in the end it might be better suited for a different game.
|
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2016 13:32
|
|
|
Darkrenown posted:Rather disappointed that merging my carriers into a fleet resulted in one unit that can only carry 2 planes. That feels real useful. I would prefer to move one unit rather than 3 around the map but if I can't actually carry 6 planes I guess I just need to click 3 times as often. Oddly, unless I just missed it, you cannot merge planes into air fleets or similar, so I guess I am doomed to click-hell regardless. Forming corps and armies seems like a huge miss at the moment. I liked it when I heard about it because my understanding of it would be that it would allow you to have a unit able to fight one-on-one with a unit one era ahead of you. So if you needed to take a tech path that denied you certain units, you could pay more in production to give your units a fighting chance. Unfortunately, for this to be a good mechanic, that game must be very precisely balanced, which it will never be. Ultimately, I think the idea of corps, armies, and fleets should be in the game to alleviate the carpet of units, but they are going to have to add more incentive to form them. Something like the newly combined unit gains some kind of promotion, or a large amount of great general points are generated when combined.
|
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2016 13:33
|
|
|
Corps and armies are generally good and useful.
|
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2016 13:36
|
|
|
Gort posted:Corps and armies are generally good and useful. I think they are under some circumstances, but a lot of the time it is more tactical to have two weaker units rather than one stronger unit. Sometimes my strategy would rather not have that one point of failure even if it's stronger. I'm thinking of things like: -Surrounding cities to get a siege bonus -Wanting to be able to shoot with two ranged units in cases where one shot may kill an enemy allowing my other range unit to weaken another before risking slamming a melee unit into it.
|
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2016 13:42
|
|
|
Poil posted:This sounds more like a problem with how ridiculous the production costs jump are when you reach the next era of military units to me. Well I assume the formula for upgrade cost is based on the production costs. I'm pretty sure that's what they've done in previous games. But yes the production cost jumps are pretty crazy.
|
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2016 14:06
|
|
|
The Human Crouton posted:Ultimately, I think the idea of corps, armies, and fleets should be in the game to alleviate the carpet of units, but they are going to have to add more incentive to form them. Something like the newly combined unit gains some kind of promotion, or a large amount of great general points are generated when combined. That just means you must build three units to assemble one on-map unit.
|
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2016 14:38
|
|
|
What if gold costs for upgrades were a bit higher, but you also got the alternative of combining two identical units in order to upgrade them to the next unit in the chain (that you have the technology for, obviously)? That way you get a very good incentive to merge your units, and it keeps the map from getting cluttered. e: it would probably need the upgrade chains to be a bit more granular than they are right now though. Rexides fucked around with this message at 14:49 on Nov 8, 2016 |
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2016 14:45
|
|
|
John F Bennett posted:I agree that upgrading is too expensive. It costs 200 gold to upgrade to crossbows. Oh. Is that all? Under Marathon it becomes six hundred twenty gold. Which is utterly ridiculous and no wonder the AI doesn't upgrade for poo poo.
|
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2016 15:03
|
|
|
Why can't we separate down corps and armies? I put three ships in why can't I go 'ok you guys arent friends anymore' and have my three ships back, then fleet them up again after I'm done bombing the poo poo out of some ancient civilization?
|
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2016 15:06
|
|
|
And why do corps/armies look exactly the same as a single unit.
|
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2016 15:09
|
|
|
John F Bennett posted:And why do corps/armies look exactly the same as a single unit. I don't even know what the UI indicator is for this. There needs to be HUGE stars under the unit that indicate that this is a 2 or 3x stack.
|
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2016 15:22
|
|
|
Rexides posted:No, it's fundamentally a video game. I know that we use the boardgame analogy when people complain about it not being simulationy enough, but the core of the game is about making the choices your current yields give you so that you increase your yields more efficiently and make even more powerful choices later on. Don't get me wrong, I know what you really mean, and I also love to move little spearmen and tanks on the map, and deciding that putting my archer on a plains across the river might be a better choice for the next five turns than keeping him on a hill is really stimulating, but in the end it might be better suited for a different game. I'll just say I disagree because I think the game it's suited for is called Civilization. Other games can do what they want, but keep my Civilization in a grid with individual units.
|
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2016 16:00
|
|
|
Magil Zeal posted:I'll just say I disagree because I think the game it's suited for is called Civilization. Other games can do what they want, but keep my Civilization in a grid with individual units. Paradox still does this, but the units are then grouped into armies, retreat after combat, and regenerate over time
|
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2016 16:17
|
|
|
Blorange posted:I don't even know what the UI indicator is for this. There needs to be HUGE stars under the unit that indicate that this is a 2 or 3x stack. The UI indicator is stars under the unit icon that indicate that it is a 2 or 3-stack.
|
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2016 16:27
|
|
|
Aerdan posted:Stop trying to make doomstacks happen again. They're not gonna happen again. The actual problem with 1UPT is that its a chore to direct a carpet of unitd, each individually. It is not fun to use. The constant traffic jams in peace time and in war time are frustrating and do not feel very tactical. It needs to be removed.
|
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2016 16:28
|
|
|
Is there a way to mitigate war weariness through either government policy or buildings? It's brutal to get attacked and a couple turns later be 3-6 amenities in the red without any recourse.
|
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2016 16:30
|
|
|
Staltran posted:Well I assume the formula for upgrade cost is based on the production costs. I'm pretty sure that's what they've done in previous games. But yes the production cost jumps are pretty crazy. Fighting off a horde of barbarian horsemen. Two cities are 2-3 turns from finishing spearmen. I hit the pikemen tech and now they are 18 turns from finishing building pikemen. RIP empire.
|
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2016 16:32
|
|
|
Salvor_Hardin posted:Is there a way to mitigate war weariness through either government policy or buildings? It's brutal to get attacked and a couple turns later be 3-6 amenities in the red without any recourse. I mean, I think the only way is to have more amenities to offset the penalty. So that would mean any government policy that increases amenities (I think there are a couple) and entertainment districts. But I don't think there is anything that is "build this thing to reduce war weariness by 50%" though.
|
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2016 16:33
|
|
|
I think there is one policy that reduces war weariness in general and another that eliminates it for defending your territory.
|
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2016 16:37
|
|
|
Yeah, they are on the final tier of government unlocks though.
|
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2016 16:43
|
|
|
Tuxedo Gin posted:Fighting off a horde of barbarian horsemen. Two cities are 2-3 turns from finishing spearmen. I hit the pikemen tech and now they are 18 turns from finishing building pikemen. RIP empire. you could have just left pikes on 1 turn to finish and researched something else until your spears were done
|
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2016 16:43
|
|
|
Prav posted:you could have just left pikes on 1 turn to finish and researched something else until your spears were done Didn't notice, honestly. Also didn't realize that it would be 6x the number of turns to make a pikeman.
|
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2016 16:50
|
|
|
Tuxedo Gin posted:Didn't notice, honestly. Also didn't realize that it would be 6x the number of turns to make a pikeman. Yeah, this is a pretty understandable mistake, I doubt I'd notice it either. Given that Civ lets the construction progress roll over into these new unit types, it's kinda odd that it doesn't let it roll over to a different unit entirely but instead keeps the progress against the original one. It'd be more consistent if it let you finish off the outdated units that you'd started and let you upgrade them using gold.
|
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2016 17:13
|
|
|
Rexides posted:
You want to remove choice and consequence from this strategy game?
|
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2016 17:18
|
|
|
The best way to deal with units, imo, is to have unlimited stacking, but allow the units to 'lock together' and combine their strength into one value, so it attacks as one unit, removing the most annoying part from each system: having to move a carpet of units individually having to attack with each individual unit from a stack this of course will still allow for different unit types such that an army consisting of combined arms is superior to one that consists solely of one unit
|
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2016 17:22
|
|
|
Chalks posted:Yeah, this is a pretty understandable mistake, I doubt I'd notice it either. The absolute worst is if you're building a thing and the next unit requires a resource you don't have. I was doing a Tank army and it had taken 13 turns or so, I was right near the end and I researched modern armour and had no uranium so it just cancelled the build and that was it.
|
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2016 17:23
|
|
|
Borsche69 posted:The best way to deal with units, imo, is to have unlimited stacking, but allow the units to 'lock together' and combine their strength into one value, so it attacks as one unit, removing the most annoying part from each system: Agreed. But it would be even better with an stack limit (like 8, for ex.)
|
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2016 17:25
|
|
|
Taear posted:so it just cancelled the build and that was it. it's completely bizarre that they thought this was an acceptable way to handle it
|
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2016 17:26
|
|
|
Elias_Maluco posted:Agreed. But it would be even better with an stack limit (like 8, for ex.) Why. Now instead of having a couple large armies, you'll have a carpet of 8 unit stacks.
|
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2016 17:47
|
|
|
Because if units stack with no limit and the stack strikes as 1, it would be possible to make invincible stacks of doom
|
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2016 17:48
|
|
|
Borsche69 posted:Why. Now instead of having a couple large armies, you'll have a carpet of 8 unit stacks. There won't be a carpet. Endless Legend (and, like, a poo poo-ton of other games) has limited size armies, it works fine.
|
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2016 17:51
|
|
|
Elias_Maluco posted:Because if units stack with no limit and the stack strikes as 1, it would be possible to make invincible stacks of doom For both sides, and 'invincible' is a misnomer, and units will still require gpt to maintain.
|
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2016 17:55
|
|
|
Prav posted:it's completely bizarre that they thought this was an acceptable way to handle it Wonders are similarly badly handled. I believe you can demolish their construction site to recover some gold from the construction or something but it's a really weird decision. I wonder whether there was some big problem with letting production carry over through the "change production" screen that they had to come up with a bunch of lovely ways to avoid doing it. Borsche69 posted:For both sides, and 'invincible' is a misnomer, and units will still require gpt to maintain. Having giant stacks isn't good for the game either though and it's not like they're realistic. I suppose some sort of paradox style supply/attrition mechanic would work pretty well, then you could even do things like having terrain matter for how many troops you can have stationed there. Chalks fucked around with this message at 18:01 on Nov 8, 2016 |
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2016 17:55
|
|
|
Borsche69 posted:You want to remove choice and consequence from this strategy game? I was about to make a very sarcastic reply, I I think it would be better if I elaborated instead. I didn't mean that a certain percentage of your production would be dedicated to army production. That would indeed remove a big layer of choice from the game. I am talking about introducing a new yield that works like the others. Your palace gives you a minimum each turn, and then you can take certain actions to increase it, like building barracks in cities, working fort tiles, or picking certain policies. So building a huge army or just having enough to defend your cities against barbarians should still be choices you get to make, but they can now be capped and scaled independently of building costs. This means that when a designer tries to gauge the cost for a building, they only have to compare it with other buildings, and units with other units. Really, it's not that different from the food/production/gold split if you ask me. Or when the gold/amenities/science split happened in V (in a badly designed way that was fixed in VI).
|
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2016 17:55
|
|
|
Fryhtaning posted:Where to start? I'm going to list all the ways in which you'll know an AI is going to wardec you in Civ 4: 1) If you attempt to bribe an AI into a war with another AI, the sheer act of mousing over the red name will inform you that they "Have enough on their hands right now", which means they're planning to attack someone. If they're Friendly with you and they are not Catherine, it won't be you, if they are Pleased with you, it might be you. 2) You can go to your demos at any point and if you have enough Espionage invested in them to see demographics (you almost always will unless you're at such a high difficulty or getting so crushed it won't matter) then you can look at their Power graph, is their Power Graph spiking or way above your own? They might attack you, get some defenders! 3) Do you have units near their borders, can you see stuff gathering into a stack near you? Guess what, they might be going to attack you. Basically an AI isn't going to wardec you if they're on really good relations with you and you're really strong, and if they're somehow suicidal enough to do that, just destroy their stack (you don't incur war weariness for this!) and go take their cities. quote:[*]Completely unrealistic, at least compared to 1-2 UPT which is by no means perfect The game doesn't even say how many troops are in a 'unit', how the hell can it be unrealistic? There's been siege battles with over a million men involved in them and a standard pop city is 1-5 million. A tile is abstract enough in this game to hold a ton of people. You could flip this around and claim that a city with a population of several million can only hold a couple of hundred Knights is also not realistic, but you don't, because that'd be stupid. quote:[*]Eliminates 90% of combat strategy in terms of utilizing terrain and in terms of how to approach/surround cities. I'm going to link this until I die from linking this too much. http://www.sullla.com/Civ4/RBPB2-5.html Hills offer comical defense bonuses, forests and jungles offer even stupider ones. Attacking across a river is a dumb idea. Wow, it's almost like having your attacking troops go from (forested) hill to hill as they advance, and then parking on a hill as you siege down their city and then attacking NOT across a river might be taking advantage of terrain as you surround their city. Also setting up chokepoints on hills to block attacking units from advancing might also work? No, I have advanced brain damage, I must be wrong. quote:[*]Takes city defense out of the equation entirely - either you have enough offense to rush the attackers and kill the stack of doom or they march right in  A shot from a multiplayer game I was in (sorry botswana). Oh look, this city is surrounded by a wall (getting a defense bonus!), has Longbowmen inside (who get a defense bonus when inside cities!), and actually forms a perfect chokepoint by land between his empire and my own. Except, Longbowmen aren't great at attacking so I can't kill his stack, but...he can't march right in?!?!??!?! Huhhhhh???! What?!?!?! I just realized I could've used this picture to also talk about terrain mattering as well, and also about preparing for a war, but that'd be mean. quote:[*]Siege/ranged units become untouchable unless you have an equally-sized stack with enough splash damage to take them out  quote:[*]War becomes an all-in poker hand instead of a game of battles won/lost What the hell does this even mean. Once you lose your stack the game is just over? You're just forbidden from building more units ever at any point once your stack is gone? Is that really what you're saying?
|
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2016 18:11
|
|
|
That image shows a stack that will roll over that city. so yeah they can march right in because you don't have a doomstack and roll over that city in one or two turns. Also the person your replied to about siege units mentioned "splash damage", it's even in your quote. The Flank Attack mechanic in Civ IV was the very definition of splash damage.
|
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2016 18:22
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 14, 2024 01:48 |
|
|
This game is kinda bad I hope some modders save it.
|
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2016 18:31
|
|
