|
Powercrazy posted:I don't care if the civs hate me or whatever. But having a pact of friendship or alliance with a civ then having them joint-war declare on me is trash and shouldn't be allowed. Civ4 did it properly. Because no nation has ever violated an alliance? Civ, please. A better solution than disallowing it would be to make it discoverable through sufficient espionage with them or the enemy they conspire with.
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2016 20:10
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 4, 2024 21:36 |
|
|
The game has bad war and bad diplomacy.
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2016 20:31
|
|
|
Decrepus posted:The game has bad war and bad diplomacy. And bad haters. I can totally picture playing any multiiplayer game with goons and then betraying them only to read a long blog about it.
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2016 21:01
|
|
|
It's not about just betrayal, it's about betrayal when there isn't any real benefit to it and the AI just agrees to joint wars far too easily. I don't think it should be disallowed but the AI really doesn't understand when a war is a terrible idea and they should fix that.
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2016 21:08
|
|
|
turboraton posted:And bad haters. Hitler Retard Betrayer.jpg
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2016 21:32
|
|
|
Pistol_Pete posted:If you're not perpetually denounced by all other civs, you're playing the game wrong. I mean I typically can be friends with at least some of the AI players but my problem is that it usually doesn't feel like it was due to any conscious effort on my part. The AI that starts next to me and crowds me is going to hate me no matter what because I am going to kill that guy and take its land. Probably get knocked out of the game. Then the other Civs will either hate me or not after that. I have very little impact on that. I've tried giving them free resources, but the positive diplomatic modifier doesn't seem to make a meaningful difference to their opinion of me. I always send delegations/embassies the turn I meet a new Civ to get that going (but if I don't have it later sometimes they will or will not accept them seemingly at random). And some people are going to hate me because their agendas cause them to hate people who play the game well. Other people will like me because their agendas cause them to like people who play the game well. Either way, I'm not going to stifle my empire just so an AI player will be my friend, since I gain so little out of it and there's also little price to pay for them all hating me. It's not that I can't be friends with them. It's just that (a) there's not enough reason to be and (b) it doesn't really feel like my actions have much of an impact on their opinion of me. I hate to say Civ IV did it better because it's almost a mantra at this point, but really, I did like how Civ IV did it: if you have X positive diplo modifiers, they are pleased. This means they will make certain deals with you and the "Pleased" indicator is clearly there for you to see. Certain leaders will consider attacking you at this point, but most will not. If you have Y positive diplo modifiers, they are friendly. Again, "Friendly" is clearly displayed, they won't backstab you (except for very few leaders, I remember Catherine would), and they'll accept more deals. If you don't have very high diplo modifiers either way they are neutral. Etc. Numbers very clearly translated to relationship states, and those relationship states told you what you could do. VI is very different. I can have all positive modifiers and be "unfriendly", because there's some behind-the-hood workings going on. There's speculation on that, but nothing confirmed. And even if I do get the "Friendly" popup with a Civ, that doesn't mean they'll sign a Declaration of Friendship (you know, like you might expect). What does "Friendly" even mean in that case? Sometimes, they'll sign a DoF. Sometimes they won't. I don't know. About the only thing that seems consistent is if you dip very low in relations they will hate you forever (usually due to warmongering). If numbers very clearly translated into relationships which very clearly translated into applicable diplomatic interactions, then it'd be better. Plus, in Civ IV, they would tell you why they were refusing a deal. Also very helpful. "We have enough on our hands right now"--they're going to war with someone (possibly you, better watch out) or already at war. "We just don't like you enough"--not enough modifiers. "We would have nothing to gain"--either already have that resource or they're refusing war because they don't feel like they can capture and hold territory. "We couldn't betray our close friends"--they're not going to backstab someone they like. Etc. etc.. Seriously, this transparency is a good thing for a strategy game, because it lets you plan and react to changing situations. But you know why they're changing, and that's important! Decrepus posted:Hitler Retard Betrayer.jpg Dominions was good times Magil Zeal fucked around with this message at 23:03 on Dec 4, 2016 |
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2016 23:00
|
|
|
Ahh, nothing like wiping out everyone on your continent so you can just tech up in peace. Thanks for the free cities, Spain!
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2016 23:21
|
|
|
OfChristandMen posted:Weird question, but I'm destroying civs as Scythia in a game and am about to finish off the last one, but I realized I could do some achievement farming with my set up. Yes, you can. I got a few of them that way.
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2016 23:57
|
|
|
How many people hang onto older forms of government for their bonuses, at least for a while?
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2016 00:07
|
|
|
Speedball posted:How many people hang onto older forms of government for their bonuses, at least for a while? Usually the desire for more slots makes me switch immediately, though I usually start with Communism and switch to Democracy at some point and knowing when to do that is something I'm still working on.
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2016 00:18
|
|
|
homullus posted:Because no nation has ever violated an alliance? Civ, please. What's should the game-mechanic point of an alliance be? Because right now there isn't one.
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2016 00:24
|
|
|
Permanent Alliances and Vassalage were so fun in Civ 4. It's a shame that a decade later we have only regressed on the diplomatic front
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2016 00:27
|
|
|
Magil Zeal posted:Usually the desire for more slots makes me switch immediately, though I usually start with Communism and switch to Democracy at some point and knowing when to do that is something I'm still working on. Yeah, I get that. I was thinking of how useful Theocracy is if you're going whole hog on faith stuff. On that subject I kinda wish the UI was more explicit about what beliefs are in what categories while selecting them.
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2016 00:30
|
|
|
Powercrazy posted:What's should the game-mechanic point of an alliance be? If I was making this game, the point of an alliance would either be for accruing peace points like Endless Legend does (and there, the more allies you have the more influence you have too) or possibly for enabling a shared victory condition.
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2016 00:32
|
|
|
CharlieFoxtrot posted:Permanent Alliances and Vassalage were so fun in Civ 4. It's a shame that a decade later we have only regressed on the diplomatic front If my diplo options aren't in the next Civ game I want to go where they went.
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2016 00:36
|
|
|
CharlieFoxtrot posted:Permanent Alliances and Vassalage were so fun in Civ 4. It's a shame that a decade later we have only regressed on the diplomatic front I always wonder why they took the former out. Vassalage I'm less bothered about but the alliances were fun, especially if you had two AI that were relatively close in power to you that suddenly allied one another.
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2016 02:55
|
|
|
Magil Zeal posted:I hate to say Civ IV did it better because it's almost a mantra at this point, but really, I did like how Civ IV did it: if you have X positive diplo modifiers, they are pleased. This means they will make certain deals with you and the "Pleased" indicator is clearly there for you to see. Certain leaders will consider attacking you at this point, but most will not. If you have Y positive diplo modifiers, they are friendly. Again, "Friendly" is clearly displayed, they won't backstab you (except for very few leaders, I remember Catherine would), and they'll accept more deals. If you don't have very high diplo modifiers either way they are neutral. Etc. Numbers very clearly translated to relationship states, and those relationship states told you what you could do.  )
Saladin Rising fucked around with this message at 04:42 on Dec 5, 2016 |
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2016 03:36
|
|
|
CharlieFoxtrot posted:Permanent Alliances and Vassalage were so fun in Civ 4. It's a shame that a decade later we have only regressed on the diplomatic front I really liked taking a struggling civ under my wing and trying to help them overcome without just stomping their enemies for them. I miss having My AI Sidekick
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2016 03:39
|
|
|
Powercrazy posted:What's should the game-mechanic point of an alliance be? An alliance should do such things as allow you to move troops through the other country, perhaps giving added benefits to trade with your allies via, say, an economic policy. I hope they add those features in.
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2016 04:19
|
|
|
homullus posted:An alliance should do such things as allow you to move troops through the other country, perhaps giving added benefits to trade with your allies via, say, an economic policy. I hope they add those features in. Right now I'm getting several gossip notices a turn. "America has launched an attack against another player (you)." Their only problem is that I'm their ally, so they can't declare war on me. It has its uses. It's funny watching all their troops built up on my border that can't do anything.
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2016 05:00
|
|
|
CharlieFoxtrot posted:Permanent Alliances and Vassalage were so fun in Civ 4. It's a shame that a decade later we have only regressed on the diplomatic front I actually don't think these things work very well in a strategy game with only one winner but I guess they're neat optional features for roleplaying. I do wish we had things like "Non-Aggression Pacts" instead of "Declarations of Friendship" though.
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2016 05:09
|
|
|
Ambivalent posted:I really liked taking a struggling civ under my wing and trying to help them overcome without just stomping their enemies for them. I miss having My AI Sidekick I miss this too. While it's not 'optimal' to take on a weak friend instead of crushing them to make their resources yours, it's fun to have someone you can build up, and who will back you up if enemies start to threaten you. Stellaris did this well (and not a lot of other things).
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2016 05:48
|
|
|
Taear posted:I always wonder why they took the former out. Vassalage I'm less bothered about but the alliances were fun, especially if you had two AI that were relatively close in power to you that suddenly allied one another. Crazy Ted fucked around with this message at 06:50 on Dec 5, 2016 |
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2016 06:09
|
|
|
aniviron posted:I miss this too. While it's not 'optimal' to take on a weak friend instead of crushing them to make their resources yours, it's fun to have someone you can build up, and who will back you up if enemies start to threaten you. Stellaris did this well (and not a lot of other things). You know I liked stellaris at first but it got boring real quick. It's really a shame because the game had a ton of potential.
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2016 09:02
|
|
|
Yeah, that was my experience with the game also. Early game was fun, but it stagnated like crazy early mid-game. I actually like Civ 6 more despite its shortcomings, and despite the fact that Stellaris should scratch all the right itches for me.
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2016 11:26
|
|
|
aniviron posted:Yeah, that was my experience with the game also. Early game was fun, but it stagnated like crazy early mid-game. I actually like Civ 6 more despite its shortcomings, and despite the fact that Stellaris should scratch all the right itches for me. I was just thinking the exact opposite! I love the mystery of Stellaris but I guess I also feel like there's always something new on the horizon content wise because of patches. With Civ I feel like that's it now, this is the game until the first expansion and that might be a year away. Civ 6 is the Civ I've spent the least time on, maybe equal with 3. I find myself doing the exact same thing every game but also multiplayer is shocking with poo poo maps and no teams.
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2016 12:10
|
|
|
It probably doesn't help that I started Stellaris just after a big patch and fizzled out before the next one, and that none of the new DLCs were out then either. Civ 6 is my first Civ game though, I'd honestly just never gotten around to the franchise until now even though I generally like the genre.
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2016 12:22
|
|
|
The game just can't handle all these tourists!
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2016 12:37
|
|
|
So I wanted to buy this game but then I remembered that I had bought Civ5 and never played it. So instead I decided to give it a try. I suck very much, is the old Civ5 thread around somewhere? I can't seem to find it cause I could use some help. What I did is basically scout around and found several city-state as well as other civilizations, then I built farms and did some research but I really don't know what the gently caress. Is there some starting thing I should focus early on?
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2016 12:53
|
|
|
Le0 posted:So I wanted to buy this game but then I remembered that I had bought Civ5 and never played it. So instead I decided to give it a try. Get to writing ASAP (always try to beeline to techs which give you new science buildings, and then build them immediately), always pick Tradition first, have a decent army at all times (or the AI will attack you), build up to 4 cities and then stop until you get to ideologies. Freedom is the best one, but Order is also good. Autocracy sucks. Science is by far the most important thing to produce. And the more population you have, the more science you make. So focus in getting your cities big and having all the science buildings on all of them Elias_Maluco fucked around with this message at 13:02 on Dec 5, 2016 |
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2016 12:59
|
|
|
Decrepus posted:The game has bad war and bad diplomacy. The game has recently been offering me trades of <everything I have> for <this trade is currently a gift. click this button to propose a counter-offer>. My army score is like ten times the next runner-up, so it's not like they're demanding tribute. The diplomacy is just hosed. Fur20 fucked around with this message at 13:31 on Dec 5, 2016 |
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2016 13:28
|
|
|
The White Dragon posted:The game has recently been offering me trades of <everything I have> for <this trade is currently a gift. click this button to propose a counter-offer>. My army score is like ten times the next runner-up, so it's not like they're demanding tribute. The diplomacy is just hosed. There is just no point to it. Ignoring the army strength, there is no ultimatum to go along with their demands. The screen pops up, you sigh in real life, decline, and the future refuses to change. They were unhappy with you before and they are unhappy now. There is no Relics or War crisis that you need to think about. Even when I was a rump state in my last game I had to keep telling everyone to gently caress off every few turns.
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2016 15:45
|
|
|
Civ VI is doing a wonderful job of teaching me exactly why human players couldn't capture settlers in Civ V. Playing my first Huge game on marathon mode now (Using larger map mod + all 19 Civs). I've stolen about twice as many settlers as I've built. Oddly maintaining diplomatic relations has been easier on this large map. I basically always secured a denouncement from every Civ by 1000AD in most games, yet I'm maintaining neutral/good relations with at least 1/3 of the Civs in the current game despite being a colonialistic warmongering dick.
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2016 17:28
|
|
|
The White Dragon posted:The game has recently been offering me trades of <everything I have> for <this trade is currently a gift. click this button to propose a counter-offer>. My army score is like ten times the next runner-up, so it's not like they're demanding tribute. The diplomacy is just hosed. Are you warmongering a lot? I've noticed an idiotic trend in AI civs demanding increasingly larger tributes from you purely based on their negative opinion of you. I got nonstop ridiculous tribute demands towards the end of my Huge domination game, despite having already conquered 2/3 of the globe.
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2016 17:42
|
|
|
Mondian posted:Are you warmongering a lot? I've noticed an idiotic trend in AI civs demanding increasingly larger tributes from you purely based on their negative opinion of you. Well, yes, but that's a side-effect of the terrible diplo game where they keep declaring war on me because the AI isn't actually capable of keeping it in its pants even if it knows it's gonna lose hard.
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2016 23:10
|
|
|
The AI seriously overvalues upfront gold. I know the opposite was a problem in Civ V, when you could fleece the AI for 250+ gold on extra luxuries to bankroll settlers, but the rebound is incredible. For open borders, the AI asked for: Open Borders 3 luxuries 30 GPT 3 G I was able to cut it down to Open Borders 90 G That's absurd- by paying upfront, I saved ~95% of the cost when you include luxuries.
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2016 00:26
|
|
|
JVNO posted:The AI seriously overvalues upfront gold. I know the opposite was a problem in Civ V, when you could fleece the AI for 250+ gold on extra luxuries to bankroll settlers, but the rebound is incredible. In a peace deal I took items out and put them back and they would no longer accept it.
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2016 01:05
|
|
|
Decrepus posted:In a peace deal I took items out and put them back and they would no longer accept it. this has been a thing since at least civ3 and it's just shameful that it still exists
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2016 01:08
|
|
|
JVNO posted:The AI seriously overvalues upfront gold. I know the opposite was a problem in Civ V, when you could fleece the AI for 250+ gold on extra luxuries to bankroll settlers, but the rebound is incredible. I wish I had a screesnhot, but I had russia propose a peace agreement (for a war they started*) that involved them giving me seemingly every relic and artwork they had, ceding the cities I'd captured except for one (their capital they wanted back), and giving me a city I hadn't even touched, in exchange for peace, 5,000 gold, 980 gold per turn for 30 turns, and open borders. I had 5000 gold, oddly, but I did not have anywhere near the income to do 980 gpt. Very strange offer, but peace deals in this game are just pauses between wars unless you return all their cities, so I didn't even bother trying to make it acceptable. * Actually the war had an amazing start. Russia was completely neutral to me (not even an emoji) when he surprise wardec'd and stormed in with 15 cossacks, a bunch of knights, 2 catapults and a battleship sailing up the coast. The border they crossed had 1 garrisoned infantry with a general, a field canon, and an artillery guarding 4 cities. I thought I'd lose 3 or 4 cities before I could produce and move enough material to counter that, and was genuinely impressed by the showing. Of course, he just faffed about pillaging universities, holy sites and airports, which doesn't really impact my ability to produce new troops. Also, he split away a good 50% of his troops to attack a city state I was suzerain of. He also got hyper focused on a fortified swordsman I'd forgotten about that was jamming a mountain pass from some early war I'd fought. Destroyed everything he had except the battleship with just what I had on hand (upgrading the swordsman) and one tank I managed to train and get into the area, then proceeded to crush him out of the game while only needing two more infantry. I wish there was away to capture great people, he had bunches of them running around and they just disappear when he does. A unit that could loot artworks would also be neat. EoRaptor fucked around with this message at 03:10 on Dec 6, 2016 |
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2016 02:56
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 4, 2024 21:36 |
|
|
EoRaptor posted:A unit that could loot artworks would also be neat. Spies can do this
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2016 03:38
|
|
