|
I don't know what contributed to this mechanic but when I would play civilisation IV on any large map with enough civs, by the middle to end of the game the world usually has grouped into two or three "factions" (usually separated by religion) which would result in an uneasy stalemate as noone from one faction would declare war on another because of a complex web of alliances or reprisal wars, or an all-out world war. Early in the game, you learned who your friends were and started cultivating a relationship with you but god help you if you backstabbed someone from your own side because then you'd be easy pickings for any civ to declare war. I don't know what feature or combination of features you could implement into Civ 6 to create a similar experience but I feel like there's a real-world parallel that emerged through human history to this and it gave an extra dimension to war and diplomacy. That said, I may just be remembering Civ4 with rose coloured glasses; I havent played it in almost a decade. I just remember that being one of the things I enjoyed about it
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2016 03:56
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 15, 2024 23:24 |
|
|
Tanners posted:Spies can do this You can do this before a war, but not in real time. Capturing a city+museum+etc seemingly destroys any associated artwork. Having a unit capable of looting artworks out of a district or world wonder would be neat, though the ones in city cores would be tricky to manage. Maybe an upgrade possibility for an existing unit type?
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2016 04:22
|
|
|
Going back to civ 5 until they fix the loving crash to desktop issue. What a buggy piece of poo poo. I paid $60 for this, and it crashes repeatably in the middle/end game?
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2016 05:37
|
|
|
Serrath posted:
Yeah, last game of Civ4 I played was on a huge Earth map. I was playing England and ended up with Russia, Rome and Mali as vassal states and Egypt as a close ally. On the other side was China, with India, Mongolia, Persia and Arabia as vassals or allies. An uneasy cold war prevailed for centuries, with our respective armies eyeing each other warily across a border stretching from the Middle East to Siberia and my spies tracking the movement of enemy units until China declared war on Egypt, causing all it's allied civs to declare war also. Obviously I could'nt stand for that, so I declared on China, triggering a world war and causing Egypt to love me even more. A thoroughly fun time followed, as I attempted to destroy China's huge invasion force, while shoring up my allies and preparing my own armies for a counter-offensive. A century or so later, Egypt was safe, Persia and Arabia were exterminated and China was forced to beg for peace, giving me a decisive Victory edge. Civ6 has shown me nothing comparable, so far.
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2016 07:21
|
|
|
A minor oddity I noticed - maybe it's been covered: If you move your warrior on the first (or second) turn and happen to come across a city-state before your settler has created your first city, your capital does not get the bonus associated with being the first civilization to meet them. This occurs even though you still get the free envoy placed there. Crazy Ted fucked around with this message at 07:50 on Dec 6, 2016 |
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2016 07:34
|
|
|
Pistol_Pete posted:Yeah, last game of Civ4 I played was on a huge Earth map. I was playing England and ended up with Russia, Rome and Mali as vassal states and Egypt as a close ally. On the other side was China, with India, Mongolia, Persia and Arabia as vassals or allies. An uneasy cold war prevailed for centuries, with our respective armies eyeing each other warily across a border stretching from the Middle East to Siberia and my spies tracking the movement of enemy units until China declared war on Egypt, causing all it's allied civs to declare war also. Obviously I could'nt stand for that, so I declared on China, triggering a world war and causing Egypt to love me even more. A thoroughly fun time followed, as I attempted to destroy China's huge invasion force, while shoring up my allies and preparing my own armies for a counter-offensive. A century or so later, Egypt was safe, Persia and Arabia were exterminated and China was forced to beg for peace, giving me a decisive Victory edge. They're just obsessed with making the AI "want to win" instead of having them just play the game with you.
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2016 10:23
|
|
|
Yeah, so obsessed with winning the AI can't attack your cities. Maybe the word you're looking for is incompetent?
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2016 14:59
|
|
|
It doesn't have to be one or the other.
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2016 15:05
|
|
|
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. Play a game on settler, which is probably impossible to lose on. Get a feel for the mechanics and go up a difficulty per session from there. I really wouldn't go for any "you need this!" Advice. You need to know your play style and what works best for you. Civ games are very versatile and there's no "wrong" way to play. Well except playing as a pacifist. That's dumb.
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2016 18:23
|
|
|
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. They did - Arsenal of Democracy diplomacy policy (Suffrage) gives +2 food and production to both cities for trade routes to an Ally. You also can't do research agreements or defensive pacts without an alliance, and it guarantees war can't be declared while the alliance is up. With one strong ally you can get some pretty big boosts.
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2016 19:47
|
|
|
Is there any way to protect a city-state aside from building a wall of my own units to keep the Russians from killing them? I wish I could negotiate peace by giving somebody silver and oranges.
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2016 19:49
|
|
|
Nope! Well, you could get them to joint war someone with you and hope they'd decide to make peace with the city state and concentrate on the new war. Later on you get a protectorate cb with 0% warmonger penalty but I think that needs you to be their suzerain.JetsGuy posted:Play a game on settler, which is probably impossible to lose on. Actually I'm almost certain I've seen people complain about getting killed by a warrior rush on settler.
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2016 19:53
|
|
|
Staltran posted:Actually I'm almost certain I've seen people complain about getting killed by a warrior rush on settler. That's got to be barbarians. The AI can't declare war on settler. That or they declared war and then got beaten up by a "rush" of warriors.
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2016 21:44
|
|
|
Maybe I'm just lucky, but I feel like very early game barbarians are pretty easy to manage if you play smart, use terrain, and keep scouting LOS on spots that would be troublesome for camps to pop up. But I'm surprised to hear that some people have trouble with barbarians; less surprised to see that the AI sometimes gets virtually wiped out by them. So far every game of civvi I have played at least one of the AIs has been effectively wiped out and never gets past the medieval era because they were so thoroughly owned by barbarians at the start of the game.
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2016 22:26
|
|
|
Fryhtaning posted:They did - Arsenal of Democracy diplomacy policy (Suffrage) gives +2 food and production to both cities for trade routes to an Ally. You also can't do research agreements or defensive pacts without an alliance, and it guarantees war can't be declared while the alliance is up. With one strong ally you can get some pretty big boosts.  Exactly. There are things that alliances already do and I think if they nuanced diplomacy more that they can do even more. I prefer that computers can break them as opposed to forever remaining in a headlock. Vassalage would be ok for when you really beat them badly enough though.
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2016 22:39
|
|
|
Gort posted:That's got to be barbarians. The AI can't declare war on settler. That or they declared war and then got beaten up by a "rush" of warriors. Must have been barbs, then.
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2016 09:10
|
|
|
hey I'm playing the new Total War and it looks pretty drat good so far. The interface isn't retarded for a start. Something to do until Civ gets an expansion
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2016 09:39
|
|
|
There's a new Total War?
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2016 10:54
|
|
|
um.. YEAH! Warhammer: Total War.. so I guess the theme is that spergy tabletop game. I was dubious until I loaded it up, it's freaking great. The SA thread for it has a good OP: https://forums.somethingawful.com/showthread.php?threadid=3779330
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2016 10:58
|
|
|
Taear posted:They're just obsessed with making the AI "want to win" instead of having them just play the game with you.
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2016 12:51
|
|
|
I can understand why they want to do that, but it's a clusterfuck when everyone tries to win but is very ineffective. What could possibly work is have them all play like Civ 4 AI for most of the game, but during the late (or mid) game just pick one or two that actually have a chance of winning (or at least be challenging) and make them antagonistic to the player regardless of previous relationships.
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2016 12:56
|
|
|
Attributing the AI's retarded behavior to it wanting to win is not being honest. During the livestream the presenters had to pretend declaring war and making peace without ever fighting was good.
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2016 13:03
|
|
|
Decrepus posted:Attributing the AI's retarded behavior to it wanting to win is not being honest. During the livestream the presenters had to pretend declaring war and making peace without ever fighting was good. Hey now, doing that in Imperialism 2 can actually be totally correct; someone drags you into a war and you go along to not lose a bunch of alliances. Or you do that to some other folks. ...Imp 2 was incredible, though.
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2016 13:12
|
|
|
About the AI war problem... It looks like the AI+ mod is pretty promising. Whoever makes it just updated for the first time since the patch. I tried a game with it the other night on a Huge map and nine cities traded hands before 500 BC (4 city states, 5 AI-held cities). I think one of them had Ancient Walls. Before the update it had notable problems with Settler spam and lack of AI city districts, but I think that came down to the fact that the patch changed AI priorities and the lack of AI+ update to account for that caused problems. The first post-patch update seems to have remedied that for the most part. On the whole it makes some pretty reasonable changes to behavior without dicking around with core game concepts, as so many other mods like to do. Crazy Ted fucked around with this message at 15:43 on Dec 7, 2016 |
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2016 15:41
|
|
|
Here is the making of Sean Bean: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zBFoIjob_b8
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2016 19:01
|
|
|
John F Bennett posted:Here is the making of Sean Bean: This better not be a sex tape from 1958.
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2016 19:03
|
|
|
What's SA's verdict on this one? I love love loved IV (especially the Rhys and Fall mod) and thought V was just okay. The fact that I had to scroll to page 5 to find this thread worries me.
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2016 06:16
|
|
|
It's OK, with at least one massive flaw (AI unable to take walled cities). 4 is still the best if you want actual AI opposition
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2016 07:43
|
|
|
Gort posted:It's OK, with at least one massive flaw (AI unable to take walled cities). Think this'll be patched anytime soon? I usually suck pretty hard at the game, so sub-par AI opposition isn't a huge dealbreaker to me.
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2016 10:40
|
|
|
Sucrose posted:Think this'll be patched anytime soon? I usually suck pretty hard at the game, so sub-par AI opposition isn't a huge dealbreaker to me. *Glaces back at Civ5* ....Probably not.
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2016 12:21
|
|
|
I actually like the game a lot, but do think it's really what Civ 5 should've been. I like that every city is very different with the district system and wonders having to be placed on actual tiles, which forces you to try to plan out cities so you can get max efficiency. There are a few gripes I have but most are minor. The AI suck at anything city building though. I played a game on Emperor and deliberately waited until Modern Era before taking over cities and found that most AI cities only had a shrine, a few with industrial, and maybe one or two with commercial/culture, whereas my cities were sprawling with several districts and I was pulling in thousands of gold per turn. Once they fix the AI sucking at a few things, I imagine I'll be dumping many more hours into it. The nice thing about planning cities and such is that every city is different and each playthrough can be very different. It's not like 4/5 where there's an optimal build sequence for cities and every city has X improvements in it. I've been experimenting with cities and trying to specialize as much as possible. One huge gripe I have is that once you place a district, it's there forever. There's not even a button to say you've changed your mind once you've started building.
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2016 14:43
|
|
|
Hamlet442 posted:I actually like the game a lot, but do think it's really what Civ 5 should've been. I like that every city is very different with the district system and wonders having to be placed on actual tiles, which forces you to try to plan out cities so you can get max efficiency. Oh my god dude I built cities closer to each other this game and I'm doing stupid poo poo like putting a loving great wall of industrial zones and commercial districts along one another. It's like a feedback loop of production bonuses and self-sustaining gold generation, the base district by itself is giving as many hammers as a power plant 
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2016 15:36
|
|
|
That's the true Ruhr Valley wonder.
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2016 16:00
|
|
|
The White Dragon posted:Oh my god dude I built cities closer to each other this game and I'm doing stupid poo poo like putting a loving great wall of industrial zones and commercial districts along one another. It's like a feedback loop of production bonuses and self-sustaining gold generation, the base district by itself is giving as many hammers as a power plant ...This has never crossed my mind. I didn't even know that districts from one city could gain bonuses from another. Time to break the game even more!
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2016 16:08
|
|
|
Hamlet442 posted:...This has never crossed my mind. I didn't even know that districts from one city could gain bonuses from another. Time to break the game even more! Could you take Japan and just build a megalopolis that's 100% districts pushed up against each other, with no farmland or mines or anything?
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2016 16:09
|
|
|
prefect posted:Could you take Japan and just build a megalopolis that's 100% districts pushed up against each other, with no farmland or mines or anything? This is basically the pro way of playing Japan. gently caress the environment, slam all your districts together, welcome to Japan.
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2016 16:29
|
|
|
The Deleter posted:This is basically the pro way of playing Japan. gently caress the environment, slam all your districts together, welcome to Japan. AND WELCOME TO JAPAN
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2016 16:46
|
|
|
The Deleter posted:This is basically the pro way of playing Japan. gently caress the environment, slam all your districts together, welcome to Japan. It's going to be hard to violate my seven-hexes-apart rule, but I will try it, by gosh!
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2016 16:51
|
|
|
Hamlet442 posted:...This has never crossed my mind. I didn't even know that districts from one city could gain bonuses from another. Time to break the game even more! Wait, is this actually the case? Because it doesn't seem to take it into account and display the hypothetical adjacency bonus when placing the districts.
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2016 17:41
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 15, 2024 23:24 |
|
|
I think I've exhausted the city name list because all of my cities are 'Carthage' now.
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2016 17:47
|
|