|
Magil Zeal posted:I can't imagine that was the logic behind the choice since that's how it was in vanilla Civ V and everyone hated it there, and they spent a long time changing it. And Ed Beach was there for that process so it's not like he wasn't aware. In regards to the diplomatic AI, at least. India, a long time ally in my game, just attacked me for no loving reason. After nearly being wiped out I managed to rally and take it back to Delhi. Apparently for retaliating after being attacked by an ally I'm a warmonger and now I have to deal with constant theatrics from other leaders, attacks and other bullshit. I really like a lot of aspects of this game but this poo poo makes it pretty much unbearable, I think I'm putting it on the shelf until this is fixed.
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2017 23:08
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 4, 2024 15:47 |
|
|
The Gunslinger posted:India, a long time ally in my game, just attacked me for no loving reason. After nearly being wiped out I managed to rally and take it back to Delhi. Apparently for retaliating after being attacked by an ally I'm a warmonger and now I have to deal with constant theatrics from other leaders, attacks and other bullshit. I really like a lot of aspects of this game but this poo poo makes it pretty much unbearable, I think I'm putting it on the shelf until this is fixed. You just described how Gandhi ALWAYS acts. Ain't no patch gon fix dat. Seriously, Gandhi is an rear end in a top hat.
|
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2017 23:16
|
|
|
No, you don't understand, the AI is playing to win, not to play, it's only natural that they'll backstab you and hate you constantly because it's trying to act like a human player
|
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2017 23:39
|
|
|
The capturing city penalties are absurd especially when you have war declared on you. The "genocide" penalty is different but it's also really dumb the game doesn't warn you of it. In fact it does the exact opposite because it says you have "no penalty" for keeping that last city.
|
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2017 23:43
|
|
|
The White Dragon posted:No, you don't understand, the AI is playing to win, not to play, it's only natural that they'll backstab you and hate you constantly because it's trying to act like a human player Was it civ 4 where the AI would literally say -6 you're trying to win the way we want to win?
|
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2017 23:44
|
|
|
JetsGuy posted:Was it civ 4 where the AI would literally say -6 you're trying to win the way we want to win? I think that was only introduced in 5, Civ 4 was the one where people were angry that it was "too easy" to make the AI like you and get if-elsed into never attacking you. Which honestly is preferable to some rear end in a top hat on another landmass declaring war on you and demanding your entire empire every couple turns, and if you attack a single one of his cities, the world denounces you.
|
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2017 23:49
|
|
|
 Maybe if they brought back stacking...
|
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2017 00:20
|
|
|
The White Dragon posted:No, you don't understand, the AI is playing to win, not to play, it's only natural that they'll backstab you and hate you constantly because it's trying to act like a human player Yeah I don't ever buy that either. Most of the humans I've played with try to win, and they consider losing a city or two for declaring war on someone stronger than you in hubris a fair punishment. The AI definitely needs to be more "sure" it can actually defeat you before declaring the way a human will be. Usually everyone plays nice until they have a commanding advantage.
|
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2017 00:28
|
|
|
Is this game good/does it run like molasses like civ 5?
|
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2017 00:41
|
|
|
It starts out fast but ends up like molasses because the City States want to maintain massive standing armies and absolutely needs to evaluate them every turn, even if there's no threats around and even if threats can't possibly spawn or exist.
|
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2017 00:43
|
|
|
The White Dragon posted:It starts out fast but ends up like molasses because the City States want to maintain massive standing armies and absolutely needs to evaluate them every turn, even if there's no threats around and even if threats can't possibly spawn or exist. I don't know why city-states like catapults so much. Okay, they're aesthetically awesome, but when your whole thing is not conquering cities, you don't need them.
|
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2017 00:46
|
|
|
This game's intro had hussars before the Poland DLC? Weird decision.
|
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2017 01:11
|
|
|
Rinkles posted:This game's intro had hussars before the Poland DLC? Weird decision. Civ 5's intro had vikings before Denmark DLC.
|
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2017 01:13
|
|
|
Niwrad posted:I don't think it needs to be that complicated to at least make sense. Barbarian AI is much better than the Civ AI so they are capable of creating an AI that attacks cities well. It seems like just allowing the AI to sacrifice units would be a huge step forward. Have it calculate the chance of taking out a city with the 5 units it has and if it can do it even with sacrificing 3, it attacks full bore. I think making strategic resources a little more plentiful would make it easier for the AI to upgrade units. The big thing with the AI is that the warmonger penalty is basically for engaging in any war, based on the amount of turns (and any captured cities kept) and starts counting against you even if they declare war. What they need to do is A: make the ai's diplo with each other, then apply bonuses/penalties for how you all feel about each other. So if I'm pissing off Russia and Britain hates them, then my actions should make Britain like me or at least hate me less. Second: they need to give each war a Casus Belli - if the declarer doesn't use one, then the defender gets it. Those two things would dramatically lower the downward spiral of AI relations. The last thing they could do is make a big list of things AI's like generically, especially in trade deals. If they just did a Green label for gaining rep in the deal, yellow for staying near the same, or Red for losing rep along with the deal it would help most people tremendously.
|
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2017 01:19
|
|
|
Does the Eureka system lead to games playing out the same?
|
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2017 01:52
|
|
|
Vahakyla posted:I have pinpointed what irks me about Civ6. A serious game about building the Pyramids in America in 3000 B.C. under the orders of George Washington and later having them nuked by Gandhi.
|
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2017 02:05
|
|
|
"This is such bullshit! THEY attacked ME, why do I get any penalty at all for taking their land?" - Israel
|
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2017 02:07
|
|
|
Byzantine posted:"This is such bullshit! THEY attacked ME, why do I get any penalty at all for taking their land?" - Israel I think the problem is that in the more recent civ games, you basically have to capture half their holdings and their capital just to get them to give you a frickin' white peace. Any less than that and the AI is absolutely certain that it's been winning and can therefore demand everything you own. So yes, when the only way to end a war against a poorly-planned diplomatic simulation is to completely and irreversibly ruin its day, then you probably shouldn't get penalized for it. Rinkles posted:Does the Eureka system lead to games playing out the same? Not really. They're more of a bonus than anything else; some are so hard to proc you probably won't ever get them, and some are so easy that you can't even win the game without getting them by accident. Fur20 fucked around with this message at 02:24 on Jan 3, 2017 |
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2017 02:22
|
|
|
The White Dragon posted:I think the problem is that in the more recent civ games, you basically have to capture half their holdings and their capital just to get them to give you a frickin' white peace. Any less than that and the AI is absolutely certain that it's been winning and can therefore demand everything you own. I think Byzantine means that taking their land. Not just conquering their cities, but keeping them post-war, i.e. using them declaring war on you as an excuse to take everything from them, then wondering why everyone else thinks you're a genocidal warmonger.
|
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2017 02:37
|
|
|
The White Dragon posted:I think the problem is that in the more recent civ games, you basically have to capture half their holdings and their capital just to get them to give you a frickin' white peace. Any less than that and the AI is absolutely certain that it's been winning and can therefore demand everything you own. To be fair in this game you can usually ignore them until you get the option to make peace, and 90% of the time they'll white peace.
|
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2017 02:46
|
|
|
Roland Jones posted:Not just conquering their cities, but keeping them post-war, i.e. using them declaring war on you as an excuse to take everything from them That is true, but at the same time, if they get their big cities back, they'll just misevaluate their position all over again again and declare war on you as soon as the mandatory minimum peace treaty expires 
|
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2017 03:07
|
|
|
LonsomeSon posted:Majestic post/avatar combo. Im in tight with Firaxis. I and onlu i get a special Cassus belli with no warmonger score if the civ has cities to the South of my capital
|
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2017 03:17
|
|
|
remember when civ had slavery
|
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2017 03:22
|
|
|
General Morden posted:remember when civ had slavery Yeah I remember Civ4. It perhaps you're referring to really older civ games where the cost of hurry production under certain government types cost population to simulate you beating them to death.
|
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2017 03:27
|
|
|
Dragonrah posted:You just described how Gandhi ALWAYS acts. Ain't no patch gon fix dat. Seriously, Gandhi is an rear end in a top hat. Nah its pretty much any Civ. France and Russia just did the same thing in my last game. I end up having to annihilate everyone else because someone declares on me and keeps picking stupid wars over and over again. I guess it's my own fault for existing on the same continent.
|
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2017 04:10
|
|
|
I hope no one is defending the AI in this game. Its not even remotely passable.
|
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2017 05:01
|
|
|
The White Dragon posted:
The oddest one to me is that one of the earliest civics requires discovering a second continent to get the eureka. By the point you're going for this there is almost no chance this will have happened.
|
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2017 10:56
|
|
|
Orange Sunshine posted:The oddest one to me is that one of the earliest civics requires discovering a second continent to get the eureka. By the point you're going for this there is almost no chance this will have happened. I get that one about 30 - 50% of the time. Turn on the continent filter and you increase your odds greatly.
|
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2017 11:04
|
|
|
The Human Crouton posted:I get that one about 30 - 50% of the time. Turn on the continent filter and you increase your odds greatly. I once started a game on a large landmass that for no discernible reason was considered two continents. The second continent started in the next row of tiles south of the row in which I founded my capital.
|
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2017 11:11
|
|
|
ComfyPants posted:I once started a game on a large landmass that for no discernible reason was considered two continents. The second continent started in the next row of tiles south of the row in which I founded my capital. Yeah, it's different than in V. A continent is not defined just a landmass that is independent of other other landmasses. I like that change because of how it works(or potentially will eventually work) with all of the civs that have continent based bonuses. If we actually get some good SDK tools, we might get a really cool realistic map script, like modders have made in the past, that is based off of actual plate tectonics and river flows. I think that would make the continents really cool.
|
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2017 11:20
|
|
|
ComfyPants posted:I once started a game on a large landmass that for no discernible reason was considered two continents. The second continent started in the next row of tiles south of the row in which I founded my capital. It's this, continents can just be different parts of the same landmass, like Europe and Asia. That makes the eureka easy to get in time on a Continents or Pangaea map, but hard on Archipelago. I like the change, too. I want them to let you name that poo poo, though. Have the AIs on different continents have some flavor interactions with you if you change the name of another continent. "I really wish you would stop calling our home of Lemuria, Disgusting Shitheap >I understand >Please respect our cultural differences" Of course, with the current diplomacy system, this would probably happen every five turns instead of, say, every one hundred and fifty the way it should actually be timed. Fur20 fucked around with this message at 11:29 on Jan 3, 2017 |
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2017 11:25
|
|
|
Yeah, the continent change is good. Keep in mind that Europe, Asia and Africa are all one landmass in reality, and you'll see it actually makes more sense than every continent needing to be a separate landmass. It's also good from a game balance perspective, since "get bonuses to fighting when not on your continent" would be poo poo on a one-continent pangaea, while "get bonuses to fighting when on your continent" would be terrific on a one-continent pangaea. By splitting that pangaea up into different continents, those can remain somewhat balanced. Gort fucked around with this message at 11:43 on Jan 3, 2017 |
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2017 11:38
|
|
|
General Morden posted:remember when civ had slavery Why do you think builders die after a few uses in VI? 
|
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2017 11:44
|
|
|
Aztecs explicitly take slaves in Civ 6.
|
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2017 11:50
|
|
|
Capturing another civ's workers is pretty much slavery too
|
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2017 12:25
|
|
|
Well yeah but I think narratively speaking, that's just a little different from the way Civ 4 handled it. No matter how any other Civ title might handle the concept of slavery, 4 was pretty on-the-nose about that poo poo and I didn't like using it because... look, tactically speaking, it was great! But oh baby, it always made me feel just a bit dirty
|
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2017 12:49
|
|
|
I miss being able to puppet cities. Is there a way you can basically set cities to auto? I give a poo poo about the 3 or 4 cities I start off with, but then when I go conquering, I like being able to puppet them rather than micromanage.
|
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2017 12:54
|
|
|
The White Dragon posted:Well yeah but I think narratively speaking, that's just a little different from the way Civ 4 handled it. No matter how any other Civ title might handle the concept of slavery, 4 was pretty on-the-nose about that poo poo and I didn't like using it because... look, tactically speaking, it was great! But oh baby, it always made me feel just a bit dirty I would never cut down rainforests, but then I got stuck with a city buried in the global equatorial rainforest belt, so I finally gave in, and you get a ton of food and production from it.  So now I cut down every rainforest I can, and I only feel the faintest hint of guilt. I'm thinking about treating wetlands the same way. Keep one around for Mont Saint-Michel, but the rest of them are on the chopping block. Also also, I want to stop saying "rainforest" and "wetlands". Go back to "jungle" and "swamp". 
prefect fucked around with this message at 13:06 on Jan 3, 2017 |
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2017 12:57
|
|
|
Hey, that's straight legit in 4 and 6, man. But 5? If your capital was half rainforest, one quarter hills, and one quarter resources, you were on the fuckin' freeway to landing on Alpha Centauri in 1475AD.
|
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2017 13:00
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 4, 2024 15:47 |
|
|
Orange Sunshine posted:The oddest one to me is that one of the earliest civics requires discovering a second continent to get the eureka. By the point you're going for this there is almost no chance this will have happened. I nearly always get this one, and if you scout effectively it should almost be automatic (unless you're on an island continent).
|
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2017 17:24
|
|
