|
Lowen posted:They can eventually build forts and airstrips. Airstrips are possibly useful I guess. I have no idea why anyone at Firaxis thought giving them the option to build exactly two roads and nothing else was a good idea. I think it's a good idea. It turns the traders into a connection minigame as opposed to simply being a matter of choosing the highest gold. I can see being annoyed if you're annoyed that they're units at all in the first place. I've only used the military engineers for roads when I wanted to make the path to a channel between land masses as accessible as possible and trade routes didn't already go there (like, from a military-producing city to the coast). I could see potentially using them overseas when you haven't conquered a city yet on another land mass (or don't want to risk traders), or to connect two road networks when shuffling traders didn't resolve it.
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2017 22:26
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 15, 2024 15:18 |
|
|
Efexeye posted:There's no Hall of Fame There's no time or difficulty score multiplier to your score, either, so unless you poo poo cities over the entire map and build every wonder and--ironically enough, it's basically impossible to rate at Julius Caesar unless you're playing on Settler 
|
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2017 22:47
|
|
|
homullus posted:I think it's a good idea. It turns the traders into a connection minigame as opposed to simply being a matter of choosing the highest gold. I can see being annoyed if you're annoyed that they're units at all in the first place. I've only used the military engineers for roads when I wanted to make the path to a channel between land masses as accessible as possible and trade routes didn't already go there (like, from a military-producing city to the coast). I could see potentially using them overseas when you haven't conquered a city yet on another land mass (or don't want to risk traders), or to connect two road networks when shuffling traders didn't resolve it. No I agree that it's fine you don't have to manually build roads, and that traders do it, what I was saying is I don't know why they thought to give military engineers the completely useless ability to build exactly two roads and then die.
|
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2017 22:50
|
|
|
The White Dragon posted:There's no time or difficulty score multiplier to your score, either, so unless you poo poo cities over the entire map and build every wonder and--ironically enough, it's basically impossible to rate at Julius Caesar unless you're playing on Settler This is what I was wondering, too--the difficulty multiplier. It didn't seem like there was one. Thanks for the replies.
|
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2017 23:59
|
|
|
Efexeye posted:
I would not recommend any of that for a new player. As a new player, I had no idea what I was doing and I was losing very badly at Prince difficulty. I would recommend Chieftain difficulty. Island plates is also probably not a good idea, since the new player will be stuck in a tiny area without knowing what they're supposed to do. A new player could easily find themselves on a tiny island with 6 tiles to build on, build a single city, not take the proper techs to be able to cross ocean tiles, and just sit there in their little space until they're screwed.
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2017 06:26
|
|
|
Orange Sunshine posted:I would not recommend any of that for a new player. chieftain is just going to teach you bad habits. play at prince where you're at normal parity with the ai.
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2017 14:33
|
|
|
I'd say start at Settler until you know the game. That's what it's for. Nothing's going to put a new player off the game more than getting beaten in their first play.
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2017 14:38
|
|
|
Difficulties in Civ games are a difficult (heh) proposition to me, because I don't really like the way they're done. I understand why, of course, but the boosts the AI gets kind of ruin the fun of early wonder-racing and put you on the back foot from the start. I don't really like it. I completely understand how difficult it is to make an AI that gets "better" across difficulties, though. Giving them boosts is absolutely the easier way to do it, but ehhh... I hated that in Civ V like the entire first half of the game wonders were a no-no on higher difficulties because they'd be built before you even researched the tech, or you needed the hammers to keep up with the AI's free units. Making a proper decision tree for a game like this would make turns take forever, I suppose.
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2017 15:54
|
|
|
prefect posted:Are you sure you just took your city back and didn't casually raze a half-dozen cities en route? Surprise war - Tomyris Formal war - Tomyris and Gandhi Formal war - Saladin and Gilgamesh Formal war - Tomyris and Gandhi Formal war - Tomyris and Saladin Every time, I fought them off, never moved beyond my own borders, accepted the first peace they offered. Saladin was unfriendly because of my crime of founding a religion, but despite the wars everyone else was neutral or friendly, and Jadwiga, Gilgamesh, Hojo, and Gandhi kept popping up to say thanks for fulfilling their agenda. Before declaring war for the fourth time, Tomyris sent a settler over to a tiny coastal gap in my territory and founded a shitville that was 15 hexes closer to me than any of her other cities, then parked her whole military there and during the war used it to march on my capital and pillage my harbor and sea improvements. I still accepted a white peace, but built a couple of siege units for the first time. Surprise, ten turns later another formal war - Tomyris and Gandhi again, and this time I fight off Gandhi and accept the peace he offers, but actually assault and take Tomyris's tiny 3-pop city in the middle of my territory and demand it in a peace deal. I immediately had a -25 warmongering malus with every other civ, everyone was instantly unfriendly, Jad, Gandhi, and Qin Shi Huang all denounced me for warmongering within five turns, and Qin and Hojo declared another formal war on me immediately afterwards. It's just completely broken.
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2017 18:38
|
|
|
the fact that there is no score multiplier bonus for difficulty or time is infuriating
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2017 19:50
|
|
|
Apraxin posted:I know that -563 is probably some sort of bug, but the warmonger penalties are still weird and disproportional and awful. My last game, I rolled Cleo, got to wall off a reasonable bit of territory to myself thanks to city state placement, and decided just to be a peaceful trader for the whole game, never troubling anyone. For my pains, I got the following wardecs over about a 60 turn span: This is the big issue I have with the AI. They purposely found a city which makes no sense for them, as close as possible to one of your cities, and then if you ever raze the thing or take it from them, all the other civs see you as a warmongering monster. In my current game, Scythia founded a city 5 tiles to the east of the center of my capital city. Then, after a bit, she gets mad at me for having a city and troops too close to her city. Then she tries to found another city 4 tiles to the west of the center of my capital city. Luckily I saw the settler coming, realized where she was planning to put it, and put a bunch of units in that spot. The settler stood there a couple turns and then gave up and headed off somewhere else. Why would she purposely put cities on both sides of my capital? All it does is screw us both, because now none of our cities can grow properly. My current technique is to try to stop settlers as mentioned above. When they go to settle, they have a few hexes that they really want to settle on, and if you block them, they may go somewhere else. Also, you can just quicksave when you see the settler, so you have the chance to try again if it doesn't work quite right.
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2017 20:51
|
|
|
I said it before and I'll say it again - I literally played a game where Japan settled a city next to three of my military units. In THE SAME TURN he demanded I move my units away from his borders and I immediately went from moderately friendly with him to -7 you had troops on our borders. The diplomacy is broken.
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2017 21:02
|
|
|
JetsGuy posted:I said it before and I'll say it again - I literally played a game where Japan settled a city next to three of my military units. In THE SAME TURN he demanded I move my units away from his borders and I immediately went from moderately friendly with him to -7 you had troops on our borders. The fact that you can't tell them to move when they literally march an army next to your town to sneak attack you with, and then you take a warmonger penalty for hitting them preemptively, is just icing on the cake.
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2017 21:21
|
|
|
Basically this game is super unpolished and Firaxis fucks Civ fans over again, for the 12th time in the past decade.
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2017 21:26
|
|
|
SlothBear posted:The fact that you can't tell them to move when they literally march an army next to your town to sneak attack you with, and then you take a warmonger penalty for hitting them preemptively, is just icing on the cake. The best was the units were automatically moved because of the borders which undoubtedly was part of my high penalty. Lesson learned don't try to make a wall of units to prevent the AI from settling close to you.
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2017 21:29
|
|
|
Really a great thing civ should add is disputed land and claimed land. The cultural borders poo poo can still exist as "undisputed" or whatever. It would make for a cool experience but I'm sure the AI would gently caress it up. In any case I don't see why civs can't literally declare territory as theirs without settling it. There could be all sorts of interesting conflicts from taking unsettled land a civ claims as theirs.
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2017 21:32
|
|
|
Would solve problem of unreachable resourced that are too far from cities.
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2017 21:40
|
|
|
JetsGuy posted:Really a great thing civ should add is disputed land and claimed land. The cultural borders poo poo can still exist as "undisputed" or whatever. It would make for a cool experience but I'm sure the AI would gently caress it up. Except knowing Firaxis it would end up being that all AI civs claim the entire world from turn 1 and hate you forever for stealing their land.
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2017 22:21
|
|
|
JetsGuy posted:I said it before and I'll say it again - I literally played a game where Japan settled a city next to three of my military units. In THE SAME TURN he demanded I move my units away from his borders and I immediately went from moderately friendly with him to -7 you had troops on our borders. It really is this kind of crap that makes me seriously doubt the whole "modifiers accumulate over time they aren't instant penalties" mantra that keeps getting repeated, it seems any amount of negative modifiers will instantly override decades of positive modifiers. Internet Explorer posted:Basically this game is super unpolished and Firaxis fucks Civ fans over again, for the 12th time in the past decade. I do think the complaining is quite a bit overstated though, the game lacks replay value mostly due to the terribly flawed AI (both diplomatic and tactical) but it has some solid systems and was fun to play for a good two hundred hours for me. I'm just waiting for some refinement or additional modding until I come back (really all they need to do is release mod tools, modders will fix that lovely AI once they can).
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2017 22:21
|
|
|
If you get into a war with somebody and liberate a city they'd captured, you get +5 "liberated a city" with everybody, including the people you liberated it from.
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2017 23:10
|
|
|
JetsGuy posted:I said it before and I'll say it again - I literally played a game where Japan settled a city next to three of my military units. In THE SAME TURN he demanded I move my units away from his borders and I immediately went from moderately friendly with him to -7 you had troops on our borders. They need to get rid of that troops on the border bullshit. I think they only have it in there so the AI looks intelligent for calling you out about your war plans, but I've never been called out when I was planning a war. I only get called out if a scout or an exploring galley comes near their land. We know the AI is stupid. Why do they insist on making it louder and worse for no reason? I made a mod for V that effectively turned the penalty for not removing troops from borders to 0. I think that needs to be done for every type of promise the AI demands from you in VI. I've been called out for a religion passively spreading from my cities to an AI when I didn't even have a religion of my own.
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2017 12:19
|
|
|
You know maybe the solution to the AI is to make it so that you "announce" your deals to the world. So the other leaders (that's you're in contact with) know of your deal with (say Russia) to stop sending missionaries to you. If he says "yes" and then continues to do it, OTHER leaders get +/- for breaking that promise. Each leader would have different feelings towards breaking promises in general and then what kind of promise. Saladin for example would laugh and get + points to any leader who broke promises to not convert. That way in theory the AI would be somewhat motivated to not continue breaking promises. As far as troops on the border I don't mind it as much but the execution sucks. It basically runs a check at 10 turns. I've had times where I immediately removed troops then accidentally left a unit on the border on then ten. PROMISE BROKEN.
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2017 17:53
|
|
|
Your proposed system is probably what they are actually aiming for, but the real problem is that you often have no control over whether or not you break promises. Adjusting the consequence would be the easy part, but the complication and opaqueness of how to fulfill the promises is an obstacle that I don't think they will ever be able to fix. They just need to take them out.
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2017 19:46
|
|
|
Again im boggled as to how Paradox can do it, but Firaxis flounders in this arena.
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2017 21:14
|
|
|
Jastiger posted:Again im boggled as to how Paradox can do it, but Firaxis flounders in this arena. The utter lack of connection with the fans of their series can't help. Paradox actually talks to its players, Firaxis either says nothing or communicates entirely through marketing soundbites.
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2017 21:15
|
|
|
Orange Sunshine posted:Why would she purposely put cities on both sides of my capital? All it does is screw us both, because now none of our cities can grow properly. I am 90% certain the AI does this on purpose. It's their way of saying "I don't like you and I want to declare war on you but I need an excuse." They've already decided they want to kill you but at the time they're making the decision they can't justify it so they do something aggressive to either make you declare on them first or to give them a reason to denounce you later. I'm also 90% sure that if the AI yells at you for settling a city too close to "their territory" when the new city further from them than your capital it's for a similar reason - they've already decided that your territory is theirs and as soon as they get around to it they're going to stomp on you to take it. Note that both of these things mostly happen early in the game when civs are much closer to each other in terms of power. You stop seeing this later as civs get further apart from each other in rank, and wars then become "I'm declaring on you because you're too far ahead/behind". My problem with 6's diplomacy isn't that they do these things, it's that: 1. It's completely opaque whether the AI is deliberately being an rear end in a top hat to you in order to create a reason to go to war with you vs. being an rear end in a top hat because it's stupid or because you're being an rear end in a top hat to it 2. The player is held to much higher standards than the AI in terms of what each player can get away with before everyone else starts dogpiling them. I think if they moved the "specific varieties of war declaration" thing much earlier in the game (like... medieval era) and greatly magnified warmonger penalties in a non-justified war and then reduced them for a justified war and then made the AI really try to declare using a justification whenever possible it'd help these things a lot. President Ark fucked around with this message at 21:32 on Jan 8, 2017 |
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2017 21:26
|
|
|
Paradox games don't have winners, so they can go whole hog on the "roleplaying a country" without having to balance it against "following a strict guideline to hit a victory condition while also attempting to stop the player from hitting a victory condition". But then, some guy earlier was complaining that the Civ6 AIs get mad when the player is conquering them to win a domination victory, so maybe civ players are just whiny.
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2017 21:29
|
|
|
Byzantine posted:Paradox games don't have winners Stellaris wiki posted:Victory conditions are predefined goals that ensure victory of the game.
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2017 21:41
|
|
|
Honestly there's not much of a difference between no victories (paradox excluding stellaris as mentioned above) and a victory that is trivially easy (civ 6 deity once you have built walls)
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2017 22:18
|
|
|
Are any of the other leaders as good a choice as Scythia when going for a Domination victory? The 50 point healing when units get a kill, combined with attack bonuses versus wounded units, combined with getting 2 for 1 when creating light cavalry makes Scythia very powerful.
|
|
#
?
Jan 9, 2017 03:39
|
|
|
I really like Rome for domination and I really feel their bonus is strong for getting a good quick start. The legions were baller when I last played but maybe that's been patched.
|
|
#
?
Jan 9, 2017 07:21
|
|
|
They are turning Alphago (that AI that now beats humans at Go) onto Starcraft 2. When I read that story I thought to myself that maybe a decent Civ AI is within reach. Who do I need to tweet at alphago to get them working on CIV
|
|
#
?
Jan 9, 2017 07:56
|
|
|
Goodpancakes posted:They are turning Alphago (that AI that now beats humans at Go) onto Starcraft 2. When I read that story I thought to myself that maybe a decent Civ AI is within reach. Who do I need to tweet at alphago to get them working on CIV Can't a "normal" AI beat humans at SC2? I'd have thought an AI could trivially beat humans in most RTSs just by sheer clicks per second.
|
|
#
?
Jan 9, 2017 23:32
|
|
|
JeremoudCorbynejad posted:Can't a "normal" AI beat humans at SC2? I'd have thought an AI could trivially beat humans in most RTSs just by sheer clicks per second. Yeah. I'm gonna guess that the SC AI is cheated to do well, however, and it's power comes from paying less for units, faster build times, and knowing where the human player is. Maybe they are constructing an AI that plays as if it is another human player, where it had to strategize production, Meta gaming, scouting, and tactical response? Dunno though.
|
|
#
?
Jan 9, 2017 23:45
|
|
|
JeremoudCorbynejad posted:Can't a "normal" AI beat humans at SC2? I'd have thought an AI could trivially beat humans in most RTSs just by sheer clicks per second. Pretty sure AIs can out macro humans but have no idea how to prioritize / do strategic stuff. There are actually SC2 AI competitions where bots fight tournaments. None of them is even close to beating a top level human player as far as I know.
|
|
#
?
Jan 10, 2017 00:05
|
|
|
Jastiger posted:Again im boggled as to how Paradox can do it, but Firaxis flounders in this arena. Advanced Wars has better AI than Civ VI, and uses a very similar set of mechanics for movement, visibility, unit variability, and to a lesser extent base capture. Hell, the ranged units even had firing shadows and yet the AI still could manage to park them in a forest to hide while raining hell down on you. The main difference is the map size is a factor of 10 smaller, but I'm baffled that Civ AI don't even come close.
|
|
#
?
Jan 10, 2017 02:05
|
|
|
botany posted:Pretty sure AIs can out macro humans but have no idea how to prioritize / do strategic stuff. There are actually SC2 AI competitions where bots fight tournaments. None of them is even close to beating a top level human player as far as I know. I'm not much one for (human) multiplayer in Starcraft 2, but I have beaten all three campaigns on Brutal. The difficulty curves in SC2 seem to be based somewhat on strategies that real players would use and the AI does kinda learn. Like if you make your defenses/army too one dimensional the AI won't keep sending the same poo poo. The campaign AI is also different from MP. Mostly because of how the scenarios are laid out and scripted events. The AI does also have the usual bonuses to speed and costs im sure. There's only a few times I felt absolutely cheated by the AI and those were levels where you're supposed to lose. Like the future level in LotV where it's just "survive an hour" against Amons endless hordes.
|
|
#
?
Jan 10, 2017 02:39
|
|
|
The SC AI tournies limit the AI to having to use the same GUI as humans do, ie no 'cheating'. They're good enough to beat random scrubs, which is hugely impressive, but competitive players are well beyond them. Civ's problems have had nothing to do with building a 'smart AI', and everything to do with hastily cobbled together poo poo that's barely functional as a straw bag. See any other game, ever, on what normal AI opposition is expected to be able to do, regardless of 'cheating'.
|
|
#
?
Jan 10, 2017 02:47
|
|
|
I will still never understand why they put a cap on how many religions can be on the map, it's the silliest thing
|
|
#
?
Jan 10, 2017 03:34
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 15, 2024 15:18 |
|
|
Gyra_Solune posted:I will still never understand why they put a cap on how many religions can be on the map, it's the silliest thing I think it made sense for civ 5, but now that it's a victory condition it is rather annoying.
|
|
#
?
Jan 10, 2017 03:52
|
|
