|
Xenoborg posted:Is there ever any benift to sparing a mostly conquered AI, or will they just hate me forever for taking 2 of their cities in the classical era? ^ what trapped mouse says. Short of the introduction of Vassal/Puppet States in an expansion, a spared AI will just keep declaring war on you every time it builds a unit, and eventually you'll just get mad war weariness in the modern era and your empire will collapse because you tried to play nice.
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2017 09:07
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 15, 2024 18:33 |
|
|
My dream feature for some civ vi expansion pack would be a kind of mechanic to let city-states band together to form their own new civilization (or just any random one that's not in the match already) and that allows you to force a country to release cities as city-states or as small, minor countries (effectively stronger city states with stronger bonuses and the ability to start wars of their own on city states?) And a bunch of mechanics related to that, allowing for dynamically generated suzerain bonuses and stuff for the new ones. I feel like that's a setup that would let a player in a defensive war really punish the aggressor and take them out as a threat without getting tons of warmonger penalties. Related to that, having spies reworked and letting them create independence movements in enemy civs. 
|
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2017 10:52
|
|
|
Deltasquid posted:My dream feature for some civ vi expansion pack would be a kind of mechanic to let city-states band together to form their own new civilization (or just any random one that's not in the match already) and that allows you to force a country to release cities as city-states or as small, minor countries (effectively stronger city states with stronger bonuses and the ability to start wars of their own on city states?) I wish I could declare protectorate wars earlier and without having to denounce somebody first. If you attack one of my city-state friends, I want to immediately kill all your units, pillage all your improvements, and knock down all your city defenses.  Even if I'm not the suzerain. 
|
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2017 12:31
|
|
|
Deltasquid posted:My dream feature for some civ vi expansion pack would be a kind of mechanic to let city-states band together to form their own new civilization (or just any random one that's not in the match already) and that allows you to force a country to release cities as city-states or as small, minor countries (effectively stronger city states with stronger bonuses and the ability to start wars of their own on city states?) I would absolutely love playing a liberation game, where I make sure absolutely no country has more than one city and force them to release new nations whenever they expand. Bonus points if I can have a massive network of vassals to zerg rush anyone who dares expand down (aka how I used to play EU3).
|
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2017 13:55
|
|
|
prefect posted:Even if I'm not the suzerain. Not even, just let them take the city, snipe it back, and become permanent Suzerain 
|
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2017 14:20
|
|
|
Will Civ V melt my lovely PC on low settings? Intel Quad Core Q8400 2.66 GHZ nVIDIA Gefore 8800 GTS 7GB RAM
|
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2017 14:44
|
|
|
Castor Poe posted:Will Civ V melt my lovely PC on low settings? I ran civ 5 on integrated intel graphics so I doubt it
|
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2017 15:11
|
|
|
thought this nugget was interesting Sid Meier, the designer of the computer game Civilization, in which players steer a nation through history, politics, and warfare, quickly learned to modify the game’s odds in order to redress this psychological wrinkle. Extensive play-testing revealed that a player who was told that he had a 33 percent chance of success in a battle but then failed to defeat his opponent three times in a row would become irate and incredulous. (In Civilization, you can replay the same battle over and over until you win, albeit incurring costs with every loss.) So Meier altered the game to more closely match human cognitive biases; if your odds of winning a battle were 1 in 3, the game guaranteed that you’d win on the third attempt—a misrepresentation of true probability that nevertheless gave the illusion of fairness. Call it the Lucky Paradox: Lucky is fun, but too lucky is unreal. The resulting, on-going negotiation among game players and designers must count as one of our most abstract collective negotiations. http://nautil.us/issue/44/luck/how-designers-engineer-luck-into-video-games
|
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2017 21:17
|
|
|
Efexeye posted:thought this nugget was interesting Yeah even as someone who deals with stats every day of my life I find myself starting to bemoan CPUs as "cheating" when that poo poo happens. I know it's not but it's just human nature to not understand statistics. In a similar sense people roll dice badly. Simple example being that betting "the field" in craps is for suckers.
|
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2017 22:02
|
|
|
So what's the current state of the game? Is it still basically a Sim City game where the AI poses no meaningful combat challenge?
|
|
#
?
Jan 16, 2017 02:54
|
|
|
MooselanderII posted:So what's the current state of the game? Is it still basically a Sim City game where the AI poses no meaningful combat challenge? Preeetty much honestly. It's a fun little empire builder and perhaps one of the best frameworks/starts for a Civ launch but it still follows the "needs at least one, maybe two expansions to flesh out and figure what they're doing" rule. But the fact/knowledge that the non-barbarian AI pretty much cannot take any city that has walls/defenses because it over-prioritizes the health of its attacking units takes the fun out of any conquest game.
|
|
#
?
Jan 16, 2017 05:50
|
|
|
Also the AI will most likely end up hating you because the diplomacy system is half baked
|
|
#
?
Jan 16, 2017 06:04
|
|
|
CAPTAIN CAPSLOCK posted:Also the AI will most likely end up hating you because the diplomacy system is half baked I've noticed that positive modifiers tend to be small but stick around for a good while if not forever but negative modifiers (at least warmongering) are HUGE but decrease over time. I think the idea was to make it so if you work at it you can build up friends but being an rear end in a top hat will piss off everyone, even your friends, for a short period of time. However even despite their relatively short halflife the negative penalties are too strong and the AI too random/crazy for it to matter. Also, after so many games how can it be so loving hard to make the AI stop getting angry at me for being too close when it's the one that settled next door?
|
|
#
?
Jan 16, 2017 06:24
|
|
|
Efexeye posted:thought this nugget was interesting This always gets read as "people are bad at probability", but I think the correct interpretation is "getting very unlucky with binary pass/fail probability challenges shows the inherent weakness of binary pass/fail probability challenges as a core gameplay mechanic". Pseudo Random Distribution exists not just to comfort people, but to smooth out rough edges that occur (i remember in Dota 2 there was a character that could stun on an attack with a straight unmodified % chance so you'd get these occasional crazy chains where a dude gets stunlocked for 8 hits in a row due to freak chance. funny, but it also doesn't really add much except unaccountable swingyness, so PRD was added to it later) and also i remember at least one civ game giving the wrong % chance of winning things so lol e: I also think its a problem not so much of players not grasping probability, but games in general treating Bad Things Happening as a failure of the player so failure gets taken kind of personally. Like I think there's a sort of psychological priming in games that strengthens the loss avoidance mindset (the fact that save scumming exists and games are now designed around players quickloading past any failure doesn't help). And Civ is no different; being in a losing position in Civ has no real upshot, and the game mechanics encourage snowballing, so losing based on chance is extra frustrating. (being too powerful is also very boring, for much the same reason, but at least you're not losing) e2: vvv http://dota2.gamepedia.com/Random_distribution
Tiler Kiwi fucked around with this message at 10:03 on Jan 16, 2017 |
|
#
?
Jan 16, 2017 07:35
|
|
|
Derail, but the mechanic in Dota for stun-on-attack comes in two varieties: the oft-used item which anyone is able to buy, which they gave PRNG to in order to stop those awful stun-chains as you mentioned, and the hero (SpiritBreaker), where they actually kept proper RNG for just because those rolling that 17% chance eight times in a row is hilarious. It's a feature! Edit: they changed it to prng. I am sad. I agree about the binary win-lose though, nobody will every alt-f4 because of a Civ5 attack, but crap like city state coups where utter horseshit. Serephina fucked around with this message at 11:56 on Jan 16, 2017 |
|
#
?
Jan 16, 2017 08:30
|
|
|
I feel like discussing the differences between random and pseudorandom is really in the weeds and irrelevant when the AI can't even figure out how to even attempt to take a city with walls. Really getting ahead of themselves there.
|
|
#
?
Jan 16, 2017 08:30
|
|
|
Do we have any reason to believe that the AI isn't deliberately designed to not take cities? My suspicion is that most players treat losing a city as a very frustrating game over and total turn off on the entire game, so avoiding that is probably a positive feature of the AI, from a keeping-loyalty perspective. Also I don't think I've lost a city in this series since SMAC. The Civ War AI has always been atrocious.
|
|
#
?
Jan 16, 2017 09:46
|
|
|
The AI can take cities as long as they don't have walls, so I doubt it's deliberate.
|
|
#
?
Jan 16, 2017 10:11
|
|
|
CAPTAIN CAPSLOCK posted:Also the AI will most likely end up hating you because the diplomacy system is half baked You know, for all the poo poo I've been talking about the diplomacy system and the playing-to-win AI over the past few weeks, it only just now occurred to me why exactly the AI could have a friendly international relationship with a human player: Civ 4 had Permanent Alliances. By pursuing an alliance with a human player who is on the path to victory, an AI is able to obtain a win state without having to actually win itself. That said, if Civ 6 had a "joint victory" alliance system like that, guarantee once you started going runaway, you'd get requests for permanent alliances from your worst enemies every turn and it would be soooooooooo annoying. Tulip posted:Do we have any reason to believe that the AI isn't deliberately designed to not take cities? My suspicion is that most players treat losing a city as a very frustrating game over and total turn off on the entire game, so avoiding that is probably a positive feature of the AI, from a keeping-loyalty perspective. No way. In every single game I've played so far, before walls, I've lost at least one city when a pseudo-intelligently opportunistic AI caught me out of position. Hell, my very first game, I lost my capital city when  tricked me into a joint war and while he had some nominal forces on the front lines with me, he built up a wall of warriors and archers and then hosed me through my back door.And brah you guys should know me from the Civ 5 thread, how I love an easy game where I manipulate AI targeting priority and poo poo (and i still do, once my production gets rolling), this really isn't something that would happen if the AI was incapable of properly planning and executing a good sneak attack. It's just some bad judgment weighting vs walls that Firaxis really, really needs to fix. Otherwise, it's actually pretty acceptable! Fur20 fucked around with this message at 10:24 on Jan 16, 2017 |
|
#
?
Jan 16, 2017 10:14
|
|
|
Serephina posted:Derail, but the mechanic in Dota for stun-on-attack comes in two varieties: the oft-used item which anyone is able to buy, which they gave PRNG to in order to stop those awful stun-chains as you mentioned, and the hero (SpiritBreaker), where they actually kept proper RNG for just because those rolling that 17% chance eight times in a row is hilarious. It's a feature! Spirit Breaker is the hero Tiler Kiwi was talking about, and it's Greater Bash ability has been pseudo random for more than a year now, you're wrong.
|
|
#
?
Jan 16, 2017 11:54
|
|
|
Tulip posted:Do we have any reason to believe that the AI isn't deliberately designed to not take cities? My suspicion is that most players treat losing a city as a very frustrating game over and total turn off on the entire game, so avoiding that is probably a positive feature of the AI, from a keeping-loyalty perspective. From what we've gathered so far it's because the AI doesn't really know how to use siege units. It doesn't realize that they can't move and attack, but they have a burning desire to constantly move their units. They move a cannon, see it can't fire and just end up pillaging. They then wont splatter their troop against the walls since the AI was made to almost never attack in a situation where they would lose (in the "Major/Minor Victory" sense). Some goon was playing around with how siege units worked to see if that fixed the problem but I dunno if they ever got a solid result.
|
|
#
?
Jan 16, 2017 15:18
|
|
|
Archduke Frantz Fanon posted:From what we've gathered so far it's because the AI doesn't really know how to use siege units. It doesn't realize that they can't move and attack, but they have a burning desire to constantly move their units. They move a cannon, see it can't fire and just end up pillaging. They then wont splatter their troop against the walls since the AI was made to almost never attack in a situation where they would lose (in the "Major/Minor Victory" sense). The immediate solution that comes to mind is automatically give all siege units the Expert Crew promotion. A flawed fix, but probably better than what we have.
|
|
#
?
Jan 16, 2017 16:03
|
|
|
It would also help if the AI could figure out how to use battering rams or siege towers. Just program the AI to start building those and attach them to random melee units would likely do wonders as well. Unrelated to the AI-chat I just finished off my Babylon game last night. Ziggurats were useful in the early game but overall kinda under-whelming. However the fact that they get a village bonus every time they clear an encampment is a fairly powerful ability throughout the entire game. I had a giant chunk of frozen tundra that even the AI really didn't want to my south that every now and then I'd send some units down to bust a camp whenever I saw a palisade. Getting everything from free builders to random inspirations way into the information era is incredibly useful.
|
|
#
?
Jan 16, 2017 17:56
|
|
|
Mister Adequate posted:The immediate solution that comes to mind is automatically give all siege units the Expert Crew promotion. A flawed fix, but probably better than what we have. I made this mod. It helps... a bit?
|
|
#
?
Jan 16, 2017 19:35
|
|
|
A surprisingly simple idea. I like it!
|
|
#
?
Jan 16, 2017 19:42
|
|
|
Alkydere posted:It would also help if the AI could figure out how to use battering rams or siege towers. Just program the AI to start building those and attach them to random melee units would likely do wonders as well. I think they forgot to put in the limit on techs you can get from villages because I'm sure I discovered computers in some random village. Global Villages indeed.
|
|
#
?
Jan 16, 2017 20:07
|
|
|
Powerful Two-Hander posted:I think they forgot to put in the limit on techs you can get from villages because I'm sure I discovered computers in some random village. It's not insane to think that an isolated village might have some weird-rear end ideas that might inspire sciencefolk to look at something in a new way. Or maybe it is insane to think that. I'm not a genius-man. 
|
|
#
?
Jan 16, 2017 20:10
|
|
|
Powerful Two-Hander posted:I think they forgot to put in the limit on techs you can get from villages because I'm sure I discovered computers in some random village. I think its limited to techs you can research at the moment. But other than that there is definitely no limits because I got Lasers from a late game village pop (okay, barbarian camp pop, but as Gligamesh that's the same thing but with more money).
|
|
#
?
Jan 16, 2017 20:26
|
|
|
I am having a very hard time understanding the religion game. Do I constantly need to be pumping out missionary units to counteract the missionaries sent out by the AI? I have no idea how the religious aspect of Civ6 affects my game. I just make poo poo and send them to proselytize... am I gaining anything out of doing this? Don't even get me started on districts.
|
|
#
?
Jan 16, 2017 22:50
|
|
|
Powerful Two-Hander posted:I think they forgot to put in the limit on techs you can get from villages because I'm sure I discovered computers in some random village.
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2017 01:24
|
|
|
 PBEM Multiplayer Incoming I just got this message from a GMR game today - someone created a service called Play Your drat Turn to do PBEM games, like GMR did for 5. I haven't tried it yet but it looks like it's cross-platform, so I'd be willing to give it a whirl in a goon game if anyone else is up for it.
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2017 01:36
|
|
|
theDOWmustflow posted:I am having a very hard time understanding the religion game. Do I constantly need to be pumping out missionary units to counteract the missionaries sent out by the AI? As far as I can tell missionaries are hopeless if another religion controls a city so internally you basically have to have inquisitors to do anything if the AI has sent hordes of missionaries at you. Otherwise by the time you get an apostle over to smite anyone they'll have blown their charges and disappeared. Or just declare war and slaughter then. As for benefits, I cant work out if they work properly or not. This reminds me of another annoying thing actually, why the hell can't i sort the reports to show my most productive cities etc?
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2017 01:37
|
|
|
Is there any acceptable UI scaling option? I want to play this on my TV but I can't hardly read the text from my seat.
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2017 02:01
|
|
|
Alkydere posted:I think its limited to techs you can research at the moment. But other than that there is definitely no limits because I got Lasers from a late game village pop (okay, barbarian camp pop, but as Gligamesh that's the same thing but with more money). "in our tongue it is called wannahockaloogie, the light of the gods *brings out a fully functional laser made of twigs, rock crystal, and sinew*"
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2017 02:20
|
|
|
Sperglord Firecock posted:"in our tongue it is called wannahockaloogie, the light of the gods *brings out a fully functional laser made of twigs, rock crystal, and sinew*" The greatest treasure of the Ma'Guh-vyer tribe.
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2017 02:31
|
|
|
I'm the reason they make multiple DLCs and xpacks. I want more nations, I want UN-lookalike, vassals, deeper trade, and more stuff after the moden time. Also team multiplayer. Which Civ had that when you researches Future Tech, you got some happiness/health/such? Because it should totally give some gold, happiness, amenities or whatever everytime so that you can stay in lead. Because if you want to play a long game, at that point you plateau and start losing your beaker-induced lead.
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2017 03:36
|
|
|
Killing missionaries with apostles is good because it gives a negative charge toward surrounding cities of that religion you killed. I usually just create an army of apostles and have them whoop rear end.
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2017 05:57
|
|
|
Niwrad posted:Killing missionaries with apostles is good because it gives a negative charge toward surrounding cities of that religion you killed. I usually just create an army of apostles and have them whoop rear end. This, except trampling them all with 1 horseman. It exerts the negative change for them too lol.
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2017 05:59
|
|
|
This is why the buff that negates the negative effect is good if you're interested in going for religious victory.
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2017 08:59
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 15, 2024 18:33 |
|
|
Peas and Rice posted:
Consider me interested.
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2017 09:29
|
|
