|
Jabarto posted:Corps seem like an appallingly bad deal, though. You're paying for two units and only getting a 10% strength increase to one of them (not even hitpoints, just strength). Corps are actually pretty decent. Every unit in the game has the same amount of HP: 100 points. Combat strength determines how much damage you both give and take, and unlike the previous games, how well your unit does in combat with another depends on the gap between both unit's strength. If I remember right, a difference of 30 is a OHKO. Forming a corps gets you +10, which is pretty big if you can also stack it with support/flanking bonuses, Great Generals, promotions, and other modifiers. One more gets you an army for an additional +7. Of course, if you have a small army it might not be worth it to shrink it even more.
|
#
?
May 1, 2017 04:03
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 15, 2024 13:08 |
|
|
It helped speed up the turns I guess. There wasn't really any strategy I needed to do cause the computer is so bad.
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2017 04:13
|
|
|
Jabarto posted:Corps seem like an appallingly bad deal, though. You're paying for two units and only getting a 10% strength increase to one of them (not even hitpoints, just strength). Warfare in Civ V/VI is more about executing attacks without losing units than it was in stack-based combat, where it was expected even a successful attack could have a lot of unit losses. In V/VI you're expected to keep the same units around for a very long time, upgrade and promote them heavily, and use them throughout the game. Corps help a lot with that because +10 Strength (and to a slightly lesser extent, Armies with their +7 Strength) will help you take and deal damage better. Furthermore, 1UPT+terrain means you can generally only project so much force at any given time, so having a backline of a bunch of extra units that can't hit anything because they can't reach it is less useful than merging those units into corps where you can actually project more strength. Gort posted:Paradox games have kinda killed my interest in Civ 6. I still put a good 90 hours into it, but I haven't even loaded it in a month. Paradox games are good for roleplaying, but they're usually terrible for strategy. I play Civ when I want some strategy in my strategy games. I mean, I really liked the look of the Stellaris expansion, but it has its problems too. I tried to start up a second game and just got bored sitting around waiting for minerals to fill up while I was stuck on like 3 planets. I've found it a lot more dull than Civ, despite the fact that it just released a major expansion.
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2017 06:08
|
|
|
Magil Zeal posted:Warfare in Civ V/VI is more about executing attacks without losing units than it was in stack-based combat, where it was expected even a successful attack could have a lot of unit losses. In V/VI you're expected to keep the same units around for a very long time, upgrade and promote them heavily, and use them throughout the game. Corps help a lot with that because +10 Strength (and to a slightly lesser extent, Armies with their +7 Strength) will help you take and deal damage better. Furthermore, 1UPT+terrain means you can generally only project so much force at any given time, so having a backline of a bunch of extra units that can't hit anything because they can't reach it is less useful than merging those units into corps where you can actually project more strength. When you put it that way, it makes a lot of sense. One of the things I did like about Civ 5 was that it was the first game in the series where upgrading things was worthwhile.
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2017 06:12
|
|
|
I like the game and I like it 100x more than base Civ V.
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2017 07:18
|
|
|
Yeah I also agree that base Civ VI is better than base Civ V. Although my cows are wandering out of the fenced area and this is making me very upset what the hell 
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2017 07:30
|
|
|
That's because there's no citizen working there. It's actually a nice touch. Every workable tile has something like this.
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2017 08:35
|
|
|
I remember it from Civ 4.Negrostrike posted:Yeah I also agree that base Civ VI is better than base Civ V.
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2017 08:39
|
|
|
Oh true, it wasn't being worked indeed. Really a nice touch. Crisis averted.
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2017 09:46
|
|
|
Yeah, it's something they did in IV (and has returned in VI). Lots of improvements change based on whether or not they're being worked, like the mine has a little minecart that moves back and forth while it's being worked, but it's still when it's not being worked. Farms change color and become bright green (or yellow/blueish if they're on a resource) when worked and are dirt-colored when unworked, etc.
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2017 09:47
|
|
|
Magil Zeal posted:I mean, I really liked the look of the Stellaris expansion, but it has its problems too. I tried to start up a second game and just got bored sitting around waiting for minerals to fill up while I was stuck on like 3 planets. I've found it a lot more dull than Civ, despite the fact that it just released a major expansion. Europa 4 is the obvious comparison, not Stellaris
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2017 11:21
|
|
|
Magil Zeal posted:Paradox games are good for roleplaying, but they're usually terrible for strategy. I play Civ when I want some strategy in my strategy games. I dunno, IMHO EU4 alone has more strategy in it than all Civ series, at least in SP (I never play MP) It takes a lot more strategy when your opponents do things that actually makes sense, when alliances are relations are actually important, when the computer is not completely retarded in war etc
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2017 14:18
|
|
|
Elias_Maluco posted:I dunno, IMHO EU4 alone has more strategy in it than all Civ series, at least in SP (I never play MP) I can't comment directly on EU4 since that's a title I haven't played (well, at least what I've played). However, I don't really have to Google much to see complaining about the AI making stupid decisions is also not unheard of in that game. There's not a lot of "making interesting decisions" going on in Paradox titles. Everything is generally straight-forward if you're playing for a victory condition, otherwise you're just going after whatever challenges you've set for yourself. Which is fine, but it's not really "strategy". I'll give you that VI isn't quite there yet in creating very diverse and interesting decision trees, but maybe that's why I've been spending more time modding it lately than playing it. There is a lot of interesting gameplay there, I'm far more interested in economic management than diplomacy and/or war anyway, and Paradox titles usually don't have much meat in that department. So that may be something of a personal preference. City management in Civ IV was where I really fell in love with the series. Magil Zeal fucked around with this message at 16:46 on May 1, 2017 |
|
#
?
May 1, 2017 16:40
|
|
|
Magil Zeal posted:I can't comment directly on EU4 since that's a title I haven't played. However, I don't really have to Google much to see complaining about the AI making stupid decisions is also not unheard of in that game. Is not perfect, but is far above the Civ level in both diplomacy and war. In diplomacy, while being a lot more complex than Civ, the AI will usually make decisions that make sense, will choose alliances that make sense, break then when it makes sense, it will declare wars it can actually win. Ive seem things like a nation that hates me giving me military access anyway because I was at war with their rival. Its not perfect and it is exploitable, but most of the time their actions do make sense. No Civ ever had a a diplomacy AI that didnt behaved like a crazy retarded child And then, at war, yes you can kinda easily outsmart the EU4 AI after you get used to it, but is still way smarter and harder than even Civ 5 AI, not to mention 6. Granted, EU4 combat system is a lot easier for an AI, but then is their fault they went for a combat system their AI is too dumb to handle Magil Zeal posted:I'll give you that VI isn't quite there yet in creating very diverse and interesting decision trees, but maybe that's why I've been spending more time modding it lately than playing it. There is a lot of interesting gameplay there, I'm far more interested in economic management than diplomacy and/or war anyway, and Paradox titles usually don't have much meat in that department. So that may be something of a personal preference. City management in Civ IV was where I really fell in love with the series. I like them both, they are very different kinds of games actually. But boy, I do wish Civ was more like EU4 at least on the diplomacy aspect Elias_Maluco fucked around with this message at 17:00 on May 1, 2017 |
|
#
?
May 1, 2017 16:56
|
|
|
I got more mileage out of launch Civ 6 than I did launch Civ 5. I've put it aside for the moment waiting for the first expansion. But I played like half a dozen MP games with a buddy against the AI and it was a good time.
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2017 17:06
|
|
|
Elias_Maluco posted:Is not perfect, but is far above the Civ level in both diplomacy and war. In diplomacy, while being a lot more complex than Civ, the AI will usually make decisions that make sense, will choose alliances that make sense, break then when it makes sense, it will declare wars it can actually win. Ive seem things like a nation that hates me giving me military access anyway because I was at war with their rival. Its not perfect and it is exploitable, but most of the time their actions do make sense. No Civ ever had a a diplomacy AI that didnt behaved like a crazy retarded child There is a matter of perspective to consider: in Civ, the AI players are in direct competition with you to win the game. They aren't merely obstacles or window dressing (as seems to often be the case in Paradox games), they are your rivals. They are, to varying degrees, playing to win the game. Whether or not they're good at doing so. I'm not saying the way the diplomatic/tactical AI in Civ VI is handled very well, but at the same time, it is meant to fill a different role. A direct comparison in that area kind of misses the big picture.
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2017 17:13
|
|
|
EU4 AI is also kinda playing to win, or at least: to grow. So they can be your direct competitors or not (depending on you relative size, your location, your goals being the same as theirs, your enemies being their allies etc) But yeah, its unlike Civ in the sense there is no final winner Elias_Maluco fucked around with this message at 20:11 on May 1, 2017 |
|
#
?
May 1, 2017 17:49
|
|
|
The more I play this game the more it feels like Beyond Earth reskinned as civilization. I have a feeling the reason why traders make roads now is that they use the same logic for traders as the computer attempting to do war. It doesn't even feel like the computer techs good either as they all make holy sites and just ignore campuses. They rock the science score picking up all tech slowly but end up 1-3 tech levels behind you as the game goes on.
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2017 18:11
|
|
|
Elias_Maluco posted:But yeah, its unlike Civ in the sense there is no final winner I feel like Civ needs to re-do its victory conditions. By having only a single winner you're any alliance beyond the most temporary bring-down-the-leader type pointless. Players like to have an ally that they've been good to all game and who's been good to them. With the current victory conditions, a good player will backstab you the moment it looks like you'll win, previous behaviour be damned. I always thought a victory points system would be better. Have every age have a random victory condition picked from a list - a bit like the World Projects (Olympic Games, International Space Station, World's Fair etc) from Civ 5. So in the ancient era you might need to have the most cities. Coming first gets you five points, having at least three cities by the end of the era gets you three. Then in the classical era the victory condition is to build the most wonders. Then in medieval it's to conquer the most cities and the world erupts into an orgy of violence.
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2017 22:06
|
|
|
In this game is possible to out tech making the units for a era esp if you don't know if youll need them that soon.
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2017 22:24
|
|
|
Gort posted:I feel like Civ needs to re-do its victory conditions. By having only a single winner you're any alliance beyond the most temporary bring-down-the-leader type pointless. Players like to have an ally that they've been good to all game and who's been good to them. With the current victory conditions, a good player will backstab you the moment it looks like you'll win, previous behaviour be damned. I also want a shared victory. Make it so that the 1st place civ, and only one of their allies win.
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2017 22:27
|
|
|
It's a very different genre, but I did enjoy what Sins of a Solar Empire did with their diplomacy system. SoSE is a RTS down to its toes, but the mechanics of picking an ally and working hard at becoming closer to them, and the huge bonus' you get for having an ally, are really interesting over the standard video game "Allies are totally arbitrary and can be made/undone at the press of a button". In SoSE enemy empires have an opinion of you as is normal, but your empire also has an opinion of them that's independent of you as a controlling player. You can offer each other tiny missions (go kill X units from player Y, gift resources, etc), stop shooting at each other, send envoys to boost the other dudes' worlds income etc all until your empires actually like each other. These things btw are locked behind tech upgrades, so there is an opportunity cost to get them. Once you've got the appropriate techs and minimum we-like-each-other factor, you can unlock pacts, which start small like trading agreements but turn into huge OP things like "Each of us gets -upkeep and +maxFleetSize" or "All of our capital ships can now shoot at two targets, doubling their dps". Different races have different pacts at the same tier, so it behooves you to ally with someone who's different from you (and starts with a much lower Diplo score), and each tier can only go to a single other player, so you usually form a BFF relationship in the lategame. It's basically a huge system you can opt out of if you don't care for, but allows you to invest time/money/effort into making a long-term friend for gargantuan benefits and joint victory. That such a good system is in a RTS of all things is galling.
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2017 00:15
|
|
|
I'm of the opinion that Civ should retain the cutthroat, one-winner-take-all system it currently has. No allied victories (team victories if you set up teams before the game starts are okay), or at least keep it as an optional setting that the game isn't built around. I like the way Civ is built around the idea that though you can have cooperation for short-term goals, in the end the other Civs are your rivals and you are in direct competition with them. The competition for land and resources is one of the things that keeps the game interesting, and I would never want a system where a weaker power can "share" in the victory of a vastly superior player. It would also make multiplayer an absolute mess.
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2017 07:52
|
|
|
I always like playing Civ games more as a role playing game, as in we are all leaders leading people and are rational humans. I turn all the victory conditions off for this reason because I just want to play.
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2017 18:08
|
|
|
KakerMix posted:I always like playing Civ games more as a role playing game, as in we are all leaders leading people and are rational humans. I turn all the victory conditions off for this reason because I just want to play. What gave you the idea that humans are rational?
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2017 18:12
|
|
|
Civ VI AI is designed for the trump era
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2017 18:24
|
|
|
http://steamcommunity.com/games/289070/announcements/detail/1295192364625991814quote:2K and Firaxis are excited to announce the inclusion of all-new content for the Civilization VI Digital Deluxe edition, enhancing its value to deliver both strong savings and countless turns for fans of the award-winning Sid Meier’s Civilization franchise.
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2017 18:03
|
|
|
They're adding 3 more civs/leaders to the deluxe edition for no extra charge, based around civs Southeast Asia and Africa. Only article I can find right now is on steam. edit: Beaten
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2017 18:05
|
|
|
Yeah this makes up for the middling deluxe edition content. Negative customer feedback did some work for deluxe owners.
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2017 18:06
|
|
|
That's actually really nice considering I was already surprised we actually got 4 new Civs for the Deluxe Edition. Three more leaders (Two more Civs if I'm reading this right?) is even more unexpected. Nice move by Firaxis, and makes my Deluxe Edition purchase even more worth it.
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2017 18:20
|
|
|
New civs are my favorite kind of game content for Civilzation, as long as they change the way some aspect of the game is played. If it's just a slightly cheaper troop type, I am not so excited.
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2017 18:39
|
|
|
quote:two additional Civilization & Scenario Packs for Civilization VI that will introduce three new leaders representing civilizations from Africa and Southeast Asia. It's going to be the Belgian Congo under Leopold, South Africa under Malan, and Singapore under Raffles.
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2017 18:49
|
|
|
Ralepozozaxe posted:They're adding 3 more civs/leaders to the deluxe edition for no extra charge, based around civs Southeast Asia and Africa. Only article I can find right now is on steam. They had to because they were kinda committing fraud. Selling all the current DLC for the same price but on the steam page it said you would save money by buying the deluxe edition or season pass. In Malaysia, funny things happened with the exchange rates. This is where I heard about it. hes some rando guy in Malaysia. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TahLEH0lydU&t=308s Tenzarin fucked around with this message at 19:02 on May 4, 2017 |
|
#
?
May 4, 2017 18:58
|
|
|
you did save money, but it was like $1-5 or something which is somehow even worse than not saving money at all to me
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2017 18:57
|
|
|
I welcome the new civs. Though I think we need more Native American civs as well, cause there's only the Aztecs so far. If there were like, Inca, Iroquois, Tupi, etc instead of America and Brazil I would be happy as a little girl.
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2017 19:39
|
|
|
I'd like to see an civ from the southwest US. I suppose Aztec is kinda close but I'd like to see Navajo or Hopi. Also meh, more civs. I want a better game to play the ones we already have in more than I want new civs. It's something I guess.
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2017 19:45
|
|
|
SlothBear posted:Also meh, more civs. I want a better game to play the ones we already have in more than I want new civs. It's something I guess. Yeah, I'm pretty much here too. I got bored of the game before I played all the basic civs, a couple more isn't really going to bring me back.
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2017 19:57
|
|
|
Ralepozozaxe posted:They're adding 3 more civs/leaders to the deluxe edition for no extra charge, based around civs Southeast Asia and Africa. Only article I can find right now is on steam. Are they going to de-artifically inflate the price of the other DLC while they're at it?
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2017 19:58
|
|
|
shaka tyme?
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2017 20:52
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 15, 2024 13:08 |
|
|
^^nothing gets me more anxious than Shaka as a neighbor Definitely would like to see super money bags Mansa Musa come back into the picture with Mali if they're gonna do more African civs I love all of the native and Mesoamerican civs in 5 even if some were a little lackluster (Iroquois). The Shoshone were one of my favorites from the past game so I hope they do some more cool ones down the line and don't just call them 'Native Americans' like they did in Civ 4 cause that felt super half-assed.
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2017 21:18
|
|
