|
Because making you unable to severely limits both your tactical options (and, by extension, the AI's capacity to move units effectively), and it completely removes the puzzle aspect of maximizing your movement points.
|
#
?
May 19, 2017 07:28
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 15, 2024 14:39 |
|
|
The White Dragon posted:Because making you unable to severely limits both your tactical options (and, by extension, the AI's capacity to move units effectively), and it completely removes the puzzle aspect of maximizing your movement points. It opens up more options than it removes.
|
|
#
?
May 19, 2017 08:37
|
|
|
The White Dragon posted:Because making you unable to severely limits both your tactical options (and, by extension, the AI's capacity to move units effectively), and it completely removes the puzzle aspect of maximizing your movement points. If it worked like you wanted it would only cost 1 movement point to enter a hill/forest but only if you ended movement adjacent to a hill or forest with 1 movement point left.
|
|
#
?
May 19, 2017 08:41
|
|
|
The White Dragon posted:Because making you unable to severely limits both your tactical options (and, by extension, the AI's capacity to move units effectively), and it completely removes the puzzle aspect of maximizing your movement points. Limiting your ability to move units is what rough terrain does. The way it works now is how you would expect it to work based on how the movement rules are explained, and the "puzzle aspect" was always a bullshit thing that I"m glad to see gone.
|
|
#
?
May 19, 2017 08:54
|
|
|
ate poo poo on live tv posted:Hmm, a complex "gamey" mechanic in an interesting video game isn't criticized the same as a binary boring mechanic? 🤔🤔🤔 what do you think i am arguing for with that statement, and why
|
|
#
?
May 19, 2017 08:56
|
|
|
Ratios and Tendency posted:It opens up more options than it removes. please explain in more words than "it opens up more options than it removes"
|
|
#
?
May 19, 2017 09:28
|
|
|
The White Dragon posted:please explain in more words than "it opens up more options than it removes" Your decisions are more impactful if terrain is more important.
|
|
#
?
May 19, 2017 10:27
|
|
|
That is really loving ambiguous
|
|
#
?
May 19, 2017 13:23
|
|
|
Well, there's the AI side of it: it wanst great at moving units in Civ 5, and in Civ 6 it seems even worst
|
|
#
?
May 19, 2017 13:31
|
|
|
Tenzarin posted:I don't know how much this has affected how I play but I know being unable to have workers place roads on tiles like this has made me dislike playing the game a little more. I don't like how you have no control outside of the trader routing choices to build roads. If I knew a spot that would get crowded I would add a lot of side roads so units could go around each other. The biggest part of this was forests and hills also. You've never been curious enough to find out what the "military engineer" unit in your build options does, apparently.
|
|
#
?
May 19, 2017 14:02
|
|
|
Don't military engineers only have 2 charges, though? IIRC they're not really cheap either.
|
|
#
?
May 19, 2017 14:23
|
|
|
Not requiring that luxuries and strategics be connected by roads is a step back as well I think. I also really liked IV's health system when it came to capping cities. It also gave you more things to trade with the AI.
|
|
#
?
May 19, 2017 14:48
|
|
|
Staltran posted:Don't military engineers only have 2 charges, though? IIRC they're not really cheap either. Guilty as charged. You don't use them to lay your empire's roads -- you use them to put roads in the (usually small, but potentially epic) places you need for your military, that traders can't do for you. You use them for the mountain pass, or for the road leading up to the border with your enemy (whether they know they're your enemy yet or not). The point is, you do have control outside of the traders.
|
|
#
?
May 19, 2017 14:57
|
|
|
i don't like the VI terrain movement because the last thing V's combat needed was for everything to move even slower
|
|
#
?
May 19, 2017 15:03
|
|
|
Trivia posted:Not requiring that luxuries and strategics be connected by roads is a step back as well I think. Eh, requiring resources to be road-ed makes sense in a real-world way. And it made sense in games that allowed/required infinite road spam. In V where roads were expensive it would very easily move into "punishing the player" territory. And in VI where you don't have control over your road placement until you get an expensive, mid-game unit, then it would just be maddening as you scream at the trader to move the road one tile over to finally connect your iron.
|
|
#
?
May 19, 2017 15:12
|
|
|
Ratios and Tendency posted:Your decisions are more impactful if terrain is more important. Agreed. I like how my singers can actually escape enemies by going into hills. In the previous system, most units could always move two spaces regardless of terrain because of the remaining movement rule. Hills are now hills instead of fields with an extra hammer.
|
|
#
?
May 19, 2017 15:13
|
|
|
Alkydere posted:Eh, requiring resources to be road-ed makes sense in a real-world way. And it made sense in games that allowed/required infinite road spam. In V where roads were expensive it would very easily move into "punishing the player" territory. And in VI where you don't have control over your road placement until you get an expensive, mid-game unit, then it would just be maddening as you scream at the trader to move the road one tile over to finally connect your iron. Valid points, but it also inhibits any semblance of tactics when it comes to denying your enemy strategics during a war. If you can just buy a worker and insta-repair the tile, what good is it to pillage?
|
|
#
?
May 19, 2017 15:17
|
|
|
I'd be fine with the new movement rules if the one-unit-per-tile system wasn't so strict and annoying, really. If it was old stack-based combat it'd be fine. As is it tends to make the game more tedious and annoying, because one-unit-per-tile (as implemented) sucks. The last thing the game needed was more traffic jams. I certainly don't miss the "worker-road-building-congo-line" though. Trade routes being the primary way of building roads is probably the best way to handle the system within the constraints of 1UPT.
|
|
#
?
May 19, 2017 15:27
|
|
|
I like the new movement and road systems.
|
|
#
?
May 19, 2017 15:54
|
|
|
...and the new workers. At first I was a bit suprised that workers weren't pernament but now I'm glad I don't have dozens of automated workers running around forever, spamming improvements on every single tile they can reach.
|
|
#
?
May 19, 2017 16:08
|
|
|
markus_cz posted:automated workers I found the real problem. But if we're being serious I think the switch from workers to builders is without a doubt the right call to make, again, within the constraints of 1UPT. Back when I could stack multiple workers on a tile to finish an improvement faster I might be able to argue that there was something interesting in the system worth preserving, but when that was removed limited-charge builders became the clear winner.
|
|
#
?
May 19, 2017 17:08
|
|
|
They need to relax the 1upt rules, specifically for traffic jam situations and ambushes. It would be awesome to let a mountain pass get stacked up with 6 or so units but they wouldn't be able to fight at full strength while stacked. Then you could use archers/scouts/light cavalry to wipe out the whole stack. Also just for mustering your troops, allowing stacking would reduce/eliminate the micromanagement you encounter when you are just trying to move troops across your empire, or to another continent for a war. Basically allow combat troops to stack, but penalize them on defense when stacked and don't allow them to attack from the stack.
|
|
#
?
May 19, 2017 17:39
|
|
|
ate poo poo on live tv posted:They need to relax the 1upt rules, specifically for traffic jam situations and ambushes. You're getting dangerously close to wanting "formations" and "actual wargame tactics", sonny. 
|
|
#
?
May 19, 2017 18:57
|
|
|
Trivia posted:Valid points, but it also inhibits any semblance of tactics when it comes to denying your enemy strategics during a war. You could buy workers and insta-repair (with worker stacks) in Civ IV, so I don't see what difference requiring strategic resources to be connected by roads makes to this.
|
|
#
?
May 19, 2017 19:16
|
|
|
The next step with builders needs to be completely removing them and just directly buying tile improvements with gold.
|
|
#
?
May 19, 2017 22:28
|
|
|
Gort posted:The next step with builders needs to be completely removing them and just directly buying tile improvements with gold. poo poo but that would mean i'd have to save money in the early game instead of just running my empire as close to 0gpt as possible until i hit critical mass income
|
|
#
?
May 19, 2017 22:37
|
|
|
homullus posted:You've never been curious enough to find out what the "military engineer" unit in your build options does, apparently. Never even noticed the unit, I'll keep it in mind for the next time I play a game. If this is a great person, I usually sacrifice them the first turn I get them. I spend all my gold on unit upgrades. Tenzarin fucked around with this message at 00:22 on May 20, 2017 |
|
#
?
May 20, 2017 00:16
|
|
|
Brother Entropy posted:i don't like the VI terrain movement because the last thing V's combat needed was for everything to move even slower They should just give you more movement as eras progress. It's weird that units get better at everything as the game progresses but speed. Takes like 30 turns to get an army from one side of the map to the other late in the game.
|
|
#
?
May 20, 2017 00:19
|
|
|
Niwrad posted:They should just give you more movement as eras progress. It's weird that units get better at everything as the game progresses but speed. Takes like 30 turns to get an army from one side of the map to the other late in the game. That's exactly what happens with your roads getting better each age??
|
|
#
?
May 20, 2017 02:26
|
|
|
silvergoose posted:You're getting dangerously close to wanting "formations" and "actual wargame tactics", sonny. The furthest I'd want to go with that sort of tactical stuff in a civ game would be flanking bonus/penalties.
|
|
#
?
May 20, 2017 03:11
|
|
|
Welp now I'm being attacked by a friendly civ and I can't attack them back. Why do I play this game.
|
|
#
?
May 20, 2017 05:26
|
|
|
ate poo poo on live tv posted:It would be awesome to let a mountain pass get stacked up with 6 or so units but they wouldn't be able to fight at full strength while stacked. I'm pretty sure one of the official Civ 4 mods did exactly this. IT was like a tower defense kind of setup where units in a stack lost 10% of their strength for each unit in the stack.
|
|
#
?
May 20, 2017 05:32
|
|
|
SlothBear posted:Welp now I'm being attacked by a friendly civ and I can't attack them back. What?
|
|
#
?
May 20, 2017 05:53
|
|
|
SlothBear posted:Welp now I'm being attacked by a friendly civ and I can't attack them back. Are you sure you're not mistaken?
|
|
#
?
May 20, 2017 09:00
|
|
|
Jabarto posted:I'm pretty sure one of the official Civ 4 mods did exactly this. IT was like a tower defense kind of setup where units in a stack lost 10% of their strength for each unit in the stack. I've always thought Civ 1 had the best stacking mechanics. You can stack infinitely and the best defender defends the stack, but if the defender is killed the whole stack is wiped out. No annoying traffic jams in peacetime, and the system encourages you not to stack without mandating it. You can also do stuff like escorting your catapult with a spearman to protect it from cavalry. (I wouldn't go back to Civ 1's "every battle kills a unit" stuff, though, just have the stack take the same damage the defender takes)
|
|
#
?
May 20, 2017 12:51
|
|
|
For those whom I may concern, Civ5 complete edition is currently 75% off on GOG.
|
|
#
?
May 20, 2017 13:25
|
|
|
Tenzarin posted:Never even noticed the unit, I'll keep it in mind for the next time I play a game. If this is a great person, I usually sacrifice them the first turn I get them. You must not make much gold. Or loads of units! It's one of the diamond shaped units, like the surveillance balloon.
|
|
#
?
May 20, 2017 14:00
|
|
|
Who here builds forts and why do you? I've never done it and it seems to me that the tech should come much earlier.
|
|
#
?
May 20, 2017 14:17
|
|
|
turboraton posted:What? John F Bennett posted:Are you sure you're not mistaken? Nope, 100% right. Only mod I'm using is CQUI. I'm at war with Persia, who is south of India and Egypt from me. I contact Egypt and get open borders so I can go slap them around and get peace. As I move through Egypt's territory they bombard the @#$ out of me. I can still talk to them and make deals, they're green happy face with me on the screen. I can declare war. They show up as red bordered on the CQUI that shows hostile units. I'm not sure what would happen if I started a war and then got peace.
|
|
#
?
May 20, 2017 20:27
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 15, 2024 14:39 |
|
|
SlothBear posted:Nope, 100% right. Only mod I'm using is CQUI. Well, given that it's a UI bug I'd probably blame CQUI first.
|
|
#
?
May 20, 2017 20:57
|
|