|
If the cost of districts went up per district you have, instead of tech, this would fix a lot of my issues with them. I do like them as a concept, though.
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2017 22:42
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 4, 2024 15:16 |
|
|
Yeah, districts need to scale with one or both of # of districts total in that city or # of that particular district in your civilization as a whole. Them getting more expensive as you advance in tech is ridiculous. I do like districts otherwise, though. City-planning is a lot more fun now, particularly when you also have improvements (particularly unique civ ones like Nubian pyramids and pairidaezas) and wonders to factor in as well.
|
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2017 22:57
|
|
|
Gort posted:I tried to find any information whatsoever on Civ 1 combat mechanics and failed miserably.  Quick Civ 1 combat primer:* Instead of promotions, a unit is either veteran or non-veteran. If the building city has a Barracks all its units are Veterans; non-veteran units have a 50% chance of becoming Veterans if they win a battle. The Veteran bonus is a flat +50% to attack and defense. * That's the only possible Attack bonus. Defense can get that plus the following bonuses: fortified (+50%), terrain (forest/river +50%, hills +100%, mountain +200%), behind city walls (+200%, overrides the fortified bonus rather than stacking with it) (late-game Artillery and Bombers ignore city walls but the Fortified bonus will still apply against them). * There's no ranged combat. In fact there aren't even Archer units in Civ I; archers are abstracted away as an assumed part of melee units. Archers are in every Civ game since, although archers as ranged units didn't actually become a thing until 5 (and that was a design mistake IMO). There are "siege" units like catapults and cannon, but they go by the same rules as everything else (see below) and get insta-destroyed if they lose like anything else. Same with battleships bombarding Phalanxes as briefly discussed earlier  * Settlers (which also did the work of Workers in Civ I) have Attack 0, Defense 1, and die if they are attacked and lose like anything else. There's no concept of a capturable "civilian" unit. * All combat is to the death and all-or-nothing; there's no HP. Each side's odds of winning is: My relevant score / (My relevant score + Their relevant score). * Example: A veteran Catapult (Attack: 6 base + 50% veteran = 9) attacks a non-veteran Phalanx that is fortified on a river (Defense: 2 base + 50% Fortified + 50% River = 4.5). The attacking catapult will win two-thirds of the time, the defending Phalanx will win one-third of the time. The loser is destroyed, the winner is scot-free. * (Civ II kept this system but added HP and partial damage. Most units got 10 HP, a few select ones got more. Civ II would repeatedly run the same calculations I just described and declare the battle over when one side reaches 0 HP. So instead of the Catapult outright losing and dying 33% of the time, it will win virtually 100% of the time but might end up anywhere from 20% to 80% health depending on the die rolls.) * And the big one: units can be limitlessly stacked, but if a stack is attacked, whichever individual unit has the highest Defense (with bonuses) defends the entire stack. i.e., if it loses, every unit in the stack is destroyed. All in all I actually think this, or possibly Civ II with its limited HP system, was superior to all Civ games since. Ye gods, how I loathe Civ 4 combat. More realistic, yes. More fun, hell no.
|
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2017 23:00
|
|
|
Eric the Mauve posted:So much stuff Civ 2 remains my favorite of all civ games. I loved the advisors, loved the railroad system and look, loved virtually everything about it. Civ 1 was good but it had so very, very, very many problems. Phalanx fortified on mountain could defend against tanks reliably problems. Spearmen beating back a tank was so commonplace it was practically a meme back in those dark days of the internet. I admit, I always liked the border system of Civ 4 so much better than the way they work in the later games, if only because it meant that the AI couldn't sneak between little tile gaps like they can now. That frustrates and aggravates me.
|
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2017 23:18
|
|
|
Oh, yeah, I was there for those memes and it was awesome  but it bears repeating that there is never really a situation in which a tank needs to kill a phalanx. By that stage in the game if you have tanks and the best defensive unit the other guy can muster is a phalanx, he's already dead; and besides that, it's a simple matter to go around the phalanx via the sea or with a diplomat's help.
|
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2017 23:22
|
|
|
Eric the Mauve posted:Oh, yeah, I was there for those memes and it was awesome If that phalanx killed one of your guys before, you are morally obligated to kill that phalanx
|
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2017 23:48
|
|
|
Civ II was actually my first Civ game. I played it, like, when my age was single digits or low double-digits or something; a free copy came with the Sony VAIO PC my mom bought back then or something, along with a few others things (like Heavy Gear and Beyond The Third Dimension). I was not very good at it and tended to lose terribly. I enjoyed upgrading my throne room though, even if I didn't know what prompted the upgrades.
|
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2017 23:59
|
|
|
I loved Civ IV but I don't know how you can go back to unit stacking. Problem with V and VI is they made some good changes but just completely ignored how those changes would affect the AI which they didn't bother to work on.
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2017 00:36
|
|
|
Niwrad posted:I loved Civ IV but I don't know how you can go back to unit stacking. this. now that i've played 1upt, evey time i play civ 4 it's like "what the hell how tall is this stack"
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2017 00:43
|
|
|
The Civ I/II system allows you to stack as much as you want for movement purposes, at your own peril because for combat purposes only the best unit in the stack counts, and if it loses, everything dies. It was the best of both worlds, imo. e: I should have mentioned this in the semi-effortpost but the one exception in Civ I is that in a city (or a settler-created fortress) defending units have to be killed one by one. Anywhere else though, the whole stack dies if its best defender dies. Cities with walls were a bitch to take before the modern era in Civ I. Eric the Mauve fucked around with this message at 01:09 on Aug 11, 2017 |
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2017 01:06
|
|
|
I said it before m, the game would be better if like BE, it let you get stupid powerful with tech and improvements. I feel like they dont want you to get TOO strong so you end up not feeling as immersed as you otherwise would. That was something BE did really well.
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2017 02:25
|
|
|
Interesting. One thing I really liked about IV was how each era felt different. There was something about hitting Industrial, hearing the Dvorak music start up, and knowing that previously unreachable continents and untakable cities would soon be up for grabs, that coal and oil were on the way, that whole swathes of new civics were opening up... I remember my first playthroughs of pre-expansion Civ 5 and being kind of bummed out that wars with spears and catapults felt identical to cannons and rifles... A question for the people who own Civ 6: could it be salvaged by a few good expansions, or is the rot too deep?
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2017 03:09
|
|
|
expansions can fix it but it needs a lot of basic medical attention first. like yeah it has bad breath but it has this huge sucking chest wound first, like how AIs will offer you deals they won't even accept
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2017 03:28
|
|
|
Civ 6 can be amazing with even one expansion. It can be great even without an expansion if they'd just make the proper tweaks. Make a real UI, tweak a few numbers, and fix the AI: you've got yourself a great game. The problem is that they have mishandled and neglected this game so badly, that I wouldn't trust them to make the game better with an expansion, even if I liked the mechanics they were adding. A good example of their laziness is the AI. AI is probably one of the hardest things to program, but there are even the simplest parts of this where they choose not to even try. For example: the leader of Kongo has an agenda. If you have a religion, he wants you to spread it to him. The problem is that he will hate you for not spreading your religion to him on the turn that you discover your religion. Here's the really lazy part: there is obviously an event that triggers him to scold you for not spreading your religion. Why in the world would they not have that trigger fire in the code, cancel itself, add 20 turns to it, and then have the trigger actually go off and affect the game 20 games later. This is a very easy thing to do, but they refuse to do it. This doesn't affect decision trees, or anything an AI usually has.
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2017 03:58
|
|
|
I just played a MP game with friends that devolved into a big nuclear war at the end. Me and my friend were nuking each other, but often getting "ICBM intercepted" messages popping up, and nukes from missile silos being shot down. We'd love if someone could tell us what was causing this. We had no air units, no mobile SAMs, no anti air. Nukes from silos were being shot down, but nukes from bombers weren't. It wasn't consistent, a city would shoot down 2, and then get hit by a 3rd. Any idea what was causing this? We've never ran into it before.
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2017 04:01
|
|
|
Peachy Poo posted:I just played a MP game with friends that devolved into a big nuclear war at the end. Me and my friend were nuking each other, but often getting "ICBM intercepted" messages popping up, and nukes from missile silos being shot down. We'd love if someone could tell us what was causing this. We had no air units, no mobile SAMs, no anti air. Nukes from silos were being shot down, but nukes from bombers weren't. It wasn't consistent, a city would shoot down 2, and then get hit by a 3rd. Any idea what was causing this? We've never ran into it before. The new patch accidentally added a bunch of nuke stuff on accident. Some assume that nuclear proliferation will be a feature in an upcoming expansion, and the code ended up in the last patch. If you played with any AIs then you might have noticed them scolding you for not having a large enough nuclear stockpile in 2000 BC. It could be that there are other nuke rules added to the game. It could also be assumed that those new nuke rules are not working properly.
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2017 04:05
|
|
|
Peachy Poo posted:I just played a MP game with friends that devolved into a big nuclear war at the end. Me and my friend were nuking each other, but often getting "ICBM intercepted" messages popping up, and nukes from missile silos being shot down. We'd love if someone could tell us what was causing this. We had no air units, no mobile SAMs, no anti air. Nukes from silos were being shot down, but nukes from bombers weren't. It wasn't consistent, a city would shoot down 2, and then get hit by a 3rd. Any idea what was causing this? We've never ran into it before. I'm pretty sure Missile Cruisers and Battleships can intercept nukes if they are within 1 tile of the nuke.
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2017 04:07
|
|
|
Niwrad posted:I'm pretty sure Missile Cruisers and Battleships can intercept nukes if they are within 1 tile of the nuke. None of that either, the war was in the center of a Pangaea.
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2017 04:09
|
|
|
Niwrad posted:I loved Civ IV but I don't know how you can go back to unit stacking. It's not as hard as you might think. It's made easier by the fact that moving your armies in IV isn't a tedious slog and the AI has at least some grasp of the combat system. Plus it has this in the soundtrack, I mean come on.
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2017 04:20
|
|
|
Civ IV is the best version of Civilization when it comes to gameplay and AI. Civ V is the best-looking version of Civilization, by a mile.
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2017 05:14
|
|
|
Tree Bucket posted:Interesting. One thing I really liked about IV was how each era felt different. There was something about hitting Industrial, hearing the Dvorak music start up, and knowing that previously unreachable continents and untakable cities would soon be up for grabs, that coal and oil were on the way, that whole swathes of new civics were opening up... I remember my first playthroughs of pre-expansion Civ 5 and being kind of bummed out that wars with spears and catapults felt identical to cannons and rifles... THE PEOPLE ARE THE HEROES NOW BEHEMOTH PULLS THE PEASANT'S PLOW
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2017 05:17
|
|
|
Raserys posted:THE PEOPLE ARE
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2017 06:34
|
|
|
the thing i missed the most from civ 5's soundtrack was the industrial era orchestras i'd love it so much if civ 6 has a dlc/expansion where they add, like, j-pop, brazilian r&b, russian gangsta rap, arianna grande etc to their respective civ's modern+ music cycles. but that would cost so much more to license than they'd ever make selling it
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2017 06:41
|
|
|
The White Dragon posted:the thing i missed the most from civ 5's soundtrack was the industrial era orchestras Look up the music credits for Civ5's soundtrack sometime. The 'theme through the ages' approach they took with Civ6 is nice, but it gets pretty repetitive after a while.
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2017 07:46
|
|
|
Jastiger posted:I said it before m, the game would be better if like BE No, BE was poo poo
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2017 07:57
|
|
|
Gort posted:No, BE was poo poo BE did some t hings right and other things terribly. Letting you get swole if you specialized was one of hte good things.
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2017 07:58
|
|
|
"Specialised" in this case meaning "researched some technologies". Are you saying you don't get powerful if you research technologies in Civ 6?
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2017 08:18
|
|
|
Gort posted:"Specialised" in this case meaning "researched some technologies". Are you saying you don't get powerful if you research technologies in Civ 6? Not really. You don't make billions of hammers or gold per turn like you can in BE. That was a ton of fun. Getting just gently caress off huge outputs and units in the end game, but can still be countered by smart enemy play. In Civ 6 its like they are afraid to let you get all swole.
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2017 08:25
|
|
|
That mechanic sounds like a good idea for the sci fi version of Civ though, and a bad idea for the historical version. It would be cool if more focus was on specialising (e.g. oil exporters) but I like that the games tend to encourage a balance of power through rubberbanding.
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2017 08:59
|
|
|
JeremoudCorbynejad posted:That mechanic sounds like a good idea for the sci fi version of Civ though, and a bad idea for the historical version. It would be cool if more focus was on specialising (e.g. oil exporters) but I like that the games tend to encourage a balance of power through rubberbanding. Now that's an interesting point- the rubber banding thing. It's interesting how they tried to model a break between pre- and post-gunpowder military supremacy by having your primary melee line upgrade into lancers, and having the muskets upgrade out of nothing. Which caused a truly astonishing amount of whining from people who didn't get the idea and wanted the game to be one uninterrupted sequence of gradually increasing numbers.... As for the massive end-game hyper-yields- Endless Legend does that quite well, but then that game is all about achieving balance through having every faction absurdly overpowered in its own special way. I agree it doesn't work so well in a non-fantasy setting.
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2017 09:38
|
|
|
The Human Crouton posted:The new patch accidentally added a bunch of nuke stuff on accident. Some assume that nuclear proliferation will be a feature in an upcoming expansion, and the code ended up in the last patch. If you played with any AIs then you might have noticed them scolding you for not having a large enough nuclear stockpile in 2000 BC. It could be that there are other nuke rules added to the game. It could also be assumed that those new nuke rules are not working properly. I thought that was just Ghandi being Ghandi.
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2017 14:28
|
|
|
Aerdan posted:Look up the music credits for Civ5's soundtrack sometime. I actually had to turn the music off at some point in Civ 6 it was extremely annoying. I've never done that before in a Civ game before.
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2017 17:47
|
|
|
The Human Crouton posted:Civ 6 can be amazing with even one expansion. It can be great even without an expansion if they'd just make the proper tweaks. Make a real UI, tweak a few numbers, and fix the AI: you've got yourself a great game. Sounding a lot like Beyond Earth, sadly. 
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2017 17:50
|
|
|
BE is better than civ 6 because at least it's novel
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2017 17:58
|
|
|
Wirth1000 posted:I actually had to turn the music off at some point in Civ 6 it was extremely annoying. I've never done that before in a Civ game before. Yeah, it's 100% flutes and dog whistles until the modern age.
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2017 17:59
|
|
|
My problem with Civ 6 music is that it plays your neighbor's music and not yours < > I'll start with Egypt or something (whose theme I like) and then America shows up and all I'll hear from then on is America's dumb music.
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2017 18:03
|
|
|
Wirth1000 posted:I actually had to turn the music off at some point in Civ 6 it was extremely annoying. I've never done that before in a Civ game before. For myself, I ended up buying a license for an orchestral version of Baba Yetu and replacing BNW's opening theme with it, last year.
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2017 18:14
|
|
|
Your Computer posted:My problem with Civ 6 music is that it plays your neighbor's music and not yours < It's like when Civ5 bugged out on me and played some sad piano over and over because it kept restarting every turn for no apparent reason.
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2017 20:37
|
|
|
What?! Hearing "Kalinka" in the game is like the best thing about it.
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2017 22:05
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 4, 2024 15:16 |
|
|
I'm the only one that maintains a custom Best Of Civ playlist and plays it in winamp with the in-game music off, then?
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2017 22:07
|
|