|
I'm a big fan of how the realism invictus-mod for civ 4 handled it's armies: every unit in a stack would receive promotions depending on the make-up of the stack. Ranged units would give a stack extra first strike chances, Melee units would give strength buffs etc. Something like this could be a nice addition to the buffing you can do with armies and corps.
|
#
?
Aug 27, 2017 13:46
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 18, 2024 18:41 |
|
|
Glass of Milk posted:Melee units should just have support slots for medic, ranged and siege. Medic helps heal every turn, siege helps attack cities, ranged does a little bit of damage before the start of combat. Later on add anti air as an additional slot if you want. So build robust units with a bunch of support stuff slowly or lots of base units. Don't forget mounts which increase the units' speed.
|
|
#
?
Aug 27, 2017 14:22
|
|
|
Glass of Milk posted:Melee units should just have support slots for medic, ranged and siege. Medic helps heal every turn, siege helps attack cities, ranged does a little bit of damage before the start of combat. Later on add anti air as an additional slot if you want. So build robust units with a bunch of support stuff slowly or lots of base units. Several games (great ones, classics like SMAC and MOO) have had this modular design and I have strongly disliked it every time, because making military units is so much more laborious. Unless you're only ever building one kind of unit (which only happens at the end of the game), the interface has to account for all the different things you could build. Pikeman, pikeman + medic, pikeman + catapult, pikeman + sapper, pikeman + sapper + medic, ad nauseam, for every loving tier of technology. Yes, you can have the interface save your "favorites", but you still have to scroll through all those options to make the favorites, and still have to scroll through all the favorites, unless you take even more time to prune that list as you go. And you have to name them so you know which is which. And then there's the question of upgrading those individual components. It's a mess and it's misplaced depth.
|
|
#
?
Aug 27, 2017 17:19
|
|
|
It was great in SMAC though because defensive combat rolled based on armor, and you could put armor on workers. Worker defeats tank is great fun.
|
|
#
?
Aug 27, 2017 18:38
|
|
|
The Civ 1 system was that a unit is either normal or "veteran" which means a x1.5 multiplier to attack and defense. A unit is automatically veteran if its building city has a barracks; otherwise it has a 50% chance of becoming a veteran each time it wins a battle. (If it loses a battle, it dies.) Just use that, except instead of that flat multiplier let there be a handful of more specialized promotions to pick from (+defense, +attack vs. units, +attack vs. cities, medic effect). But only one promotion per unit.
|
|
#
?
Aug 27, 2017 18:42
|
|
|
Eric the Mauve posted:Just use that, except instead of that flat multiplier let there be a handful of more specialized promotions to pick from (+defense, +attack vs. units, +attack vs. cities, medic effect). But only one promotion per unit. that would really suck because you'd have to shuffle and micromanage your front lines every time you clear out defenders. if it was stacks, you'd have to micromanage your stacks. civ 6 already has a problem where its promotions don't really synergize so you have a high-level veteran unit that's barely different from a fresh one, so i'm not sure that strictly limiting units to one marginal increase per is the best solution. maybe committing a unit to a highly-specialized, highly-synergistic upgrade path once you select it, and if you can get the exorbitant amount of exp necessary to get every upgrade in the line, you can choose a new upgrade path and start stacking on a new bonus. of course, by that point, you'd need hundreds of xp just to get another level. Fur20 fucked around with this message at 18:58 on Aug 27, 2017 |
|
#
?
Aug 27, 2017 18:55
|
|
|
Crazy Ted posted:Hasn't Shafer's blog for development on that game been silent for over a year? It's kind of weird. We got asked to give feedback on At the gates once and basically the whole design team said it was bad, then a few months later we hired him  I think it's pretty lovely for all the ATG backers, but no one asked me.
|
|
#
?
Aug 27, 2017 19:06
|
|
|
Presumably it made sense to someone. I almost bought that game because it looked interesting but thankfully I decided to wait until it was properly released.
|
|
#
?
Aug 27, 2017 19:42
|
|
|
anatoliy pltkrvkay posted:It was great in SMAC though because defensive combat rolled based on armor, and you could put armor on workers. Worker defeats tank is great fun.
|
|
#
?
Aug 27, 2017 19:56
|
|
|
homullus posted:Several games (great ones, classics like SMAC and MOO) have had this modular design and I have strongly disliked it every time, because making military units is so much more laborious. Unless you're only ever building one kind of unit (which only happens at the end of the game), the interface has to account for all the different things you could build. Pikeman, pikeman + medic, pikeman + catapult, pikeman + sapper, pikeman + sapper + medic, ad nauseam, for every loving tier of technology. Yes, you can have the interface save your "favorites", but you still have to scroll through all those options to make the favorites, and still have to scroll through all the favorites, unless you take even more time to prune that list as you go. And you have to name them so you know which is which. And then there's the question of upgrading those individual components. It's a mess and it's misplaced depth. Agreed. I hated having to design new units and build prototypes all the drat time in SMAC, a game which I otherwise adored. Whatever issues units may have in Civ V and VI, not having an intensive unit design process is not one of them. The Civ:BE actually worked in my opinion. Only having to worry about one of two perks each upgrade allows some customization without being fiddly.
|
|
#
?
Aug 27, 2017 20:07
|
|
|
The White Dragon posted:maybe committing a unit to a highly-specialized, highly-synergistic upgrade path once you select it, and if you can get the exorbitant amount of exp necessary to get every upgrade in the line, you can choose a new upgrade path and start stacking on a new bonus. of course, by that point, you'd need hundreds of xp just to get another level. Even if you allowed for infinite upgrades with low exp. requirements, you wouldn't get more than two or three tops because before long the unit would lose a battle and die. When all battles result in a unit dying, during wartime you have to keep pumping out units, just like you do now, except managing them (be it via stacks or carpets) is no longer a bitch.
|
|
#
?
Aug 27, 2017 22:25
|
|
|
Civ 1 did it best.
|
|
#
?
Aug 28, 2017 07:25
|
|
|
I don't think naval units in Civ1 could actually attack land units that weren't in a city. A fun thing to abuse was lining the entire coast with phalanxes and basically being immune to the AI.
|
|
#
?
Aug 28, 2017 11:43
|
|
|
homullus posted:Several games (great ones, classics like SMAC and MOO) have had this modular design and I have strongly disliked it every time, because making military units is so much more laborious. Unless you're only ever building one kind of unit (which only happens at the end of the game), the interface has to account for all the different things you could build. Pikeman, pikeman + medic, pikeman + catapult, pikeman + sapper, pikeman + sapper + medic, ad nauseam, for every loving tier of technology. Yes, you can have the interface save your "favorites", but you still have to scroll through all those options to make the favorites, and still have to scroll through all the favorites, unless you take even more time to prune that list as you go. And you have to name them so you know which is which. And then there's the question of upgrading those individual components. It's a mess and it's misplaced depth. I've been thinking I'd like to see a new Civ game have combat work as a combo of (limited?) stacks and Paradox style combat. You bounce your stack into the enemy and then you get a little sub window like Paradox games, where you see your 6 legions, 3 spearmen, 5 archers, and two horsemen line up against the enemy, it churns through a quick combat where some units are killed and damaged, and then one stack retreats 4-5 spaces towards home. Maybe a stack limit so you're move 3-4 smaller stacks rather than one giant one, and stacks that are adjacent can all join in a big combat brawl? Darkrenown posted:It's kind of weird. We got asked to give feedback on At the gates once and basically the whole design team said it was bad, then a few months later we hired him  Well, there goes my hope that it might have been good game struggling with funding. I still sort of hope he eventually releases the alpha to all backers, if it doesn't get finished. I loved the idea and would like to chance to poke at something for my 
|
|
#
?
Aug 28, 2017 13:46
|
|
|
I'm listening to the latest Dollop podcast, and Emperor Pedro makes an appearance. Worlds are colliding, Jerry!
|
|
#
?
Aug 28, 2017 14:06
|
|
|
Darkrenown posted:It's kind of weird. We got asked to give feedback on At the gates once and basically the whole design team said it was bad, then a few months later we hired him He didn't even acknowledge that on his blogs/whatever? Bit of a dick move in my opinion.
|
|
#
?
Aug 28, 2017 22:30
|
|
|
Tahirovic posted:I don't think naval units in Civ1 could actually attack land units that weren't in a city. A fun thing to abuse was lining the entire coast with phalanxes and basically being immune to the AI. Naval units in civ1 could attack any land unit it could reach (i.e. on a coastline). Hence the rare but legendary instances of a battleship getting destroyed by a phalanx. Transports weren't allowed to attack anything (or rather, they COULD attack but with an attack rating of 0 they would auto-lose and they and anything they were carrying would die) and the AI generally wasn't smart enough to clean up the coast with a destroyer or bomber or whatever first, which is probably what you're remembering re: frustrating the AI with cheap land units on all coastal tiles. That's solely the industrial era Transport unit, mind; troop-carrying ships from earlier eras could attack and win.
|
|
#
?
Aug 28, 2017 23:21
|
|
|
*starts as Australia* Nice, right next to a river and the ocean! The perfect starting hex. *after a few turns of exploring* Wait... why is this "ocean" landlocked? Why is this "ocean" only 8 hexes big?! AAAARRRGGGHHHHFUCKTHISGAME.
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2017 00:17
|
|
|
Bloody Hedgehog posted:*starts as Australia* I see you never played Venice in 5.
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2017 00:18
|
|
|
Cythereal posted:I see you never played Venice in 5.
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2017 01:58
|
|
|
Bloody Hedgehog posted:*after a few turns of exploring* Sounds like you got lucky - a couple of inconveniently placed other civs and you might not have found out until half the game in *has flashback*
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2017 03:39
|
|
|
I once got a start as venice next to an ocean. A huge triangular ocean blocked off from the rest of the planet's seas by two chunks of ice, with not a single city other than mine accessible from that ocean. Not even a city-state.
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2017 07:33
|
|
|
You all deserve it for picking Venice.
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2017 07:47
|
|
|
Since I am bored with current games I wanted to play some original Civilization but it's not on GOG. Anyone got a legal source for a copy of the game, preferably bundled with dosbox already or an other setup for modern Windows versions? Edit: It's actually free on abandonware, no wonder I can't find a place to buy it. Tahirovic fucked around with this message at 14:44 on Aug 29, 2017 |
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2017 14:36
|
|
|
Byzantine posted:You all deserve it for picking Venice. I make a point of taking Constantinople in every Venice game what now.
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2017 14:41
|
|
|
Tahirovic posted:Since I am bored with current games I wanted to play some original Civilization but it's not on GOG. Anyone got a legal source for a copy of the game, preferably bundled with dosbox already or an other setup for modern Windows versions? I'm sure no one will hold it against you if you pirate a 30 year old game that's not being sold anymore. In fact, in certain cases, pirating and sharing these games is a great way to let them stay alive.
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2017 14:49
|
|
|
Tahirovic posted:Since I am bored with current games I wanted to play some original Civilization but it's not on GOG. Anyone got a legal source for a copy of the game, preferably bundled with dosbox already or an other setup for modern Windows versions? I went on eBay and ordered the Civilization Chronicles which is a box set that has the first four games on CD with paper tech trees/reference cards and a making of DVD.
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2017 17:58
|
|
|
Last page made me realize I never played Venice on Civ 5. Probably the only civ I never tried So, any tips?
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2017 18:07
|
|
|
Elias_Maluco posted:Last page made me realize I never played Venice on Civ 5. Probably the only civ I never tried Trade routes. All of them.
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2017 18:22
|
|
|
Cythereal posted:Trade routes. All of them. Go for Wonders that increase your trade route capacity, because you get 2 for 1. You'll be well suited to focus on policies that increase your gold. Gold, gold, gold. Buy literally everything. E: A Venice start on the coast next to a desert nets you the Colossus and Petra specifically.
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2017 18:28
|
|
|
Elias_Maluco posted:Last page made me realize I never played Venice on Civ 5. Probably the only civ I never tried Venice is easy mode. You don't need any tips.
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2017 19:09
|
|
|
I always found Venice super hard. Not being able to get more than one city is a serious handicap that no amount of GPT is going to make up for.
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2017 19:14
|
|
|
Mymla posted:I always found Venice super hard. Not being able to get more than one city is a serious handicap that no amount of GPT is going to make up for.
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2017 19:16
|
|
|
Puppets are bloody worthless, though. They're always gold focused, so they work the worst tiles available, you can't assign specialists, and they never produce anything worthwhile. They even get a flat -25% science and culture. Also, venice is super dependent on international trade routes, which can get pillaged in an instant when some AI inevitably declares war on you out of nowhere, depriving you both of your GPT and making you lose all the production you spent on the trade routes. Venice really isn't a strong civ.
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2017 19:29
|
|
|
Look at this scrub who forgot Venice rose to power by making GBS threads out the most powerful navy in the world for several hundred years. Buy yourself an enormous loving navy to protect that trade, yo.
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2017 19:32
|
|
|
I'd rather just play a good civ tbh.
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2017 19:36
|
|
|
I think you're confusing "good" and "plays like a variation on every other civ." Also, I'd be up for a GMR game with me as Venice and you as the Civ of your choice if you'd care to settle this like gentlemen. 
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2017 19:40
|
|
|
I like venice's design, it's a civ with a different playstyle. I wish they did more civs like it, that deviate from the norm. It's just not very good. It's underpowered. Other civs are stronger.
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2017 19:45
|
|
|
I always avoid it because it seemed unfun to have just a single city, but now that Im tired of playing with everyone else, it seems like it can be a fun change. Thank you all for the tips
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2017 19:49
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 18, 2024 18:41 |
|
|
I had a lot of fun with my one Venice game. Absolutely not something I'd play regularly, but there's definitely space in Civ for some unusual/gimmick civs. EDIT: I was also valuable because it took something I thought would be insanely hard/not fun (one city challenge) and made it an interesting challenge which showed me some interesting new ways to play the game/understand the systems.
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2017 20:09
|
|