|
Venice is a great change. If you only have one city the whole game, you are doing it wrong.
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2017 20:18
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 13, 2024 22:18 |
|
|
I liked Venice because it was so different. I'd like to see more civs like that where you have to play with a completely different strategy.
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2017 21:35
|
|
|
Im pretty sire Venice generates a legendary start to compensate for the lack of settlers
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2017 23:20
|
|
|
Peas and Rice posted: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. I'm interested in taking you up on that. 
|
|
#
?
Aug 30, 2017 01:13
|
|
|
Byzantine posted:I'm interested in taking you up on that.  Awesome. I'll try to set it up tonight after I put the kiddo down.
|
|
#
?
Aug 30, 2017 01:22
|
|
|
Venice is great, and has empirically shown to help new players get their first Deity win, by reducing options and forcing them down an optimized path. In addition to cash trade routes and the obvious mega navy, I always enjoy going "Operation: Feed Venice" and see how close to 50 pop I can get. It's really hard to gently caress up Venice in singe player, just go ham and have fun on the highest difficulty you're willing to try.
|
|
#
?
Aug 30, 2017 01:51
|
|
|
Peas and Rice posted:
I hope the thread will be treated to a full after-action report 
|
|
#
?
Aug 30, 2017 02:40
|
|
|
Serephina posted:Venice is great, and has empirically shown to help new players get their first Deity win, by reducing options and forcing them down an optimized path. In addition to cash trade routes and the obvious mega navy, I always enjoy going "Operation: Feed Venice" and see how close to 50 pop I can get. It's really hard to gently caress up Venice in singe player, just go ham and have fun on the highest difficulty you're willing to try. Yeah, Venice was an auto victory for me on single player at any difficulty.
|
|
#
?
Aug 30, 2017 02:45
|
|
|
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 agree. I never really futzed around with the minmaxing in SMAC. I envision it working here as the support unit being a separate thing you buy and build and then it moves around like a great person until you attach it to a unit- decent movement, doesn't violate 1upt, can't attack on its own, and once you attach it it's consumed into the unit. Then it auto-upgrades once you reach the right technology. Unit customization is a cool thing, but it tends to either go unused because using the best technology is so much better or there is a "best spec" that winds up becoming the default. For civ it should always tie into the idea of deciding what to produce when, I think. Glass of Milk fucked around with this message at 06:45 on Aug 30, 2017 |
|
#
?
Aug 30, 2017 03:30
|
|
|
People need to not judge Venice by how the AI handles it. A good player can wreck your poo poo.
|
|
#
?
Aug 30, 2017 03:45
|
|
|
This game is fun, I'm mostly avoiding this thread to try and limit my knowledge to give the AI a bit of an edge. Could I get some recommendations for for Civ's the AI is good at? I'd rather not play with some of the worst AI's as neighbors, it's a bit too easy.
|
|
|
#
?
Aug 30, 2017 04:45
|
|
|
I am proud, started a Civ 1 game in a web based dosbox and actually got the copy protection research tree question right. I keep forgetting if my mother's birthday is the 14th or 16th, but I remember the Civ1 tech tree.
|
|
#
?
Aug 30, 2017 07:27
|
|
|
Tahirovic posted:I am proud, started a Civ 1 game in a web based dosbox and actually got the copy protection research tree question right. I keep forgetting if my mother's birthday is the 14th or 16th, but I remember the Civ1 tech tree. computers requires: electricity, mathematics
|
|
#
?
Aug 30, 2017 07:28
|
|
|
It would be kind of fun to play a multiplayer game where everyone is Venice. All of the other Venices trying to determine who the most powerful Venice is so they can boycott them. Giant, purchased armies popping up anywhere in the world. Gigantic navies.
|
|
#
?
Aug 30, 2017 08:43
|
|
|
I can't believe Great Scientists still seem broken. Two or three eurekas and they're always the same tech. It's insane.
|
|
#
?
Aug 30, 2017 10:06
|
|
|
Byzantine posted:I'm interested in taking you up on that. DM'd you the link! I set it up to be the two of us plus 4 AI players since Venice would be seriously nerfed otherwise (and this way we'll have some other civs to pick on). JeremoudCorbynejad posted:I hope the thread will be treated to a full after-action report Oh yeah. Venice gets to write its history after all. 
|
|
#
?
Aug 30, 2017 15:06
|
|
|
The White Dragon posted:computers requires: electricity, mathematics They do indeed
|
|
#
?
Aug 30, 2017 15:46
|
|
|
Civ6: Rocketry does not require Combustion, Telecommunications and Internet do not require Computers.
|
|
#
?
Aug 30, 2017 15:53
|
|
|
my civ has a very sophisticated semaphore network, thank you very much
|
|
#
?
Aug 30, 2017 15:56
|
|
|
It's okay, I'm over here landing on the moon via the Jules Verne method.
|
|
#
?
Aug 30, 2017 16:00
|
|
|
Unfortunate news from the space program today
|
|
#
?
Aug 30, 2017 16:24
|
|
|
Cythereal posted:Civ6: Rocketry does not require Combustion, Telecommunications and Internet do not require Computers. The Civ6 tech-tree is so weird, you can do weird stuff like getting infantry before muskets or something. Can't be hosed to look it up right now but it's...stupid.
|
|
#
?
Aug 30, 2017 16:59
|
|
|
I'm currently having fun with a mod that improves a number of pantheons that were otherwise kinda bad, like Lady of the Reeds and Marshes, which is boosted to +2 production and +1 Faith. So I started a game as Sumeria in a true start Giant Earth map. 12 Floodplain tiles for one city. I'm gonna have fun this map. edit: is there a discord for civ players? fishception fucked around with this message at 05:47 on Aug 31, 2017 |
|
#
?
Aug 31, 2017 05:43
|
|
|
TjyvTompa posted:The Civ6 tech-tree is so weird, you can do weird stuff like getting infantry before muskets or something. Can't be hosed to look it up right now but it's...stupid. railguns son you know what might be cool? a tech web like beyond earth (or... honestly civ 1 with the way prereqs worked  ) with distant prerequisites on opposite ends of the web but then, like, split-choice techs also--they give the same basic tech traits, but then they have slightly different permanent passives. feudalism vs bushido, lunar calendar vs astral calender, etc.
Fur20 fucked around with this message at 06:16 on Aug 31, 2017 |
|
#
?
Aug 31, 2017 06:12
|
|
|
TjyvTompa posted:The Civ6 tech-tree is so weird, you can do weird stuff like getting infantry before muskets or something. Can't be hosed to look it up right now but it's...stupid. Infantry armed with Girandoni Rifles from 1800's.
|
|
#
?
Aug 31, 2017 06:33
|
|
|
Nothing much to do at work so here's my useless ordering of Civilization games according to how they look. Not the graphics but more about how visually pleasing they are to me. From most beautiful to ugliest: 5 1 4 6 3 2 Civilization 1 really still looks very nice! It feels cozy, warm greens and blues. I don't know what happened with Civ 2, it's so ugly. The forests in Civ 5 are really good looking, thick and dense. They destroyed forests in Civ 6. Thanks for reading.
|
|
#
?
Aug 31, 2017 09:51
|
|
|
it's because civ 2 was a wide palette of brown sludge
|
|
#
?
Aug 31, 2017 09:57
|
|
|
And Beyond Earth on top of all those. I never understood people who could play on Lush worlds - they're so Earthlike and boring. Frigid and Primordial worlds in Rising Tide were a good step, but if CBE wasn't apparently dead I'd be hoping for even more exotic worlds in the next expansion.
|
|
#
?
Aug 31, 2017 14:22
|
|
|
In all except 6 you actually see what terrain is below the FoW.
|
|
#
?
Aug 31, 2017 14:57
|
|
|
John F Bennett posted:Nothing much to do at work so here's my useless ordering of Civilization games according to how they look. Not the graphics but more about how visually pleasing they are to me. Hard to argue with this ordering, tbh! 5 is gorgeous, 1 is good for its very simple design that it does well, 4 is very solid, 6 is just worse than 5 while trying to do the same thing, 3 is awful, and 2 while an amazing game is as noted just brown sludge the whole way.
|
|
#
?
Aug 31, 2017 16:22
|
|
|
I like how clear and easy it is to see units on the map in Civ 1. Subsequent games look more realistic but it's also harder on my poor eyes. I wish there was at least an option to highlight tiles units are on or something.
|
|
#
?
Aug 31, 2017 17:23
|
|
|
Eric the Mauve posted:I like how clear and easy it is to see units on the map in Civ 1. Subsequent games look more realistic but it's also harder on my poor eyes. I wish there was at least an option to highlight tiles units are on or something.
|
|
#
?
Aug 31, 2017 17:34
|
|
|
5 is absolutely the best looking. I love the leader heads in that one. Huge, huge step back in 6.  I'll always have a soft spot for the period appropriate leaders of 3 though. 
|
|
#
?
Aug 31, 2017 18:05
|
|
|
Poil posted:Civ 6 is TERRIBLE at visibility. They're actively trying to hide units. Maybe I'm just old and my eyes are lovely, but I hate hate hate the FOW effect in 6 so much. I have a super-hard time differentiating it and unexplored territory. Fintilgin posted:I'll always have a soft spot for the period appropriate leaders of 3 though. I so wish they'd bring this back.
|
|
#
?
Aug 31, 2017 18:21
|
|
|
I loved a lot about Civ Revolutions: * No worker units, just buy improvements with gold * Every civ gets a unique advantage (unit. ability etc) every era * Spies make hilarious sneaky music sounds when they move * Ships come with a free sailor unit which is weak but allows you to capture ancient ruins you spot while exploring * Your advisors bicker and push each other out of the way * lol simglish: PO PONEM I would unironically play that game if it was out on PC
|
|
#
?
Aug 31, 2017 18:27
|
|
|
Peas and Rice posted:I so wish they'd bring this back. It was the best. The best.
|
|
#
?
Aug 31, 2017 18:46
|
|
|
Fintilgin posted:I'll always have a soft spot for the period appropriate leaders of 3 though. This assumes that the natural goal of every civilization is to become a modern white Western elite.
|
|
#
?
Aug 31, 2017 18:50
|
|
|
homullus posted:This assumes that the natural goal of every civilization is to become a modern white Western elite. Well, presumably a new version could tweak that up and avoid having everyone go to suits while still modernizing material, background, props. It's still a really fun idea. EDIT: But yeah, renissance robin hood zulu or whatever was a little weird and uncreative, and it should have been more based off regional designs. EDIT EDIT: Please don't take away caveman Lincoln
|
|
#
?
Aug 31, 2017 18:56
|
|
|
Fintilgin posted:It was the best. The best. Elvis Culture Advisor or BUST!
|
|
#
?
Aug 31, 2017 19:36
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 13, 2024 22:18 |
|
|
Gort posted:I loved a lot about Civ Revolutions: Civ Rev was really good. People give it a lot of poo poo and yes it's inferior to a regular Civ game. But it was very good. No workers and the extra stuff per civ you got every era were very good design decisions. It seems Firaxis forgot about those things between 4 and 5, or just tossed them. Why?
|
|
#
?
Aug 31, 2017 20:44
|
|