|
Byzantine posted:Actually agonizing over my belief choices in Byzantium vs Venice. The ungodly capitalists to your north laugh at your silly idols. The White Dragon posted:just, the kind of settler that looks like an archer 
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2017 18:52
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 8, 2024 20:51 |
|
|
I know this has roughly been covered but does anyone have a recommendation for a 4x that allows you the sort of "roleplay" building up of Civ and isn't as focused on war as things like Endless Legend or Age of Wonders? All we can find to play is Stellaris and even then that's sort of war related. When I say roughly covered I mean the person saying "I want someone else to make a game just like Civilization like Cities Skylines did to SimCity" since that implies there's nothing quite like Civ.
|
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2017 12:58
|
|
|
Taear posted:I know this has roughly been covered but does anyone have a recommendation for a 4x that allows you the sort of "roleplay" building up of Civ and isn't as focused on war as things like Endless Legend or Age of Wonders? Try the demo for Predynastic Egypt, that really scratched the Civ-itch for me. The full game is like £4 too.
|
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2017 13:01
|
|
|
Out of curiosity, what would you want from a Civ version of simcity? Multiple cities is an obvious start but beyond that - internal politics maybe? The question comes to mind because it occurred to me you could set up a game in Civ 5 with no other Civs and roleplay Civ building without the distraction of war (maybe barbarians if you still want a bit of action), but of course, because the game is not designed for that, there's a lot missing and essentially no difficulty. (I've not played predynastic Egypt yet so I don't know where the challenge/interest comes from for that) Edit: also settler mode cuts out war but again, the difficulty is gone and AIs could still aggressively settle in your way. Microplastics fucked around with this message at 13:57 on Sep 12, 2017 |
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2017 13:53
|
|
|
JeremoudCorbynejad posted:(I've not played predynastic Egypt yet so I don't know where the challenge/interest comes from for that) A number of "trials" occur throughout the game - being the first to build a great temple, survive various disasters like droughts and civil wars, that sort of thing. You effectively need to do well in the inbetween-times in order to have the resources to do well at the trials, and how well you do in the trials determines your final score. ----- Regarding Civ itself, I'd like to see asymmetric victory conditions in the next one. Like we've already got leaders with agendas, what if China wins the game if they have more wonders than anyone else? And the Mongols win if they've conquered the most cities? That way you could have multiple winners per game, and alliances would actually make sense since you winning doesn't mean someone else loses. It would also make leader agendas make more sense - China should be pissed at you if you have more wonders than them - you're costing them the game! Gort fucked around with this message at 14:16 on Sep 12, 2017 |
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2017 14:11
|
|
|
A game with multiple winners doesn't even make sense.
|
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2017 14:23
|
|
|
Mymla posted:A game with multiple winners doesn't even make sense. Well there's team games and collaborative games, but FFA games with multiple winners are certainly hard to come by. I guess they're hard to design, but they definitely exist. One that comes to mind is Diplomacy. It's been around forever and you can play it online for free (webdiplomacy.org or something). I played a few games of that last year and in one game I essentially negotiated a joint victory with other surviving players - but perhaps that only worked because the game (its online version, at least) is based around wagering chips so there's a pot of 'money' to be split. Edit: I like that asymmetric victory idea too. I feel like you could work early- or mid-game victories into a system like that, each victory conferring 1VP if you were so minded to count them all up into a total. Microplastics fucked around with this message at 14:45 on Sep 12, 2017 |
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2017 14:41
|
|
|
Mymla posted:A game with multiple winners doesn't even make sense. This seems like rather a narrow definition of "winner". You get multiple people winning the same lottery draw all the time. I guess you could have a "total victory" achievement which you get for being the only player in the game who completes their objective.
|
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2017 15:20
|
|
|
JeremoudCorbynejad posted:Out of curiosity, what would you want from a Civ version of simcity? Multiple cities is an obvious start but beyond that - internal politics maybe? You're misunderstanding me there. What the person posted was that the last SimCity was poo poo but the market didn't really have anything comparable. Or at least nothing good. So then Cities Skylines came along and did SimCity but good again. I'd like something to do that with Civ. To come along and do something very similar to Civ but better than 6 did it. Not SimCity like Civ, just new Civ made by someone new. "Doomdark's Upplysning" or something. I feel like most 4x games are a bit too war focused and that's not quite what I'm after. Hell I'd love an Age of Wonders that was more like fantasy Civ than a war game, where you're casting spells to also gently caress up people's economy and not just to cause damage to their troops. And I know that people love to war in Civ but it does work to play it otherwise - other games don't yet.
|
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2017 15:55
|
|
|
there's a lot of people who want Master of Magic 2017 i dunno if i'd hold my breath for that one though. personally i'm pretty happy with how AoW3 ended up.
|
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2017 16:26
|
|
|
Prav posted:there's a lot of people who want Master of Magic 2017 I enjoyed AoW but it's too warry. I like games where I can play with a friend on huge maps with loads of opponents but not necessarily be beating each other/my opponents up. Heroes of might and magic, AoW, Masters of Magic (to a lesser degree) all feel more like war games than anything else.
|
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2017 16:56
|
|
|
Taear posted:I enjoyed AoW but it's too warry. I like games where I can play with a friend on huge maps with loads of opponents but not necessarily be beating each other/my opponents up. Yeah, I feel the same. I would love AoW if it wanst so war-focused. Everything that's not related to war feels shallow and uninteresting
|
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2017 17:17
|
|
|
Yeah, I definitely want an epic strategy game designed more around building a society and people then painting the map my color. I'd definitely like a civ competitor and a Paradox competitor. Tons of room for more games in this space.
|
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2017 17:24
|
|
|
Taear posted:You're misunderstanding me there. I think that was me, but I wasn't saying I want that to happen, I was saying it WILL happen, eventually, because the market is there and there will be a ton of money in it for a smaller publisher that successfully scratches that itch. It's gonna involve lots of war, though. What you're talking about is a different genre.
|
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2017 17:42
|
|
|
Eric the Mauve posted:I think that was me, but I wasn't saying I want that to happen, I was saying it WILL happen, eventually, because the market is there and there will be a ton of money in it for a smaller publisher that successfully scratches that itch. I don't agree, because Civ is already that game so if it's moving into the Civ sphere it will necessarily be something that's not all war. There's a difference between "lots of war" and "only war". Like....I can see War as an extention of diplomacy or else as "Well I've got nothing else to do". The games I've listed are the latter.
|
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2017 17:54
|
|
|
I know everyone hates 6 but...I guess I don't know why? I've played since 2. I loved 4. I like 6. I hated 5. I can't even really tell you why, but I put 15 hours into 5 and never touched it again, but I have over 100 in 6.
|
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2017 18:12
|
|
|
Taear posted:I don't agree, because Civ is already that game so if it's moving into the Civ sphere it will necessarily be something that's not all war. Civ was that game, but Firaxis has hosed it up and there's little hope they'll unfuck it in the future. It's very much like what EA did with the flagship (only) title in the city building genre. ColossalOrder/Paradox stepped in and did it right and made Scrooge McDuck profits at it. Sooner or later someone will do likewise with the history spanning 4X genre.
|
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2017 18:25
|
|
|
ComposerGuy posted:I know everyone hates 6 but...I guess I don't know why? I don't hate six, exactly. I guess I play games like this for the story. For what I think about how my civilization is going. But in 6 I don't feel it works because I'm almost forced to build loads of cities that all feel kinda the same because of the district system. I'm not thinking "This would be a great spot for a city", I am thinking "I need to put a city here so I can claim that resource". I'm building troops and attacking the people around me just because which I never did in the other games. Part of it is that the AI is the worst it's ever been. Five civilizations declared war on my girlfriend who never, ever builds units. And she still won, they just milled around the city while she bought loads of stuff and beat them up with it. Then you get them messaging you to be your friend when they've JUST been at war with you. Or contacting you to say "I hate this deal, I refuse it" when it's their own loving deal. The sort of "magic" is gone in Civ6. I guess that's what I'm saying. When I first played EU2 I used to try and conquer the world, and I ended up finding that quite boring. Eventually I'd play "as the country" and try and do what they'd do but as best as it could possibly be. Civ6 I'm doing the first thing and in all the other Civs I'm doing the second.
|
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2017 18:27
|
|
|
You could play Civ 4 that way. 5 and 6, you can't. It's entirely because of the nonexistent diplomatic AI.
|
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2017 18:31
|
|
|
Of course Civ 4 made up for that by doubling down on punishing you for daring to build wide instead of tall. Yay exorbitant maintenance costs as soon as you went over eight cities (which hilariously made Communism the best route for anyone to take since Communists were the only ones who didn't have to worry about it).
|
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2017 19:05
|
|
|
JeremoudCorbynejad posted:Out of curiosity, what would you want from a Civ version of simcity? Multiple cities is an obvious start but beyond that - internal politics maybe? it's a game i've always wanted, too, and often toy with the idea of making myself even if it would mean being Sim City 1-tier in complexity and graphics quality. the entire idea is taking your sim city from the stone age, to the space age. like you place your lovely 3x3 hut palace and start zoning residential areas, farms and pastures, potters and weavers, and training grounds for your clubswinging warriors, and eventually you unlock the ability to place a district where your wisemen smoke weed and think deep thoughts about things like wheels, and boxes on wheels that hitch to yaks, and then wheels with teeth. when you era up, your build area zooms out, your wood stick palace becomes stone with wooden palisades, and it turns out that your tiny village was actually just 1/4 of the land you now have to build on. other "civs" will contact you once in a while and you might fall into a dark age where you didn't build enough military or science zones and your people are now living under the yoke of some foreign or barbarian masters, or they'll be in awe of you or fear your might and give you a mission to build them residential zones so they can be absorbed into your country... after a few more epochs, you arrive at the atomic era and if you're a world power, you can decide whether to nuke your rivals and proceed to the post apocalypse era, or to keep the peace and proceed to the near future era, both with separate tilesets and challenges. if you're weak, it's 50-50 whether another civ (in name only) destroys everything or not. and then the reconstruction or the distant future, and the post-dystopia or post-utopian era, and then you can keep playing forever but that's about where the technological narrative ends. i understand exactly what they want, in their heart.
|
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2017 19:43
|
|
|
A good reminder that Civ: BE is cool and good, and I'm enjoying my play through again thanks to this thread. TBH BE is good, not great though. So many SO MANY great ideas here not capitalized on. Why not make each alignment more unique (which they kind of addressed in Rising Tide, but not completely). Why not be afraid to make game mechanics more different for different alignments and even sponsors? Why only have 3 main different types of planet and biomes? Why not more? Why not more random events or lore based challenges? They obviously put a TON of work into world building and flavor text and I genuinely appreciate it, but I feel like they sold themselves short on fleshing it out. I think thats really the only thing holding it back from being a more popular game is that the things it did were good, but not GREAT, and we expect GREAT...so it sucks. Anyway, Let me design a new add-on for BE and re-release it and everyone will be happy, imo.
|
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2017 21:24
|
|
|
Jastiger posted:A good reminder that Civ: BE is cool and good gently caress no
|
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2017 21:26
|
|
|
Every game plays exactly the same and since they added the combined alignment that's all you ever get as they are locked to techs you have to get. It's dumb. 
|
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2017 21:39
|
|
|
The White Dragon posted:it's a game i've always wanted, too, and often toy with the idea of making myself even if it would mean being Sim City 1-tier in complexity and graphics quality. the entire idea is taking your sim city from the stone age, to the space age. like you place your lovely 3x3 hut palace and start zoning residential areas, farms and pastures, potters and weavers, and training grounds for your clubswinging warriors, and eventually you unlock the ability to place a district where your wisemen smoke weed and think deep thoughts about things like wheels, and boxes on wheels that hitch to yaks, and then wheels with teeth. when you era up, your build area zooms out, your wood stick palace becomes stone with wooden palisades, and it turns out that your tiny village was actually just 1/4 of the land you now have to build on. It sounds like something I'd enjoy too but I just have difficulty getting into the idea of managing a civ of multiple cities in a simcity-like fashion. Once you leave that simcity zone of managing roads and zones and taxes, I feel like there isn't much to do (except build inter-city roads, manage trade and do a few other things that not-at-war Civilization has systems for). That said, I know simcity 4 is popular for its "region" gameplay where you really can manage multiple cities in micro-detail. Extend the scope of that game back a few thousands years and maybe that gives you what you describe. There is something close to it, though, which I've wanted quite badly. I want an ancient-egypt version of Banished. One in which your settlement becomes part of a wider network of settlements - you never see them except on a map, but they're there, and your relationship changes depending on how well you do. Do badly enough and you might not get the reinforcements you need from the wider state to survive an invasion, or worse still your pharaoh invades you to remove your incompetent/disrepectful/ungrateful rear end from the empire. Do well enough and you're the pharoah, making those decisions on others. It starts out simple enough (like banished) but gets ever more complex, especially politically, spanning the eras up until roman conquest. In some aspects it would be a version of the Impressions game Pharaoh, but instead of a campaign of build-a-city missions, it would be your own (local dynasty's) settlement from the start the end. I think I'd still class that as a city-builder than an empire builder though. vvvv OK now that's starting to make sense to me. Microplastics fucked around with this message at 21:51 on Sep 12, 2017 |
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2017 21:40
|
|
|
JeremoudCorbynejad posted:It sounds like something I'd enjoy too but I just have difficulty getting into the idea of managing a civ of multiple cities in a simcity-like fashion. honestly what i'm envisioning isn't so much managing multiple cities as it is, like, your tiny few-screens'-worth of village at the beginning of the game is ultimately just the size of an entire district by the end, and everything just gets more zoomed-out and macro as it progresses. so by the modern era, you'd have farms, army bases, power plants, and unused land between major population centers (to artificially guide land value and distribute pollution etc). like, your starting area with your mud palace and caveman huts and looms and archer training grounds would, by the industrial era, just be a 3x3 square zoned as "seat of government" and your minimum cursor size and the zoom level would be so great that you'd just zone a residential area the entire size of your initial village in a single click. e: lol and now i'm seriously tryna think of how i'd program it with my ghetto "white trash fighting in a wal mart parking lot-fu" coding style ee: and like by the endgame, where you would place residential areas and build individual universities in the medieval era, education/science is entirely its own zone like how we have towns that pop up around the economic sphere of a local college or pharmaceutical company Fur20 fucked around with this message at 22:09 on Sep 12, 2017 |
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2017 21:49
|
|
|
Caesar 2 had something kinda like this. You managed the city and the "district", where you basically just built some roads, forts, farms, ports and stuff like that edit: it was a pretty good game, btw. Played hundreds of hours of it
|
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2017 21:55
|
|
|
I like it! And now I want it.
|
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2017 21:55
|
|
|
That "build a village that fills the map, oh poo poo the game zoomed out and it's now tiny" poo poo is in the Egypt game I linked. Play the drat demo. I sound like a shill
|
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2017 22:15
|
|
|
My favorite city-builder is still Anno 2205, but that's admittedly a different kettle of fish. I kind of wonder why games like Outpost never took off. City builders or empire builders about settling a harsh alien world seem like a pretty good opportunity. Beyond Earth tried, at least.
|
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2017 22:18
|
|
|
Gort posted:That "build a village that fills the map, oh poo poo the game zoomed out and it's now tiny" poo poo is in the Egypt game I linked. Play the drat demo. I sound like a shill I hate the theme, I really don't like ancient Egypt stuff.
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2017 07:53
|
|
|
Taear posted:I hate the theme, I really don't like ancient Egypt stuff. The qualities of games you consider good get narrower and narrower with every post. Have you considered that maybe the magic is not dying out in games, but rather in you?
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2017 14:25
|
|
|
homullus posted:The qualities of games you consider good get narrower and narrower with every post. Have you considered that maybe the magic is not dying out in games, but rather in you? I never said I didn't like any of those other games. I just said that I want a civilization style game that isn't all about war. In fact I explicitly said I like AoW.
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2017 15:09
|
|
|
I think it's perfectly fine to not like the subject matter and it's legitimate to shun a game for it too. I mean, I love the mechanics and ideas (and graphics  ) in Endless Legend, but the fantasy setting is of zero interest to me. I don't care for fantasy.
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2017 15:30
|
|
|
JeremoudCorbynejad posted:I think it's perfectly fine to not like the subject matter and it's legitimate to shun a game for it too. I mean, I love the mechanics and ideas (and graphics Yea, since I like the stories a game creates having a theme I enjoy is extremely important to me.
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2017 15:42
|
|
|
The White Dragon posted:it's a game i've always wanted, too, and often toy with the idea of making myself even if it would mean being Sim City 1-tier in complexity and graphics quality. the entire idea is taking your sim city from the stone age, to the space age. like you place your lovely 3x3 hut palace and start zoning residential areas, farms and pastures, potters and weavers, and training grounds for your clubswinging warriors, and eventually you unlock the ability to place a district where your wisemen smoke weed and think deep thoughts about things like wheels, and boxes on wheels that hitch to yaks, and then wheels with teeth. when you era up, your build area zooms out, your wood stick palace becomes stone with wooden palisades, and it turns out that your tiny village was actually just 1/4 of the land you now have to build on. Pre-dynastic Egypt does literally this. You start in a small area building your capital, but eventually the map opens up and there are a ton of other nation-states to conquer as well as lore-based challenges along the way. Marble Age by the same people does this too. Funn little games that are pretty cheap, both < 
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2017 17:20
|
|
|
Cythereal posted:My favorite city-builder is still Anno 2205, but that's admittedly a different kettle of fish. I loved Outpost. Spent hours and hours playing it on a 386. It's still fun to play occasionally, but you can really see where they ran out of development time by the end. I'd love a game that was similar to it. The part I loved the most was picking your initial star, and if you ignored all the warnings you could get a Game Over on turn one because there was no place for your colony ship to land. Outpost 2 was lovely.
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2017 17:25
|
|
|
Does anyone miss the stupid culture artifact micro management from Civ5? I recently started a game to get the French Louvre achievement 
|
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2017 07:30
|
|
|
Taear posted:I hate the theme, I really don't like ancient Egypt stuff. same! it's like... ancient egypt, ya so. there has never been a single moment in my life where i cared about egyptian mythology, history, or lore. asscreed origins? i enjoy the ac series but you'd have a hard time finding someone who is more aggressively disinterested in the setting, so it's a hard pass for me. Fur20 fucked around with this message at 07:44 on Sep 14, 2017 |
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2017 07:42
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 8, 2024 20:51 |
|
|
ComposerGuy posted:I know everyone hates 6 but...I guess I don't know why? I love six as well. It's just the same five goons circlejerking about six hate. 6 on release is way better than 5 on release.
|
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2017 08:06
|
|
