|
(I'll narrate the game from Venice's POV). In a game strangely reminiscent of actual history, the Republic of Venice dealt a crippling blow to the Byzantine Empire from which it will likely never recover. We started on the same continent and began our war in the ancient era. Byzantium exerted its control over Venice early, forcing the Most Serene Republic to play a defensive game for the first half. Barbarian ships wrecked our trade until a suitable navy could be built, but by that point we were slipping behind scientifically. It was only because of an amazing start that Venice built not only the Colossus and Petra but the Great Lighthouse as well. Once the Venetian fleet took control of the waves, we slowly built our infrastructure and kept a defensive military. Byzantium forward-settled on our doorstep so we knew it was a matter of time before their troops showed up. We blitzed to Compass so we could build our Great Galleass, and demonstrated the full power of the Arsenale as we cranked out cargo ships, galleass', and eventually cannons at a breakneck speed. With science slipping further behind the AI and an unhappy empire we couldn't acquire enough luxuries to placate, we knew it was only a matter of time and launched our attack. Our ever-growing fleet eliminated Byzantine coastal colonies, razing them to the ground, and fighting a pitched battle ever closer to Constantinople. Meanwhile our defensive troops went on the offensive, capturing the forward-settled city and burning it down. At this point the game could continue but things are looking good for Venice and its Stato del Mar. Meanwhile, elsewhere in the world, an unmet civ is nearly 2 tech levels ahead of Venice, so it may inevitably be eclipsed by the Iroquois (I think) and slowly decline into irrelevance. Or buy the gently caress out of the city-states and declare endless naval war and destroy them. 
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2017 14:47
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 1, 2024 20:00 |
|
|
Venice: I have a LOT of money.
|
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2017 14:49
|
|
|
Yeah, once I had a good trade network established and I grabbed the mercantilism civic, I was buying Great Galleass' every 2 turns for 240 gold. That's value for your attacking power!
|
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2017 14:52
|
|
|
Decided to go back and play a game of Civ IV on Monarch with aggressive AI after not playing IV for years and years. Thought I was doing pretty good in the renaissance with six or seven mixed units in my border cities. Then Egypt rolled in with multiple stacks of a dozen plus, smashed me up with collateral damage, and took two solid cities in like four turns. I forgot what it was like having an AI able to use the combat system.  Restart and reassess things here, I guess. I'm not used to turning out so many units.
|
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2017 14:56
|
|
|
If I remember correctly, in Civ IV you'll literally want one city with a barracks churning out units nonstop. Mostly seige units, but you'll need a solid core of anti-melee and anti-anti-melee.
|
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2017 15:33
|
|
|
Trivia posted:If I remember correctly, in Civ IV you'll literally want one city with a barracks churning out units nonstop. Mostly seige units, but you'll need a solid core of anti-melee and anti-anti-melee. And then when war breaks out you poo poo yourself and everything gets sent to the war effort.
|
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2017 15:34
|
|
|
Have any of you goons had issues with game performance since the patch? My brother's got a decent machine (i5-4590, 16GB, GTX 970) and says that the turns just take forever now since the update. Is Civ6 processor throttled or might it be a GPU thing? I don't have the game myself, but played 1000+ of hours of Civ5.
|
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2017 18:30
|
|
|
Taear posted:It depends - do you have the city state ally that lets you choose the Apostle promotions? If you do then you should be using those as they can take an ability that wipes out enemy religions in a city instantly. It's a very fast converstion rate and an easy win. Are apostle promotions random or will they always show the enemy religion promotion if you're allied with Vienna?
|
|
#
?
Sep 20, 2017 14:49
|
|
|
Vargatron posted:Are apostle promotions random or will they always show the enemy religion promotion if you're allied with Vienna? They are random(-ish?) unless you are allied with that city-state, in which case you get to choose.
|
|
#
?
Sep 20, 2017 15:11
|
|
|
homullus posted:They are random(-ish?) unless you are allied with that city-state, in which case you get to choose. Not with Vienna, with whatever one lets you choose any promotion. I haven't seen it since the more recent updates.
|
|
#
?
Sep 20, 2017 15:52
|
|
|
My favorite thing in this game is when a civ tells me "Nuclear weapons are the future! Why can't you see that?!" in 2400 BC.
|
|
#
?
Sep 20, 2017 16:51
|
|
|
Look, Ghandi's ahead of the curve. We all know the gag by now - he's just delivering what we want. (Civ 6 is really busted right now.)
|
|
#
?
Sep 20, 2017 16:54
|
|
|
Somehow picking a random secondary agenda regardless of AI Civ was a good idea to somebody at Firaxis. I goof on this game but it still is super fun, I just don't get how the AI is hosed up so bad in every Civ game.
|
|
#
?
Sep 20, 2017 17:01
|
|
|
Yeah, there's something about Civ 6 that makes me keep playing it despite its current woes. I'm currently ramming a horde of Hypsapists into Cleopatra and it's a good time.
|
|
#
?
Sep 20, 2017 17:16
|
|
|
Vargatron posted:I goof on this game but it still is super fun, I just don't get how the AI is hosed up so bad in every Civ game. Civ 4's AI is solid.
|
|
#
?
Sep 20, 2017 18:46
|
|
|
Gort posted:Civ 4's AI is solid. It took a lot of time to get there, and the work wasn't done by Firaxis themselves.
|
|
#
?
Sep 20, 2017 20:04
|
|
|
(And the Byzantine POV) We discovered both our salvation and our ruin early on. As our warriors scouted the region to discover what gods ruled here, a great mountain loomed from the chaos - Mt Sinai. Our shamans immediately organized a party to set up a settlement at the foot of the mountain, and declared that we must always strive to be One With Nature. And that's when we met the Venicians, who immediately attacked our pilgrims. We managed to build defenses enough to dissuade the Venicians into holding their positions, and with no further contact from them decided to build small settlements and construct many, many houses of worship, in hopes that the whole world would one day learn of our harmony with nature. When the religion matured and reformed, though, there was a near-schism, with many of the high priests arguing for aggressive maneuvers. In the end, the defense lobby won, trusting in our Greek Fire and righteousness of our faith to protect us. (Pagodas, Mosques, Cathedrals, Defender of the Faith, Sacred Sites). Unfortunately, though the Aztecs and Venetians were easily converted and the Assyrians and Siamese were not far behind, the last realm we met was that of the Iroquois, who had grown so large it would take a long time to reach enough of their population. Time we didn't have, as the worshipers of Mammon invaded. Though our defenders fought valiantly, they couldn't stand against the sheer weight of numbers, and the barbarians have destroyed all our centers of worship outside of the City itself and its suburb. The game could continue, but it's doubtful we could make up the difference by now. Game 1 is conceded to Venice.
|
|
#
?
Sep 21, 2017 05:25
|
|
|
Have there been any optimization updates for this game since its launch? I tried playing back then but by turn 100 it would take a long time to go from one turn to the next. This was with 2 players and several AI.
|
|
#
?
Sep 21, 2017 14:41
|
|
|
Nope! The AI has a hard-on for moving units even if it has nothing for them to do, and the city states love to pump out loads of units, so the lengthiest part of each turn is waiting for the City State mass of units to shuffle pointlessly around. Civ 5 curbed this by limiting the city states to a really small military IIRC.
|
|
#
?
Sep 21, 2017 15:08
|
|
|
I know I can't be the only one who's been tempted to attack a city-state just so they'll stop producing units that get in my drat way all the time. If anyone's interested, I'm starting a new PYDT game. The password is an easy to remember eternal truth: coffee is better than tea
|
|
#
?
Sep 21, 2017 15:53
|
|
|
Why did the whole city-states thing come about anyway? What do they add to the game? They just seems so gamey and pointless. I almost feel like they were added so that dimmer players wouldn't be aware of the lack of diplomacy AI, or really any AI at all. And of course Beyond Earth brought them back as well, because for some reason a newly inhabited planet with fewer then 100,000 total humans on it has established trading posts in the alien infested wastelands. 
|
|
#
?
Sep 21, 2017 23:59
|
|
|
ibntumart posted:I know I can't be the only one who's been tempted to attack a city-state just so they'll stop producing units that get in my drat way all the time. Iiiinteresting. Given the start, I think I'll go with Saladin this time.
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2017 01:20
|
|
|
ate poo poo on live tv posted:Why did the whole city-states thing come about anyway? What do they add to the game? They just seems so gamey and pointless. I almost feel like they were added so that dimmer players wouldn't be aware of the lack of diplomacy AI, or really any AI at all. And of course Beyond Earth brought them back as well, because for some reason a newly inhabited planet with fewer then 100,000 total humans on it has established trading posts in the alien infested wastelands. They allow for Cold-War-style conflict, fighting for the allegiance of lesser states in the broader conflict. They provide a brake on unabated ICS expansion. They provide smaller non-player targets for military action. They provide "quests." They provide another source of differentiation in civ leaders, as their mechanics give them advantages with city-states (cf. Civ V Austria). They provide interesting texture to wars when they switch sides or suddenly enter a war.
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2017 18:44
|
|
|
 https://www.twitch.tv/videos/176630460?t=5h25m12s In this weeks Civ 4 AI survivor..
|
|
#
?
Sep 24, 2017 13:45
|
|
|
Mmmm, that's the good stuff there.
|
|
#
?
Sep 24, 2017 16:31
|
|
|
Lol I didn't realize there was anything Sulla didn't know about Civ 4
|
|
#
?
Sep 24, 2017 16:37
|
|
|
ssmagus posted:
This entire game is legendary. Bismarck has 2 first-ring gems at his cap and blows his absurd start by failing to expand and wonder-whoring. Mehmet sends his first settler south into the ice and his second settler gets eaten by barbs; he nonetheless manages to come back from this to be one of the game's great powers. Bismarck and Tokugawa both have their capital as the first city lost. Huayna Capac wardecs Wang Kon on the opposite end of the map, but has bad enough tech that Wang Kon actually manages to grab cities in a counterattack. This leaves Kon open for an attack by Mehmet - until Charlemagne declares war on Mehmet, liberates most of Korea, and completely conquers the Ottomans. Wang Kon and Charlemagne then attack Huayna Capac together. Charlie gets 5 tiles (on an 800+ tile map) away from winning Domination, but Wang Kon managed to snipe HC's best Culture cities, and shared-war diplomacy bonuses mean neither is willing to declare war on the other. They tech to space, Charlie launches two turns before Kon, but Charlie inexplicably had only one engine on his ship (he actually had 2 in his build queues; it's an open question whether Wang Kon sabotaged one or an AI bug launched before the second could be put on) so Kon gets there first and wins.
|
|
#
?
Sep 24, 2017 17:50
|
|
|
Is there any way to get the soundtracks for the DLC on download? I've got the OST for the vanilla Civs in my Steam directory but I can't find the other tracks.
|
|
#
?
Sep 25, 2017 15:48
|
|
|
Speaking of Civ 4 are there any good informative LPs of the game? I'm taking my annual attempt to figure out how to play the game and I keep bouncing off. I tend to lose focus in the early game, not be able to put out enough of a military to make up for anything I lost in the initial landgrab (is it just me or is Civ 4 extremely claustrophobic compared to 5?) and then just stay behind all game. (I am aware of the big beginners guide on civfanatics)
|
|
#
?
Sep 26, 2017 02:11
|
|
|
StashAugustine posted:Speaking of Civ 4 are there any good informative LPs of the game? I'm taking my annual attempt to figure out how to play the game and I keep bouncing off. I tend to lose focus in the early game, not be able to put out enough of a military to make up for anything I lost in the initial landgrab (is it just me or is Civ 4 extremely claustrophobic compared to 5?) and then just stay behind all game. (I am aware of the big beginners guide on civfanatics) Sullla's Civ 4 page is by a good player with a number of well-documented games. The Civ 4 Walkthrough was basically intended as a "the game's brand new, here's how it works" but Glidergun fucked around with this message at 04:11 on Sep 26, 2017 |
|
#
?
Sep 26, 2017 03:54
|
|
|
DeathChicken posted: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). This isn't true at all. Civ 4 rewarded the player a lot for going wide, way more so than tall. In fact, 'tall' as a strategy doesn't really exist in Civ4 because having more cities is always better than having fewer cities. Civ 4 isn't so much punishing the player for building more cities, as it is treating the entire settler mechanic as an investment. Cities cost a lot, and they lose money when you initially found them, but eventually they will begin to support themselves and eventually they will support other cities. With courthouses, libraries, markets, trade routes, cottages, etc. you can continue to build more and more cities.
|
|
#
?
Sep 28, 2017 21:24
|
|
|
homullus posted:They allow for Cold-War-style conflict, fighting for the allegiance of lesser states in the broader conflict. They provide a brake on unabated ICS expansion. They provide smaller non-player targets for military action. They provide "quests." They provide another source of differentiation in civ leaders, as their mechanics give them advantages with city-states (cf. Civ V Austria). They provide interesting texture to wars when they switch sides or suddenly enter a war. 1. This already exists in the game, naturally, with some civs not being able to expand as well, or being eaten by war, who's favor you can curry. You don't need some specific gameplay addition for that. 2. There are multiple mechanics that can be used for this. 2 and 3 used corruption, 4 used maintenance, 5 used happiness (and like a billion different things that secretly increased different costs), and 6 uses a mix of settler/district cost and amenities. If you feel that whatever mechanic doesn't limit expansion well enough, then just tweak that. Or add more actual civs. 3. Pick on smaller civs. 4. You can have quests without city states and the ones that city states provided in 5 and 6 sucked.
|
|
#
?
Sep 28, 2017 22:02
|
|
|
Quests in Civ 5 were mostly useless: except very occasionally, they were too much trouble for what they were worth. At the end of the day, bribing was always the way to go
|
|
#
?
Sep 28, 2017 22:18
|
|
|
1) bribing was the way to go unless a civ needed a barbarian encampment cleared 2) i know a lot of hardcore players didn't like the random nature of events and quests in civ 4 but i really miss them, racing to complete them was really fun  i could do without the bullshit of vedic archers or flooding though. maybe get rid of events and go quests only.
Fur20 fucked around with this message at 22:28 on Sep 28, 2017 |
|
#
?
Sep 28, 2017 22:25
|
|
|
Trivia posted:KSP's media presence was one of the best I've seen. wasn't KSP made by a company that wasn't a traditional game design firm but rather a design or marketing company that hit it big with an experimental game?
|
|
#
?
Sep 28, 2017 22:33
|
|
|
boner confessor posted:wasn't KSP made by a company that wasn't a traditional game design firm but rather a design or marketing company that hit it big with an experimental game? Not quite. Their head developer more or less strongarmed them into letting him make KSP. Then it turned out to be a major hit.
|
|
#
?
Sep 28, 2017 22:48
|
|
|
I love city-states and I love the quests. They always gave me something to do in Civ 5; they were a superb way to keep the player busy through all the eras. They weren't very well designed though. I always hated the ones that were something like "make the most culture in 30 turns!" or something. If some Civ was making 20% more culture than you, you'd be hard-pressed to upend your entire economy and put yourself into the lead for 30 turns. "most techs!" wasn't much better, but at least you could aim for it by hoovering up cheap techs you'd left behind. The VP mod changed quests considerably though, and for the better IMO. First they got rid of the gold bribes so you couldn't just out-bid everyone, and replaced those with diplomatic units you have to build with production (i know i know, more unit management, not for the feint-hearted if you had a bad experience with missionaries that's for drat sure). Then they added all sorts of new quests that were interesting to manage. Borsche69 posted:1. This already exists in the game, naturally, with some civs not being able to expand as well, or being eaten by war, who's favor you can curry. You don't need some specific gameplay addition for that. I disagree with this to an extent - the city-states were supposed to be a lot more pliable, so you could switch their allegiance relatively easily with bribes, election-rigging, and coups. Actual civs, even small ones, needed a hell of a lot more investment to switch their allegiance, and it was generally very hit-or-miss as to whether you'd succeed.
|
|
#
?
Sep 28, 2017 23:02
|
|
|
City-states would have been the worst design decision in Civ 5 if not for UPT, in my humble opinion. But I admit I find the complaint "there wasn't enough to do in Civ 4!" baffling. If anything there was too much to do in Civ 4. Civ 5's "solution" of a) 1UPT, b) a soft cap of 4 cities, beyond which it becomes progressively more painful to have more, and c) wedging city-states into the game to "give civs something to fight over" is just bizarre and ineffective. Call me old fashioned, but I as a longtime civ player I always enjoyed fighting over, y'know, land. Not influence peddling with pissant one-city "nations". But city-states are an important part of the crucial overhaul of how the entire game is played that was implemented with Civ 5, and it didn't work. IMO. e: I know I come off like a Civ 5 hater/Civ 4 True Believer in that post, but I have like 500 hours of Civ 5 logged. I keep gravitating toward it because it's just so drat smooth to play compared to 4, and then gravitating back to 4 once I play a game or two of 5 and remember how empty the diplomacy is and how annoying city-states are. e2: I forgot to mention another very bad thing about city-states, which is how heinously long the time between turns gets in lategame in large part because every city state has its own little carpet of units it needs to shuffle around. Eric the Mauve fucked around with this message at 03:09 on Sep 29, 2017 |
|
#
?
Sep 29, 2017 01:34
|
|
|
Jumping between civ 6 and 4, one minor bit of diplomacy I noticed is that in Civ 4, the AI will every now and then ask you to cancel your deals with someone or go to war against someone. Those minor demands/requests made the diplomacy more interesting since you had to consider what alliances were forming from religions/peace weights of the leaders and who ultimately you will side with. It's so easy to forget the diplomatic angle in Civ 6, where alliances are practically nonexistent and everyone just seems to hate each other thanks to the silly warmonger penalties and unreasonable agendas. Playing Civ 4 again, I realized why I vastly prefer Civ 4 diplomacy: none of the leaders get mad at you for how you run your empire or play the game. Outside of demanding you to change your civics every now and then (though they only get angry from your refusal to meet their demand; there's no penalty for having different civics, only a positive for sharing a favorite civic!), there aren't any modifiers that involve what aspects of your empire you emphasize or ignore. Contrast to Civ 6, where people get mad if you build a wonder, generate little culture/faith/gold, move your units near their territory, recruit great people, explore too much of the map, have a small/large army, etc. I'm honestly not sure if a Diplomatic Victory condition is even possible in a game like Civ 6 where the AI can get mad about nearly everything. I really do like the core mechanics of Civ 6, but there are a lot of problems I see in it where I just think to myself, "This wasn't a problem in Civ 4."
|
|
#
?
Sep 29, 2017 02:12
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 1, 2024 20:00 |
|
|
civ4 is great and i just finished an unrestricted leaders game as Boudica (Agg/Chm) of Byzantium. pumping out Combat 3 Cataphract is disgusting.
|
|
#
?
Sep 29, 2017 02:23
|
|
