|
Mymla posted:Consider not taking the city. I rather take it and gently caress the haters It is dumb, though
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2017 19:51
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 31, 2024 16:19 |
|
|
silvergoose posted:How would a game go if you're trying for a peaceful victory, and your entire war plan is "kill every unit that shows its face but take no cities" if someone declares on you? If you're playing on Deity, it's very, very hard to get anywhere in the game without running people over anyway. I'm not even sure it's possible since the AI has such tech advantages. If you're playing on slightly more forgiving difficulties, you can get cities in peace deals if you dominate their units. Of course, just conquering cities just feels like a no-brainer, if nothing else because the AI is still so bad at warfare. That's what makes it all a bit frustrating because the warmonger penalties just feel more like a "you're a bad person!" rather than any real deterrent. Again, since just conquering the world is so easy most of the time.
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2017 20:02
|
|
|
Keiya posted:Didn't they try that in Civ 5 and people got angry because it was too "game" and not "historical" enough? I posted pretty much the same and some 3 dudes claimed that "I play Civ for narrative experience" ż? Also lmao at people hating that they are declared warmongers when they take cities or genocide an entire civilization. turboraton fucked around with this message at 20:06 on Oct 12, 2017 |
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2017 20:04
|
|
|
Elias_Maluco posted:Im not ok with everyone hating me for thousands of years because I took a city from some rear end in a top hat who attacked me for no reason My grandfather hated the "Japs" until the day he passed away because they attacked Pearl Harbor. And I get the feeling that that kind of long-seated prejudice is actually fairly common.
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2017 20:05
|
|
|
Peas and Rice posted:My grandfather hated the "Japs" until the day he passed away because they attacked Pearl Harbor. And I get the feeling that that kind of long-seated prejudice is actually fairly common. Well, but they attacked first. And never took a single one of your cities. At the other hand, you took a lot of theirs and they dont hate you
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2017 20:07
|
|
|
The problem is that the AI hates you forever for being a warmonger even if you DO NOT TAKE OR RAZE ANY CITIES, just the act of declaring war makes you a pariah forever. Doesn't matter if you only kill their units who come to you, you're still a horrendous warmonger. Declare war to save a city state, only killing enemy soldiers? WAAAAARMOOOONGEEEER!!!!!  If the AI attacks you and you take a city then obviously that one AI is going to be cranky. But everyone else gets mad too. And even if you just passively sit on your rear end and kill their invading morons and sign a white peace you'll be denounced and annoyed constantly by the AI who attacked you until they declare war again. Repeat until the game ends. It also annoying how the AI doesn't seem to have any warmonger penalty to each other at all.
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2017 20:26
|
|
|
As I said before, some people will hate you and some people will love you. It IS possible to game your way and make EVERYBODY love you and win as I proved waaaaay back with a picture and a guide. I have had previous enemies as friends as well. I mean, I don't wanna defend civ6 limited gameplay (which is still MILES better than vanilla civ5) but a lot of people here shoot themselves at the foot, like the goon that claimed that civ6 forces you to have 4 cities 'żżżżż??????
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2017 20:33
|
|
|
I've never had a game of Civ6, no matter how I played, where I was at peace with any civ for the entire game. Sooner or later, everyone attacks no matter how large my army or how peaceful our history has been.
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2017 20:51
|
|
|
Cythereal posted:I've never had a game of Civ6, no matter how I played, where I was at peace with any civ for the entire game. Sooner or later, everyone attacks no matter how large my army or how peaceful our history has been. I have had peace (not just one civ, but all of them) for the whole game many times, especially after the most recent patch.
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2017 20:55
|
|
|
My favourite dilemma in Civ 5 was being attacked by an enemy who had city states on his side. You could no longer sway the city state to your side - it was locked into war with you. So you had a choice - put up with their units pillaging your poo poo and generally being a nuisance, or you could conquer the city state and be labelled global enemy number one. ----- Thing is, I actually like being the evil empire everyone is afraid of - it's cool playing the Cravers in Endless Space (they're endlessly hungry bugs who literally cannot make peace) for example. The problem is that warfare in Civ 5 and 6 is a horrible grind when you have to do it for long periods. If warfare was actually fun to play for long periods, people wouldn't have any problem with being labelled warmongers and armageddon occurring. But shuffling units around is boring, so people would rather smack down whoever offended them and then return to building their civilisation. The game prevents them from doing so, which is why they then rail against warmonger penalties. ----- I always thought Civ could use a cassus belli system. You can always declare war for no reason at all, but then you get warmonger penalties. Cassus belli could be a way to allow you to take limited reprisals against other civs who offend you. Offense could be settling in land you've claimed (or just within say six tiles if you don't want to make a land claim system that the human player can use) or being caught spying, or ending a treaty early, converting your people when you've asked not to, that sort of thing. Depending on the offense, you can then take a reprisal - one city, warmonger penalty free. Take more, and you get the full warmonger penalty. Gort fucked around with this message at 21:40 on Oct 12, 2017 |
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2017 21:35
|
|
|
Hey is this a bug.....or is this an intended part of the play experience Whenever another Civ declares war on me, all the City States they are Suzerain of declare war on me.-All good so far. However, I can then go to the city-state menu and click "make peace" with that civ, and it will instant declare peace and that city-state, for the next 10 turns will not be at war with me (thus allowing me to continue influencing it, even becoming suzerain myself). The civ itself is still at war mind you, but the city-state instantly declares peace. Is this the way the game is supposed to work or some weird bug?
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2017 21:39
|
|
|
Madmarker posted:Hey is this a bug.....or is this an intended part of the play experience 
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2017 21:50
|
|
|
Gort posted:My favourite dilemma in Civ 5 was being attacked by an enemy who had city states on his side. You could no longer sway the city state to your side - it was locked into war with you. So you had a choice - put up with their units pillaging your poo poo and generally being a nuisance, or you could conquer the city state and be labelled global enemy number one. Or you could kill the units? No one is saying that you get infinite warmonger points for being at war or fighting enemy units in that war. quote:I always thought Civ could use a cassus belli system. You can always declare war for no reason at all, but then you get warmonger penalties. Cassus belli could be a way to allow you to take limited reprisals against other civs who offend you. Offense could be settling in land you've claimed (or just within say six tiles if you don't want to make a land claim system that the human player can use) or being caught spying, or ending a treaty early, converting your people when you've asked not to, that sort of thing. Depending on the offense, you can then take a reprisal - one city, warmonger penalty free. Take more, and you get the full warmonger penalty. My friend, have you heard of Civilization 6? It has a CB system where you get reduced warmonger pentalties if people are dicks to you
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2017 22:56
|
|
|
Mymla posted:Consider not taking the city. Or better yet, just play Civ 4. It's a better game if you like expanding through warfare. Civ 5 and 6 are more for you if you like peaceful building and the only warfare being defending yourself from aggression. It's explicitly how those games were designed, and they're really quite good at what they do. I slag Civ 5 a lot in this thread but I've played it a ton and still occasionally play it as well as Civ 4. I've come to understand it's because they may both be labeled "Civilization" but they're different games that scratch different itches.
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2017 23:35
|
|
|
Gort posted:My favourite dilemma in Civ 5 was being attacked by an enemy who had city states on his side. You could no longer sway the city state to your side - it was locked into war with you. So you had a choice - put up with their units pillaging your poo poo and generally being a nuisance, or you could conquer the city state and be labelled global enemy number one. cses declaring war on you with their patrons is imo the easiest thing to avoid warmonger penalties on. there are a number of ways out of this: 1) you can make peace with them at no diplo penalty or cost to you after making peace with their ally 2) (1) also applies if their ally status is revoked, either because another civ got a higher rating with them or because their current alliance decayed 3) coup with spies Eric the Mauve posted:I slag Civ 5 a lot in this thread but I've played it a ton and still occasionally play it as well as Civ 4. I've come to understand it's because they may both be labeled "Civilization" but they're different games that scratch different itches. mostly i flip between 4 and 5 lately. i like the options civ 5 gives you to gently caress with AI players, whether it's through religions that are cheap to spread or hard to get rid of, or UN sanctions and bans. otoh i like how 4 handles diplomacy more, where even if you're a notorious warmonger, the maximum malus is about on par with the diplo bonus you get from giving the AI good trading deals. the warmonger penalty ceiling is super high for one or two leaderheads but gently caress 'em. i think i like 5's map gen more too. Fur20 fucked around with this message at 00:07 on Oct 13, 2017 |
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2017 00:01
|
|
|
silvergoose posted:How would a game go if you're trying for a peaceful victory, and your entire war plan is "kill every unit that shows its face but take no cities" if someone declares on you? Peas and Rice posted:My grandfather hated the "Japs" until the day he passed away because they attacked Pearl Harbor. And I get the feeling that that kind of long-seated prejudice is actually fairly common. On taking other civs cities: I can accept that this is how it works in game but in the real world after a prolonged conflict many people are keen on ending it with their enemies in charge. The game even does this to you by having your populous revolt. The real world implications are states like Belgium who got sick of being the arena for broader European power struggles and went independent and neutral. Not that it worked out so well for them. And for the happy happy people: What happened to diplomatic victories? Make everyone be your buddy and take control of the global agenda. Sure this has been hash out before but it seems like a victory mechanism that should have been kept in.
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2017 00:36
|
|
|
Cartoon posted:But after a generation or three that dislike goes away. Greece and Turkey.
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2017 01:37
|
|
|
Byzantine posted:Greece and Turkey. Cartoon posted:There could be explicit exceptions like the enduring enmity between Macedonia and Greece and even mechanisms in the game to establish such enmity. One possibility being razing cities of other civs.
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2017 02:51
|
|
|
I honestly feel the diplomacy system could use a bit of cleaning up (poo poo like the AI still under-valuing relics, and having literally impossible diplomacy modifiers ages ahead of when they should activate). Also lower the warmonger penalty cap to be more in line with the positive relationship stuff. I really feel the biggest issue with the warmongering status is that it ramps up too high, too fast. There's very little realpolitik that was the historical norm of "You're an rear end in a top hat but I'll still trade" realpolitik.
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2017 03:09
|
|
|
Byzantine posted:Greece and Turkey. But both of those countries actively suck to this day.
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2017 04:05
|
|
|
MorphineMike posted:My friend, have you heard of Civilization 6? It has a CB system where you get reduced warmonger pentalties if people are dicks to you It's extremely limited. There are no cassus belli in Civ 6 for things like being caught spying, violating territorial claims or settling too close. Also, they hosed up by having the cassus belli reduce warmonger by a percentage, rather than having it be a fixed thing like no warmonger for a limited amount of stuff. The White Dragon posted:cses declaring war on you with their patrons is imo the easiest thing to avoid warmonger penalties on. there are a number of ways out of this: There should be a direct military solution to the problem - you should be able to "conquer" the city state but not occupy it, knocking it out of the war with you but not giving you warmonger penalties. It's rubbish when a distant enemy declares war on you with their city states (making option 1 take a long time) and then you have to play whack-a-mole with their units. Also, there's a fair bit of the game where there are no spies (and coups are not tremendously reliable either), and also a fair number of situations where a civ has such a massive lead in opinion with a city state that it's not going to feasibly decay. I'd also be OK with the possibility of being able to bribe a city state to switch sides. Gort fucked around with this message at 08:05 on Oct 13, 2017 |
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2017 07:58
|
|
|
Gort posted:I really feel like the "One player wins and everyone else loses" design decision is a bad one. I'd much rather there be more reasons for civs to work together or stuff like actual history doesn't work. Vassals allow multiple people to win 
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2017 08:05
|
|
|
turboraton posted:I posted pretty much the same and some 3 dudes claimed that "I play Civ for narrative experience" ż? They should reverse the war-monger penalties, so that if you lose units, everyone calls you a genocider and when you take cities, they call you a liberator. It would encourage "clean" wars.
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2017 08:08
|
|
|
Mymla posted:Consider not taking the city. Why even do a loving war then if you can't expand, what's the point? Are you meant to fight every war by just getting wardecced on, killing X units, and then having them cede a city to you in a peace treaty?
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2017 08:35
|
|
|
Holy poo poo how can people be so wilfully dense about this. I've had many games where I was at peace with civs for the entire game and literally all it takes is not actively genociding them over the course of 3000 years. If some guy wardecs you and you kill all his units and get a peace treaty where he cedes a city, he'll be miffed about it for a while and your neighbours a bit concerned but this cools down over the course of 50 turns or so. You can tip the scales in your favor by pillaging as many of his improvements as you can (this also gives you benefits fyi) and killing his units. War is a trade-off: do I take the city and live with the reduced diplomatic options, or do I play cautiously and allow more flexible diplomacy? And you're going to say "ah but you see, the AI always hates you" but they clearly do not if you put in even 1 iota of effort into maintaining relations. If a country really hates you and wants to kill your poo poo, then cripple them by destroying improvements and by asking for a massive amount of cash as tribute instead of taking a city. Nobody gets upset if you take luxuries and cash, and it'll cripple their ability to field an army for a while. I don't play civ vi a lot because of other grievances but being upset about warmonger penalties is so petty. Don't murder thousands. Don't invade people. Don't, if people invade you, genocide them. How hard is this to get.
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2017 09:14
|
|
|
Yes but what if another civ settles a piece of land that you wanted? Since there is no diplomatic option for "Abandon your city before I raze it" there really is only one remaining course of action to reclaim land, and it isn't cultural conversion.
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2017 09:19
|
|
|
ate poo poo on live tv posted:Vassals allow multiple people to win Does winning count if you're someone's vassal? If this was a legitimate victory the degenerate strategy would be for everyone to become the vassal of a single player the moment vassalage was unlocked, then everyone wins.
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2017 09:20
|
|
|
Gort posted:Does winning count if you're someone's vassal? If this was a legitimate victory the degenerate strategy would be for everyone to become the vassal of a single player the moment vassalage was unlocked, then everyone wins. vassalage, at least by civ 4 rules, is liege-only victory. permanent alliance after the fact, however, is a standard full team victory. i wonder if that would work? eventually have missions that let you form a permanent alliance with an AI player and you try to establish blocs based on that, and then have a particular set of victory conditions for late-game team victories. i don't mean diplomatic victory, which is just getting other civs to vote for you in the UN by whatever means necessary; i mean permanent alliance gently caress alpha centauri, we're gonna terraform some poo poo in the horsehead nebula-level ambitious projects where each member of your team has responsibilities for researching and building. otoh this kind of nullifies the challenge of deity and it introduces the further problem of "my AI ally is being an idiot baby and keeps trying to build triremes but he's responsible for completing the terraforming wonder"
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2017 09:40
|
|
|
Asimov posted:Yes but what if another civ settles a piece of land that you wanted? Since there is no diplomatic option for "Abandon your city before I raze it" there really is only one remaining course of action to reclaim land, and it isn't cultural conversion. That's true. I'd say "be faster" or else try to get the city in a trade deal (I forgot if you can do that in civ VI? But you can definitely do it in 5) while it's cheap. There definitely ought to be some extra options for peaceful expansion. Completely as an aside: does anybody know any games where you build a country, outside of the civilization series? Not necessarily with other players, mind you. My favourite aspect of civ is watching my empty land slowly be converted to a bustling landscape with farms and cities. Is there anything comparable focused on that specifically? Like a city builder, I guess, except for a country instead of a city. The closest I can think of are the paradox interactive games (but those are a bit too abstract to scratch that same itch).
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2017 10:03
|
|
|
Deltasquid posted:Completely as an aside: does anybody know any games where you build a country, outside of the civilization series? Not necessarily with other players, mind you. My favourite aspect of civ is watching my empty land slowly be converted to a bustling landscape with farms and cities. Is there anything comparable focused on that specifically? Like a city builder, I guess, except for a country instead of a city. The closest I can think of are the paradox interactive games (but those are a bit too abstract to scratch that same itch). Never gonna miss a chance to shill for Predynastic Egypt. Cheap as chips and has a free demo too. Definitely has the "fill an empty land with farms and cities" stuff covered.
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2017 10:06
|
|
|
Gort posted:Never gonna miss a chance to shill for Predynastic Egypt. Cheap as chips and has a free demo too. Right, yeah, I knew this one! Pretty much exactly the kind of thing I like. I need more, always more like this EDIT: I liked Rome II: Total War, for all its flaws, because I could see the map grow. Deltasquid fucked around with this message at 10:15 on Oct 13, 2017 |
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2017 10:12
|
|
|
Keiya posted:So, should we remove all the information on victory progress from the UI? Because players have access to that information too. I'm fine with players having access. I'm playing for the experience and it's not making that more fun if all the other civs suddenly declare war on you at the end and you have to spend a billion years stamping them out.
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2017 10:22
|
|
|
Deltasquid posted:That's true. I'd say "be faster" or else try to get the city in a trade deal (I forgot if you can do that in civ VI? But you can definitely do it in 5) while it's cheap. Rise of Nations
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2017 13:14
|
|
|
Gaius Marius posted:Rise of Nations Played that for ages back in the day. Also a bit too close to RTS than nation builder tho
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2017 13:36
|
|
|
Deltasquid posted:I don't play civ vi a lot because of other grievances but being upset about warmonger penalties is so petty. Don't murder thousands. Don't invade people. Don't, if people invade you, genocide them. How hard is this to get. The potentially disturbing truth is that many people playing Civ really want to experience consequence-free or consequence-light world domination and genocide. They want their revenge fantasies to play out ("you dared to attack my city? I shall raze your civilization from the planet!" x [number of other players]). They want their millennia-spanning revenge to be accepted by AIs as normal and rational behavior. They want AIs to either be toadying supporters (but only of the player, not other AIs) or challenging military opponents who only rarely collude against the player. There need to be speed bumps on the road to domination, but really only speed bumps. I say "they", but sometimes that's the story I want to see in my game of civ, especially if I've chosen a more warlike civ to play. But since the game series holds out wargame in one hand and peaceful sim in the other, the duality gets in the way of the conquest fantasy. I think there should be some advanced settings for when you create a new game: [ ] Righteous War (warmonger penalties are attenuated, even for new reactive conquests in a war, when you are not the one who declared) [ ] Kairos (AI aggression spikes shortly after you have researched your civ's unique units) [ ] Crusades (early and mid-game AI aggression is tied to religious lines in a manner more like Civ IV) [ ] Set number of aggressive AIs in the game
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2017 14:17
|
|
|
making a moral truth out of how people play civilization is weird when the game itself literally has unsettled peoples as inhuman monsters who only exist to be slaughtered
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2017 14:28
|
|
|
homullus posted:The potentially disturbing truth is that many people playing Civ really want to experience consequence-free or consequence-light world domination and genocide. They want their revenge fantasies to play out ("you dared to attack my city? I shall raze your civilization from the planet!" x [number of other players]). They want their millennia-spanning revenge to be accepted by AIs as normal and rational behavior. They want AIs to either be toadying supporters (but only of the player, not other AIs) or challenging military opponents who only rarely collude against the player. There need to be speed bumps on the road to domination, but really only speed bumps. I say "they", but sometimes that's the story I want to see in my game of civ, especially if I've chosen a more warlike civ to play. You're projecting an awful lot there, dude.
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2017 14:41
|
|
|
AG3 posted:You're projecting an awful lot there, dude. Welcome to this thread about the computer game CIVILIZATION 6. You missed some recent discussions about wanting to kill religious figures in the game freely, wanting "he started it" as a penalty-free casus obliterationis, and wanting AIs to not join an AI rival just because the player is winning.
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2017 14:45
|
|
|
Has anyone ever been nuked to oblivion by the AI? I was nuked once in CIV4 by the Zulu, but never really in 5 or 6. I did witness the Mongols lobbing a whole lot of atom bombs at the Chinese in CIV5, that was a fun thing to see. I'm curious to hear some stories about nuclear war, thanks. John F Bennett fucked around with this message at 14:52 on Oct 13, 2017 |
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2017 14:49
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 31, 2024 16:19 |
|
|
Deltasquid posted:Holy poo poo how can people be so wilfully dense about this. I've had many games where I was at peace with civs for the entire game and literally all it takes is not actively genociding them over the course of 3000 years. This really made me think. Thank you.
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2017 14:50
|
|
