|
Mymla posted:Consider not taking the city. Consider removing one of the Xs from this 4X game. Got it.
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2017 14:53
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 15, 2024 02:45 |
|
|
It's not really a 4X game.
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2017 14:55
|
|
|
If I wanted a game that punished me for expanding, I'd go back to playing Civ 5. But that game is a turd and not being able to expand in a 4X game makes the entire experience hollow. There are lots of countries that don't give a poo poo when someone invades someone else. I'm sure Syria didn't care when Russia invaded Georgia or Ukraine. I'm sure Turkey cared a lot when they did. The issue in Civ 6 is that Every Single Country in the game hates you for any act of aggression, for the whole loving game. Its asinine.
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2017 14:55
|
|
|
They really could learn a bit from EU4 and its "agressive expansion" mechanics, which are a lot more sensible
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2017 14:58
|
|
|
Deltasquid posted: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. Wow think of how many people you're killing by destroying their farms and quarries and poo poo (not even taking into account how many must starve to death). If you take all their money they probably had to sell a bunch of prisoners into slavery to cover for it, and all those units had families as well. hosed up...
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2017 14:59
|
|
|
I make sure that in my games that civilizations build only their historical wonders to cut down on any potential cultural imperialism. The way that Civ 4 handled cultural borders was... an issue.
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2017 15:03
|
|
|
Borsche69 posted:If I wanted a game that punished me for expanding, I'd go back to playing Civ 5. But that game is a turd and not being able to expand in a 4X game makes the entire experience hollow. Being forced to expand is just as bad. I hate having loads of lovely cities, I like having a few that really mean something.
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2017 15:12
|
|
|
I think that Civilization shouldn't try to model real life behavior. Instead they should focus on making a fun game and that means that the AI need to behave "gamey". For example, it is irritating as a player to be branded a warmonger when all you did was defend yourself. While realistic it is not good game design, in my opinion. It's Civilization, not Human History Simulator.
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2017 15:16
|
|
|
Back to realtalk for a second, there are many nits to pick (oh gods, so many) with the execution, but Firaxis had the right idea with Civ 5 and its sequel. They made a deliberate decision to make a new and different kind of game, one that focuses on peaceful building rather than aggressive expansion, rather than to try to improve upon Civ 4. The new game was branded as a sequel to Civ 4 for marketing reasons, but it isn't a sequel to Civ 4 in any meaningful sense. It's a different kind of game and it turns out it reached a large player base of people who prefer peaceful building over aggressive expansion. Civ 5 and 6 are poorly designed and poorly tested games but they've sold like wildfire anyway because they found a blue ocean: they scratch an itch almost no other game ever has, including the previous Civilization games. Civ 4 isn't The One Perfect Game like some of its more zealous partisans claim. It could be improved in some ways. But it really was about 90% as good as a 4X game could ever be. Making a new sub-genre with Civ 5 rather than trying (and likely failing) to make Civ 4 But Better was a wise decision. An actually well designed and well implemented game in the genre Civ 5 and 6 have created is out there, waiting to be made. Firaxis has gone Full EA and probably is now institutionally incapable of making that game, but someone, someday, will make it, and it will blow everyone's mind and make 13.7 gazillion dollars.
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2017 15:23
|
|
|
TjyvTompa posted:For example, it is irritating as a player to be branded a warmonger when all you did was defend yourself. It's not defending yourself to go on the offensive.
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2017 15:29
|
|
|
Offense is the best defense, man.
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2017 15:34
|
|
|
John F Bennett posted: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 was nuked once, can't remember who it was. Of course, the brilliant Civ VI AI showed up again and after I was pleasantly surprised that the AI actually... you know, *did* something to stop my path to victory. After the first nuke, they continued to nuke *the exact same city* at least 4 or 5 times. As much as I have a problem with Civ VI just not working properly a lot of the time, I find it to be a more fun game than V. Especially when I go back and play it now it just... it feels boring to me. And I used to like it a fair bit (with the expansions). And it has its good points of course, but the gameplay of it bores me now whenever I play it. Love how it looks though.
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2017 15:52
|
|
|
I wouldn't mind the warmonger penalties but I have a sneaking suspicion that AIs don't apply their warmonger penalties to other AIs, or at least not to the same degree. It's like the player is held up to a higher standard. I might be wrong though.
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2017 15:58
|
|
|
John F Bennett posted: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 was nuked only once in Civ5, by Rome I think, and it was pretty funny, because I was stockpiling nuclear missiles on this city as a preparation to nuke the gently caress out of then. I was planning to nuke every single big city they had, at once. Then they nuked me first, that city, where I had already 3-4 nukes waiting to be launched I response Ive put all my cities to make new nukes and nuked every single one of his cities, even the tiny worthless ones
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2017 16:05
|
|
|
Byzantine posted:It's not defending yourself to go on the offensive. This reasoning is just asinine. Was the Soviet Union supposed to stop at the border to Germany in WWII? Sometimes the enemy declares a total war against you and the only way to defend yourself is to wipe them out.
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2017 16:08
|
|
|
There's a lot of talk about just turning the other cheek when someone wardecs and comes for your cities. Human players obviously don't like that, we get vindictive. Same with any scenario, board games, 'game theory', real life. Even laws recognize it; if a man mugs you with a knife but you had a gun, nobody's sympathetic to the assailant's new gunshot wound. Tit for tat, turnabout is fair play, call it what you want but it's well known, and we have people in this thread saying that when the AI goes out of it's way to attempt to push your face in and take your cities, they suggest that you don't retaliate? Because that would be evil and wrong? Weather or not it's actually possible to roleplay as a saint is not in question, but rather if it's fun for a video game to demand that you take a slap and smile. The AI and it's diplomacy is an unmitigated buggy mess, and it's not unreasonable to expect the devs to implement reasonable warmonger mechanics. Casus Belli for a normal person would be along the lines of: You pillage my city, I take yours. You take my city, I take your capital. You killed my father? Prepare to die. The AI, just for being poo poo at it's own game, does not get a free pass to make unlimited attempts at your cities with no more retaliation than trade routes and a few tiles being pillaged.
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2017 16:12
|
|
|
TjyvTompa posted:This reasoning is just asinine. Was the Soviet Union supposed to stop at the border to Germany in WWII? Sometimes the enemy declares a total war against you and the only way to defend yourself is to wipe them out. I know, right? Children, that's why the so much of what used to be Germany is now part of former Soviet countries.
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2017 16:14
|
|
|
Games > Civilization VI: I am angry. ANGRY ABOUT THE PHILOSOPHICAL IMPLICATIONS OF GAME DESIGN
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2017 16:22
|
|
|
Taear posted:Being forced to expand is just as bad. I hate having loads of lovely cities, I like having a few that really mean something. It is not 'just as bad' and if you don't like to expand then you shouldn't be playing a 4X game!!
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2017 16:26
|
|
|
TjyvTompa posted:This reasoning is just asinine. Was the Soviet Union supposed to stop at the border to Germany in WWII? Sometimes the enemy declares a total war against you and the only way to defend yourself is to wipe them out. War hasn't been a part of this game for so long that people forget in Civ 4 when Monty or Isabella would invade, sometimes they wouldn't take peace until you crippled their war production, which meant taking cities from them. Otherwise they would continue to churn out units and continue to attack you. homullus posted:I know, right? Children, that's why the so much of what used to be Germany is now part of former Soviet countries. And why Kaliningrad is still Russian.
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2017 16:31
|
|
|
homullus posted:I know, right? Children, that's why the so much of what used to be Germany is now part of former Soviet countries. I'm not sure who taught you history, but Russia was taking and holding cities from Germany. Duh? I mean FFS East Germany/Berlin is basically your idealized Puppet City. You could not have picked a goddamn better example of someone poking the bear and getting mauled/puppeted. /slow clap
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2017 16:33
|
|
|
Some hot takes: - make warmonger penalties reduced for the attacked civ - make warmonger penalties take in consideration the relationship between civs (so a civ wont hate you for a striking at its enemies) - make warmonger penalties fade faster
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2017 16:36
|
|
|
Borsche69 posted:It is not 'just as bad' and if you don't like to expand then you shouldn't be playing a 4X game!! There's a reason why "Building tall" and "building wide" are phrases.
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2017 16:40
|
|
|
Well there's room for tall development vs wide development. Civ VI is really the first game in the series where I don't think you can't actually build every district/building in every city eventually. That leads to gameplay where wide development is better- you need a bunch of cities to diversify your resource (culture/religion/etc) generation. I think generally wide is best or at least default. V went for tall preference, but that's mostly because of the insane penalties for expansion. Tall is also problematic in a 4x game where you are taking over cities as part of war. Ideally, tall development should have the intrinsic advantage of multipliers at the highest levels- think the production of one NYC vs several Des Moines'. In other words, tall development should be attractive because of built in advantages that are comparable to the advantages of building wide, so that both methods are ideally balanced.
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2017 16:42
|
|
|
Serephina posted:I'm not sure who taught you history, but Russia was taking and holding cities from Germany. Duh? I mean FFS East Germany/Berlin is basically your idealized Puppet City. You could not have picked a goddamn better example of someone poking the bear and getting mauled/puppeted. Borsche69 posted:And why Kaliningrad is still Russian. I get that you both think you're making an amazing point. Do you think the equivalent of Russia maintaining the Kaliningrad Oblast is what players are clamoring for in their righteous wars of civ vengeance? People aren't asking to have puppet states in civ; they aren't asking for tiny increases in territory. In fact, what they want is this: Serephina posted:There's a lot of talk about just turning the other cheek when someone wardecs and comes for your cities. Human players obviously don't like that, we get vindictive. Same with any scenario, board games, 'game theory', real life. Even laws recognize it; if a man mugs you with a knife but you had a gun, nobody's sympathetic to the assailant's new gunshot wound. Tit for tat, turnabout is fair play, call it what you want but it's well known, and we have people in this thread saying that when the AI goes out of it's way to attempt to push your face in and take your cities, they suggest that you don't retaliate? Because that would be evil and wrong? Weather or not it's actually possible to roleplay as a saint is not in question, but rather if it's fun for a video game to demand that you take a slap and smile. The AI and it's diplomacy is an unmitigated buggy mess, and it's not unreasonable to expect the devs to implement reasonable warmonger mechanics. Casus Belli for a normal person would be along the lines of: You pillage my city, I take yours. You take my city, I take your capital. You killed my father? Prepare to die. The AI, just for being poo poo at it's own game, does not get a free pass to make unlimited attempts at your cities with no more retaliation than trade routes and a few tiles being pillaged.
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2017 17:03
|
|
|
Taear posted:There's a reason why "Building tall" and "building wide" are phrases. There really shouldn't be. You should be trying to do both at all times. Those phrases didn't even exist until Civ 5.
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2017 17:16
|
|
|
homullus posted:I get that you both think you're making an amazing point. Do you think the equivalent of Russia maintaining the Kaliningrad Oblast is what players are clamoring for in their righteous wars of civ vengeance? People aren't asking to have puppet states in civ; they aren't asking for tiny increases in territory. In fact, what they want is this: Yeah? And? China took over Tibet unprovoked and outside of the protests then, none of the nations cared and now no one does. Outside of real world examples, playing that way is just more fun.
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2017 17:24
|
|
|
Borsche69 posted:Yeah? And? China took over Tibet unprovoked and outside of the protests then, none of the nations cared and now no one does. Outside of real world examples, playing that way is just more fun. And ... the game should allow you to set which way you'd rather play?
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2017 17:26
|
|
|
Eric the Mauve posted:Back to realtalk for a second, there are many nits to pick (oh gods, so many) with the execution, but Firaxis had the right idea with Civ 5 and its sequel. They made a deliberate decision to make a new and different kind of game, one that focuses on peaceful building rather than aggressive expansion, rather than to try to improve upon Civ 4. The new game was branded as a sequel to Civ 4 for marketing reasons, but it isn't a sequel to Civ 4 in any meaningful sense. It's a different kind of game and it turns out it reached a large player base of people who prefer peaceful building over aggressive expansion. This is pretty accurate. Yeah, Civ 5 and Civ 6 are not really 4x games they're some weird build your empire games and the AI will do elaborate & animated roleplay that it wants to smash it all and conquer the world but it really doesn't (and it really can't) and on the highest difficulty they put in a secret timer that you have to beat or you lose. And given Civ 5 -> BE -> Civ 6 don't expect anything else from Firaxis 
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2017 17:42
|
|
|
So how bout that patch
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2017 17:52
|
|
|
Borsche69 posted:If I wanted a game that punished me for expanding, I'd go back to playing Civ 5. But that game is a turd and not being able to expand in a 4X game makes the entire experience hollow. There are a lot of Civs in civ6 that cheer you when you take some cities, whats your point?
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2017 17:53
|
|
|
Taear posted:There's a reason why "Building tall" and "building wide" are phrases. Sullla says this a billion times better than I can so... quote:The problem with global happiness is that it's not balanceable as a mechanic for limiting expansion. If the restrictions are too loose, then the gameplay quickly turns into the situation in the release version, where endless expansion is the best strategy. The happiness mechanic just isn't strong enough to prevent the nonstop city sprawl. If the screws are on too tight, however, then we wind up with the current situation in Brave New World. We get a game where expansion serves little purpose, competition over land is almost nonexistant, and turtling on a small handful of cities proves to be the best strategy. Vast expanses of the map wind up going completely unclaimed in game after game. It's bizarre to see fertile grassland regions untouched by anyone in 1950 AD! There isn't even a reason to go to war, since any captured cities will often LOWER your science output. In a game where competition over scarce land and resources is supposed to be the driving force behind the gameplay, this is a solution where the cure is worse than the disease. Brave New World's approach to global happiness is no better than the one in the release version of Civ5. I don't see any way that this can ever be balanced properly. The gameplay will always tilt towards infinite city sprawl or a tiny handful of cities, depending on where the designers set the numbers. Neither one works.
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2017 17:59
|
|
|
homullus posted:And ... the game should allow you to set which way you'd rather play? That's not really what the argument is here. Nations are unfairly piling on a civ for warmongering, which they do for the entirety of a game, for no good reason. If you fight a defensive war and you take a city, or cripple them into obscurity, the only nations that should care are the ones allied to it, or the ones wary of your power. The rest of them shouldn't care and your allies should remained allied to you. "Just don't take a city" isn't a valid argument when you're fighting a defensive war.
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2017 18:03
|
|
|
Chucat posted:Sullla says this a billion times better than I can so... The bizzare part of 'wide' vs. 'tall' is that 'wide' has some sort of weird assumption that it's 20 cities of like 5 pop each, while 'tall' is 5 cities of 20 pop each. But that's not what happens. 'Wide' empires would have like 5 cities of 20 pop, and then another 10 that are like 10 pop, and maybe another 5 that are 5 pop. You don't just stop growing your cities just because you're settling more land (okay well some might stop growing while building settlers but you know what I mean.) The other cities will continue to grow, and when you've stopped settling land you're gonna explode in population size compared to 'tall' empires.
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2017 18:08
|
|
|
Sullla is both cool and smart and has very insightful things to say about what's wrong with Civ 5 and 6. But it's worth remembering that he was an actual member of the Civ 4 dev team that mostly wasn't retained for 5 and is kind of the honorary president of the Civ 4 Is The One Perfect Video Game club (to the point that, like his fellow zealots, he argues the expansions to Civ 4 made the game worse). You should read his stuff because he's very articulate and on point with his criticisms of Civ 5 (and by extension, 6) but they basically boil down to "this is not how a 4X strategy game should work!" And he's right to the extent that they're not 4X strategy games, and Firaxis never really tried to pretend they were.
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2017 18:59
|
|
|
While I think both games are roughly as good as each other, I think in the end I prefer 5, since the optimal way to play it (small empire) is more fun to me. Honestly, I think the main point of the warmonger penalties in 6 is that there has to be some form of negative to taking cities. Gaining a city, or even several cities, just by building some military and attacking the AI is an incredible boon, and something has to counterbalance that.
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2017 19:23
|
|
|
Eric the Mauve posted:Sullla is both cool and smart and has very insightful things to say about what's wrong with Civ 5 and 6. But it's worth remembering that he was an actual member of the Civ 4 dev team that mostly wasn't retained for 5 and is kind of the honorary president of the Civ 4 Is The One Perfect Video Game club (to the point that, like his fellow zealots, he argues the expansions to Civ 4 made the game worse). He wasn't part of the dev team. He did QA testing. But he also did that for Civ3 Conquests which he completely hated.
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2017 19:38
|
|
|
Borsche69 posted:That's not really what the argument is here. Nations are unfairly piling on a civ for warmongering, which they do for the entirety of a game, for no good reason. If you fight a defensive war and you take a city, or cripple them into obscurity, the only nations that should care are the ones allied to it, or the ones wary of your power. The rest of them shouldn't care and your allies should remained allied to you. "Just don't take a city" isn't a valid argument when you're fighting a defensive war. The "good reason" is that it's an obstacle to a conquest victory, or should be, just as competing religions and cultures and space races are obstacles to other victories. "Nobody cares when you genocide another civilization" is bad optics and bad balancing for conquest victories.
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2017 20:17
|
|
|
homullus posted:The "good reason" is that it's an obstacle to a conquest victory, or should be Is not a very good one. If you are going for a conquest victory, you dont give a poo poo about warmonger penalties. Everyone will eventually hate you anyway
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2017 20:28
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 15, 2024 02:45 |
|
|
Chucat posted:Sullla says this a billion times better than I can so... The thing is there's a difference between "spreading your empire wide is the best tactic and if you're playing multiplayer you should do it because everyone else is" and "spreading your empire wide is the only tactic and if you don't do it your empire will be poo poo regardless of it's single player or multiplayer.". Civ 6 falls into the latter. Like in Stellaris the most efficient thing until recently was naked corvette spam and loads and loads of habitats. But you can easily play without doing that. I don't feel like I can play Civ6 as "tall" or I'm massively behind the AI in research and I'm stressing about getting more lovely cities out there. Civ4 may have fitted the former but I always played tall and was fine with it against the AI as well as the map always looking really good at the end instead of a bitty poo poo mess like Civ5 and 6. Taear fucked around with this message at 20:42 on Oct 13, 2017 |
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2017 20:40
|
|