|
homullus posted: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. Here's me thinking about this for 5 seconds. Every time you kill a Civ (or are responsible for killing like 80% of it) you get a -1 or -2 malus on your diplomacy with all other Civs that lasts for the whole game, so the more Civs you kill, the more remaining Civs hate/fear you.
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2017 20:44
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 29, 2024 03:16 |
|
|
Chucat posted:Every time you kill a Civ (or are responsible for killing like 80% of it) you get a -1 or -2 malus on your diplomacy with all other Civs that lasts for the whole game, so the more Civs you kill, the more remaining Civs hate/fear you. the problem is that even a crippled civ will continue to plague you if it isn't eliminated. they'll keep producing religious units to root yours out, stealing your tech, flipping your city states, negotiating deals against you, defying your resolutions, proposing policies to impede you in the UN... this all goes away the second you raze their last city, though.
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2017 20:51
|
|
|
The White Dragon posted:the problem is that even a crippled civ will continue to plague you if it isn't eliminated. they'll keep producing religious units to root yours out, stealing your tech, flipping your city states, negotiating deals against you, defying your resolutions, proposing policies to impede you in the UN... this all goes away the second you raze their last city, though. Most of what you listed consists of systems added to Civ 5 that shouldn't have been. Religious units (they were in Civ 4 but were not hostile units nor had counter-units before Civ 5), city states, a UN that gives everyone equal votes regardless of population: bad ideas all of them.
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2017 20:57
|
|
|
Elias_Maluco posted: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 If you're going for a domination victory, you'd still like to be able to trade with the civs you're not currently in the process of killing if you could.
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2017 20:58
|
|
|
Eric the Mauve posted:Most of what you listed consists of systems added to Civ 5 that shouldn't have been. true enough, i feel no compulsion to completely eliminate anyone in civ in 4 unless it's like the extremely early stone age and to take their three size-2 cities is to remove them from the game
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2017 21:02
|
|
|
Mymla posted:If you're going for a domination victory, you'd still like to be able to trade with the civs you're not currently in the process of killing if you could. No I dont
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2017 21:04
|
|
|
The White Dragon posted:true enough, i feel no compulsion to completely eliminate anyone in civ in 4 unless it's like the extremely early stone age and to take their three size-2 cities is to remove them from the game I either eliminate or just force capitulation depending on how tedious it is to kill them once I can force out a capitulation.
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2017 21:35
|
|
|
homullus posted: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. Countless nations have been absorbed and destroyed through history and no one gives a poo poo. 'Bad optics' is retarded. And the balance for conquest victories should an AI that can actually fight back.
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2017 23:47
|
|
|
Taear posted: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.". Lower the difficulty then.
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2017 23:48
|
|
|
A) historical accuracy in civ is dumb as gently caress B) playing tall and peaceful is less micro than wide and/or warlike, which is part of the reason ppl like it imo. If war sucked less and managing cities was easier it'd be more popular
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2017 00:48
|
|
|
For a game that you all appearantly hate, you sure can't seem to shut the gently caress up about it.
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2017 01:23
|
|
|
Chucat posted:I either eliminate or just force capitulation depending on how tedious it is to kill them once I can force out a capitulation. i love capitulation, it's a minor hit to your gpt but it gives +1  in all cities!
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2017 01:38
|
|
|
The problem I've generally had with "wide" expansion in the past is that it can skew towards infinite city sprawl where the point is just to put as many cities as possible as close together as possible, with no regard to terrain or strategy. To VI's credit, I think the district and luxury systems help prevent this. There are sometimes situations when you're forced into going tall- stronger neighbors or terrain limitations. The former isn't such an issue since the ai is so brain dead, but if you're trying for a peaceful victory condition it doesn't help to have to switch to producing armies, even if it makes for an interesting game decision.
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2017 03:01
|
|
|
Borsche69 posted:Countless nations have been absorbed and destroyed through history and no one gives a poo poo. 'Bad optics' is retarded. And the balance for conquest victories should an AI that can actually fight back. I think you haven't thought this through. Why do you think they don't have Stalin as a leader of Russia anymore, or Hitler of Germany, even as AI opponents, if not that it is (and therefore would appear) incredibly insensitive to massive amounts of human suffering due to genocide? Also, the reward for proceeding toward a conquest victory is a larger nation, with greater scientific and industrial output. Tell me, internet person who still thinks it's a good idea to use the word "retarded," does having a larger nation make it harder or easier to conquer the next nation?
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2017 03:14
|
|
|
To preserve the unity in this thread, I'd like to draw everyone's attention that the civ facebook page just upladed a map that slowly zooms in on Indonesia (and leaves Thailand and so the rest of Indochina in the frame) with "come back tomorrow for more!" so I assume we've hit the marketing cycle for the next patch and the to be revealed civilization will be Indonesian or, if the framing of the video was deliberate, Khmer.
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2017 08:49
|
|
|
FreeMars posted:For a game that you all appearantly hate, you sure can't seem to shut the gently caress up about it. A bloo bloo people are discussing things on this discussion forum! There's nothing like Civ. And I hope that changes in the future, like we discussed earlier in the thread.
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2017 08:54
|
|
|
Deltasquid posted:To preserve the unity in this thread, I'd like to draw everyone's attention that the civ facebook page just upladed a map that slowly zooms in on Indonesia (and leaves Thailand and so the rest of Indochina in the frame) with "come back tomorrow for more!" so I assume we've hit the marketing cycle for the next patch and the to be revealed civilization will be Indonesian or, if the framing of the video was deliberate, Khmer. It is Indonesia and Khmer. Civfantics found actual audio files of of Sean Bean reading their intros.
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2017 09:01
|
|
|
The Human Crouton posted:It is Indonesia and Khmer. Civfantics found actual audio files of of Sean Bean reading their intros. Amazing. If the patch removes the most glaring bugs then I might just rev this game up again.
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2017 09:05
|
|
|
The White Dragon posted:i love capitulation, it's a minor hit to your gpt but it gives +1 Yeah it's just the choice between "Happiness bonus, knocking someone out for a Conquest victory quicker than the slog." vs "I want any and all resources they have or might have and I can also manage their cities better." Whoa, a meaningful choice. homullus posted:I think you haven't thought this through. Why do you think they don't have Stalin as a leader of Russia anymore, or Hitler of Germany, even as AI opponents, if not that it is (and therefore would appear) incredibly insensitive to massive amounts of human suffering due to genocide? Alexander, Qin, and Trajan, lords of the bloodless victory, never conquered a city in their life. This isn't even getting into including the British Empire.
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2017 09:09
|
|
|
Chucat posted:Alexander, Qin, and Trajan, lords of the bloodless victory, never conquered a city in their life. The first three lived millennia ago. The British Empire is still reviled in some places. I don't think these are good comparisons, or maybe you're saying the warmonger system is working as intended because it took 300 turns for us to get over them?
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2017 09:19
|
|
|
Eric the Mauve posted:Religious units (they were in Civ 4 but were not hostile units)
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2017 11:34
|
|
|
I don't mind the warmonger penalties but I hate the way that they make the AI behave. Let me give you an example from my recent game. I'm comfortably in first place, slightly pre-Gunpowder. I haven't been at war with anyone but I'm fairly militarily potent because Carthage is in the game and I like free money. Spain, because of whatever random AI directive needs to always make Spain as obnoxious as possible, declares war on me and I respond brutally crushing their cities and wiping them from the map. I am a warmonger; I'm fine with that. Shortly after that war ends, Germany (4th place and separated from me by an ocean) and Australia (shares a border with me, nearly in last place) announce that I am an aggressive warmonger and that for the good of the world I must be stopped. What possible motivation is there for Australia to make that decision? I can understand hating me forever. I can understand rejecting any and all diplomatic advances I make towards them. I can understand bombarding me with spies, missionaries and every other form of 'officially' non-aggressive annoyance they can muster. I can understand making sure that any trades with me in the future must be heavily weighted in Australia's favor. I can't understand in what universe it makes sense for them to declare preemptive military assault against a far superior foe who they have just watched pay back that kind of behavior by destroying an entire civilization when they are in no position for success. They have an ally but that ally is in no way able to support them or protect them and they don't have a massive military build up for defense of their own cities.
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2017 14:25
|
|
|
jBrereton posted:I can assure you that the Apostolic Palace victory made them hostile units. Oh, right. It's just that like every veteran Civ4 player I've been playing with religious victory turned off for so long I forgot it exists. So, y'know, the Civ4 designers did make some mistakes!
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2017 14:54
|
|
|
NorgLyle posted:I don't mind the warmonger penalties but I hate the way that they make the AI behave. Let me give you an example from my recent game. yes, it is so confusing, why would anybody make a last-ditch effort to rid the world of a genocidal maniac, in what universe does that make sense edit: definitely the smarter move to wait your turn to be steamrolled when he's good & ready, and/or appease the maniac for peace in our time
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2017 15:17
|
|
|
homullus posted:yes, it is so confusing, why would anybody make a last-ditch effort to rid the world of a genocidal maniac, in what universe does that make sense There's always someone painfully explaining what the game is trying to model while someone else is explaining why it's a garbage implementation / that's not working for them. People get what Civ 5 and 6 are modeling. It's a failed attempt at doing it and it undermines the game in the process. That big long post you replied to was an explanation of why that mechanic of how these two countries are supposedly banding together to fight, but not really, just role playing hating him but not actually stopping him in any useful way and declaring a useless war without building up troops, is entirely a waste of time.
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2017 15:23
|
|
|
Ham Sandwiches posted:That big long post you replied to was an explanation of why that mechanic of how these two countries are supposedly banding together to fight, but not really, just role playing hating him but not actually stopping him in any useful way and declaring a useless war without building up troops, is entirely a waste of time. This is not a problem with the warmonger mechanics, which is what this particular batch of complaining is about. Without a toggle saying "I am definitely going for a conquest victory," the computer is unable to tell the difference between a player going for that win and a player simply engaged in the common player behavior "righteous genocide," since both involve the complete destruction of another civ. Again, since conquering a civ--taking over its cities and production and resources--gives a greater net advantage in conquest (net advantage includes the larger territory to defend), waiting to declare war on a warmonger only gives the warmonger more time to repair and replace and upgrade their units. Have you never switched from peacetime production to wartime, to fend off a sudden assault? It's not unreasonable for an AI to think it can do that. The big long post I quoted was taking the untenable position that the AI reaction makes no sense in any universe (it does, even to a child) in addition to claiming it was a waste of time for the AIs (and it was, since the AIs are dumb). The problem is not with the warmonger mechanics, as causing nations to band together against the player is the only valid check on a snowballing, apparently-genocidal empire. The problem is that the AI does not mount a credible offense or defense; if it were able to do so, then which AI civs were warlike, what their tech is like, and who at least sort of likes you would matter much more within the warmonger mechanics.
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2017 15:55
|
|
|
The real annoying thing is that the devs won't ever release an API for the old games, so making super-awesome mods that could potentially fix some of these issues will never be a thing.
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2017 15:58
|
|
|
Trivia posted:The real annoying thing is that the devs won't ever release an API for the old games, so making super-awesome mods that could potentially fix some of these issues will never be a thing. They don't want you playing the old games, they want you buying the new games
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2017 16:05
|
|
|
Didn't they release part of the Civ4 source code? A bunch of mods use recompiled .dlls.
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2017 16:09
|
|
|
Yeah but even then they won't let modders have free reign on the new game. It's really frustrating.
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2017 16:46
|
|
|
A Civ IV HD rerelease with Steam Workshop would be insanely good. It pains me that this does not exist already. Also save Kael from Stardock and put him to work on Fall from Heaven III ty
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2017 16:50
|
|
|
homullus posted:The big long post I quoted was taking the untenable position that the AI reaction makes no sense in any universe (it does, even to a child) in addition to claiming it was a waste of time for the AIs (and it was, since the AIs are dumb). The problem is not with the warmonger mechanics, as causing nations to band together against the player is the only valid check on a snowballing, apparently-genocidal empire. The problem is that the AI does not mount a credible offense or defense; if it were able to do so, then which AI civs were warlike, what their tech is like, and who at least sort of likes you would matter much more within the warmonger mechanics. Even assuming that the player is literal Hitler, declaring war against him when he has so far paid you no attention at all may make some sense but doing so when you have no actual ability to wage the declared war is... baffling. What possible benefit is there to poking the lion with a stick?
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2017 20:38
|
|
|
NorgLyle posted:Nah. He already answered this question in the post you quoted. And in your own example, "literally Hitler" was defeated by nations that banded together to defeat his empire, even though he hadn't yet conquered some of them! Imagine that!
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2017 22:40
|
|
|
theres a will theres moe posted:He already answered this question in the post you quoted. So like no matter how many real world analogues we try to find, like "Hey why don't countries that don't recognize Israel just declare permanent war on them like they would in Civ despite it meaning they would get conquered, oh wait, because that's dumb", the reality is that within a game about expanding and exploiting, having a computer roleplaying a peaceful city building game and getting super, super mad that you are doing anything but generally goes against the theme of the game. Like Civ 4, a game modeling the same scenario as Civ 5, managed to do it without warmonger penalties. So no, warmonger penalties are not an innate thing to civ, and they're not required by historical ~verisimilitude~ they were a gameplay element added to Civ 5 because of the heavy roleplay theme that game has. It may be a roleplaying you like, or it may be that you find it appealing. Congratulations, that's the target audience they were going for. For other people though, these interactions are jarring and shallow, and no matter how many real world examples you give or why you feel it makes sense, other people will always be underwhelming to have an AI that simply hates you for playing the game since that undercuts diplomacy.
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2017 22:45
|
|
|
Ham Sandwiches posted:So like no matter how many real world analogues we try to find, like "Hey why don't countries that don't recognize Israel just declare permanent war on them like they would in Civ despite it meaning they would get conquered, oh wait, because that's dumb", the reality is that within a game about expanding and exploiting, having a computer roleplaying a peaceful city building game and getting super, super mad that you are doing anything but generally goes against the theme of the game. Like Civ 4, a game modeling the same scenario as Civ 5, managed to do it without warmonger penalties. I agree that the system isn't perfect, or maybe not even good. I just thought it was retarded to frame the response as 'why should an AI have any strategic perspective or try to fight for its own existence or its interests when it would probably lose'
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2017 22:49
|
|
|
theres a will theres moe posted:I agree that the system isn't perfect, or maybe not even good. I just thought it was retarded to frame the response as 'why should an AI have any strategic perspective or try to fight for its own existence or its interests when it would probably lose' No I get that. But the complaints against it are in the form of "Why is this really simplified, super jarring, really elaborate system of *Animated enemy leader contacts you, pouting and huffing, calling you an rear end in a top hat for playing the game and declares war* in there when it seems to kneecap diplomacy and expansion and is also really weird and somewhat cartoonish?" And it was something new added to Civ 5 and has sort of become a permanent fixture, sure wouldn't mind if emo roleplaying civ leaders was absolutely not a feature of Civ 7 . Why are they contacting me? I don't need to hear the computer's opinion on my gameplay, ever. It's a glorified chatbot keeping me from the game. Ham Sandwiches fucked around with this message at 22:54 on Oct 14, 2017 |
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2017 22:51
|
|
|
Ham Sandwiches posted:No I get that. But the complaints against it are in the form of "Why is this really simplified, super jarring, really elaborate system of *Animated enemy leader contacts you, pouting and huffing, calling you an rear end in a top hat and declares war*" in the game when it seems to kneecap diplomacy and expansion and is also really weird and somewhat cartoonish?" I agree. I remember when I came across some analysis of AI behavior in 5 that revealed facts like "if you break a promise to stop settling near an AI, that AI is 100% likely to declare later in the game" and of course the AI never tells you that is the reason why they're declaring. The only thing that lent the diplomacy system any credibility was that there was a whole book of rules never shown to the player. It gave the dev plausible deniability about the shittiness of the system. "How should it work?" is a really tough question, imo
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2017 22:59
|
|
|
theres a will theres moe posted:I agree. I remember when I came across some analysis of AI behavior in 5 that revealed facts like "if you break a promise to stop settling near an AI, that AI is 100% likely to declare later in the game" and of course the AI never tells you that is the reason why they're declaring. Yeah in general Firaxis seems to have spent a lot of time the past few years working on presentation and stuff but in an odd way. I'm not sure that the Civ 6 expansion will hugely redo things, but I'd like to see them announce either a BE style spinoff or a mainline sequel down the road that takes a fresh look at some of these mechanics. They seem to spend so much time picking and modeling/animating leaders and I'd say have become utterly stuck in a rut about it. Like the leader announcements for Civ 6 were major coverage, and turns out the game is absolutely boring with the super moody AI they shipped.
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2017 23:02
|
|
|
Ham Sandwiches posted:Like Civ 4, a game modeling the same scenario as Civ 5, managed to do it without warmonger penalties. civ 4 kind of had warmonger penalties, but they were basically no larger than positive diplo modifiers you got from trade. they also decayed at a certain and visible rate. civ 5-6's positive modifers cap out at like 100 for really strong ones like DoF, but the warmonger penalty goes up to the loving thousands  it's extremely stupid and completely imbalanced.the other huge problem is denouncing. the AI is roughly arbitrary in its denouncement behavior, but it creates a negative modifier feedback loop. HOWEVER, if the AI forgets to denounce you after their old one expires, they stop ignoring the positive modifiers and there's a huge chance that they will never do so again because they get relief from the infinite  loop denouncing creates.
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2017 23:08
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 29, 2024 03:16 |
|
|
The White Dragon posted:civ 4 kind of had warmonger penalties, but they were basically no larger than positive diplo modifiers you got from trade. they also decayed at a certain and visible rate. civ 5-6's positive modifers cap out at like 100 for really strong ones like DoF, but the warmonger penalty goes up to the loving thousands Yeah but in this case that's not buggy behavior in Civ 5 and 6, it's working as intended. You're not supposed to go to war with anyone unless you're prepared to go to war with everyone.
|
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2017 03:30
|
|