|
JeremoudCorbynejad posted:Not sure how I'd apply this to flipping cities, mind ES2 allows you to culture buy an opponent's system (city) by spending influence. The more turns spent within your own sphere of influence, the cheaper the influence cost. It could work something like that. Prohibitively expensive at first, but progressively cheaper over time.
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2017 19:09
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 7, 2024 16:16 |
|
|
Maybe 1UPT could work with some little improvments: - option to combine x units into one (x varying depending on the unit type. Like 4 spearmen can combine, but only 2 tanks etc) - ranged as attachable units that provide some bonuses - artillery as it is now, its ok - a lot more movement points for every unit - no embarkment, bring back transport ships - n civil units can occupy the same tile (but cant work then at the same time)
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2017 19:13
|
|
|
I liked the idea of culture flipping but the reality was that the only cities that ever flipped were the lovely fringe ones that you probably would have burnt to the ground if you had conquered it but now you're stuck with a city that is mostly surrounded by enemy territory and you can't even burn it to the ground. Maybe they should have a cultural warfare layer where you get units that...
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2017 19:19
|
|
|
GrandpaPants posted:I liked the idea of culture flipping but the reality was that the only cities that ever flipped were the lovely fringe ones that you probably would have burnt to the ground if you had conquered it but now you're stuck with a city that is mostly surrounded by enemy territory and you can't even burn it to the ground. ...act like great artists and you can culture bomb cities to flip them and then you go into the heart of some country and culture bomb their military production city...
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2017 19:20
|
|
|
Fhqwhgads posted:ES2 allows you to culture buy an opponent's system (city) by spending influence. The more turns spent within your own sphere of influence, the cheaper the influence cost. It could work something like that. Prohibitively expensive at first, but progressively cheaper over time. That could work. Or maybe a player could spend culture on protecting a city, increasing its flip cost, so cities only flip when someone's really serious about it. I guess some might decry the fiddliness, but Civ 4 culture was too simple a system for me. I really really like what BNW came up with (UI not withstanding)
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2017 19:20
|
|
|
JeremoudCorbynejad posted:I'd like to see culture flipping but done in a more active, aggressive way. I'd like it if, for example, you could spend the culture accumulated by a city on buying tiles for that city, including those of your opponent, the price being weighted accordingly (distance from respective cities, resource tiles etc) and going up every time a tile flips. No war dec needed, just buy your opponent's horse pasture with culture and bask in smugness  I'm normally a pretty peaceful player, but so many AI civilizations would die for sniping my resources away.
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2017 19:45
|
|
|
Fhqwhgads posted:I've always loved culture flipping. I never really liked waging war but loved winning hearts and minds. I'd love to see tile and city flipping based on culture output again. this but you know they'd make the AI furious at you for flipping a culture tile or a city, just because
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2017 19:55
|
|
|
Relationship: -24 you built a theatre. you rear end in a top hat.
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2017 20:03
|
|
|
Is the joke that people are describing the religion mechanics they claim to hate but calling them "culture"?
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2017 20:32
|
|
|
It was nice in Civ IV that culture *did* something on the actual world map. I always thought it felt pretty empowering, not just culture flipping a city but also when you push back their borders and manage to gain control of a resource. It was nice because it felt like you were exerting power over other civilizations without going into warfare. Spreading your influence. It *felt* great to do. I also think the culture stuff worked well in regards with warfare. It did give stronger defense to cities, and it also made it so that taking certain cities would be something to consider because even if you took them, the culture of the civilization that the city belonged to could "choke" the city. Again, I think it just felt right. Not sure how something like that would work in Civ VI but it would be nice to have some countermeasure to those silly forward-settled cities except just declaring war and taking them. And it would be nice that tourism had some sort of gameplay mechanic attached to it. Again, exerting control over other civilizations in some way that you could use (or have the AI use against you). Tourism should be of mechanical use even if you're not going for the culture victory.
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2017 21:28
|
|
|
Before that they should do something about there being unclaimed land well into the industrial era. That bothers me way more than absence of culture flipping.
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2017 23:18
|
|
|
Trivia posted:Before that they should do something about there being unclaimed land well into the industrial era. That bothers me way more than absence of culture flipping. That's the inevitable result of designing the game such that you can win with only a few cities, though. In Civ 1 through 4 both you and the AI expanded until there was no land left and then went to war to get more land because smaller = weaker. Like even with Civ 4 culture victory (3 cities with 50,000 culture) it seems like in theory you could win that by "building tall" and maybe in some specific circumstances you could--but in practice it was very hard to pull off because if you didn't expand to at least 6 or 8 cities you would quickly fall sufficiently behind on science and production that you'd get conquered, plus several notable national wonders became unavailable to you. In original Civ 5 you COULD expand near endlessly if you knew how to manage happiness, but you didn't really need to; Tradition/4 cities was enough to win any kind of victory (in large part because the AI's total inability to handle 1UPT and ranged units meant you didn't need extra cities cranking out units for you). And then with (IIRC) the BNW patch it was changed so that you were actively punished for expanding past 4 cities. Civ 6 went back to not actively punishing you for expanding (thank the gods) but there's still no NEED to expand to win. Hence, empty space. 5-6 are just different games from 1-4. As I've said before Civ 4 was pretty drat close to perfection of the genre, so I'm okay with 5-6 being a different, kind of cousin genre. It could sure be executed a lot better than this, though. e: The difference in qualifications to build National Wonders from Civ 4 to Civ 5 is instructive, actually: Civ 4 was "you need this building in at least 6 cities" (I think it varied by map size), so you had to expand to at least that number of cities, and probably more. Whereas Civ 5 changed it to "you need this building in ALL your cities," meaning building more cities is making it harder to make those wonders available. e2: Another way to describe the fundamental difference between the games is to say that in Civ 1-4, you CAN play tall but the game's designed to be played wide, whereas in Civ 5-6 you CAN play wide but the game's designed to be played tall. Eric the Mauve fucked around with this message at 23:35 on Oct 31, 2017 |
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2017 23:32
|
|
|
Man, I'd love to try the warrior monks in Midsummer but I already got all my beliefs. drat.
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2017 15:43
|
|
|
i know it's a little off topic but i picked up GalCiv3 and the expansion and it's really a much more fun 4x than Civ is
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2017 16:27
|
|
|
I found GC3 to be real disappointing. Crusade helps a little but I still just find myself hitting next turn with no real sense of engagement until I quit.
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2017 16:33
|
|
|
the campaign mode helps a lot with that lacking sense of engagement fwiw
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2017 16:43
|
|
|
TBH I didn't even try it, I enjoyed the previous two galcivs but their campaigns were some of the worst written dross I have ever experienced. If it's decent in 3 I might need to take another look.
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2017 21:57
|
|
|
I didn't enjoy galciv3. Not sure why, 2 grabbed me pretty well but I wasn't feeling it. I started a game with the new patch and there's some improvements. I'm really of the opinion that it should be easier to discern a leader's second diplomatic trait earlier in the game, though.
|
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2017 03:51
|
|
|
The very concept of a campaign mode in a 4x game is vaguely offensive to me. I've played galciv3 for a few hours, but it just isn't grabbing me. A few neat ideas though. I usually end up wanting to go play actual civ.
|
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2017 04:28
|
|
|
Space orcs vs space paladins is the lamest poo poo imaginable.
|
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2017 08:35
|
|
|
Ratios and Tendency posted:Space orcs vs space paladins is the lamest poo poo imaginable. what's that got to do with the price of tea in china
|
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2017 15:59
|
|
|
So I've rummaged through this thread.. has a second patch come out? Is the game sorta playable now? I really like the Civ series, especially Civ V, but VI was so bad it was nearly unplayable when I bought it, and I didn't go back. Is it worth a try? Or is it just endless defending against barbarians and making clones of each city with the bullshit district system until X goal is achieved?
|
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2017 16:36
|
|
|
The answers to your questions are, respectively, yes and no. The district system is just about the only thing in Civ 6 that has found general approval from players, so if you hate districts then you should just stick to playing 5.
|
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2017 17:51
|
|
|
John F Bennett posted:Those are all some great suggestions regarding religion. I'm still baffled about the direction Firaxis has taken. spore had the little blue tanks that shot religion beams
|
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2017 21:04
|
|
|
du -hast posted:So I've rummaged through this thread.. has a second patch come out? Is the game sorta playable now? I really like the Civ series, especially Civ V, but VI was so bad it was nearly unplayable when I bought it, and I didn't go back. if you really like civ 5, do what i do every few weeks, which is reinstall civ 5
|
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2017 21:21
|
|
|
Efexeye posted:what's that got to do with the price of tea in china GalCiv.
|
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2017 22:36
|
|
|
Ratios and Tendency posted:GalCiv. they don't really play that up. it's shockingly close to Civ with a different flavor
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2017 04:19
|
|
|
Eric the Mauve posted:That's the inevitable result of designing the game such that you can win with only a few cities, though. I played tall in Civ4 and the land was still all claimed. It's because in 4 the borders expanded out from your cities and just carried on growing for the most part. In 5 and 6 it became them expanding tile by tile and that's what makes the map so loving empty.
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2017 11:43
|
|
|
It's kinda silly how long colonising empty land takes for humanity in general in Civ games. Alexander didn't gain his empire through peacefully sending Macedonian settlers out into Persia - basically anywhere that's suitable for humans to live in pretty much had someone living there from a very early time. In reality, travelling to an empty land with no humans in it was the preserve of prehistoric man and Victorian-era explorers finding remote islands, not something that continued from 4000 BC -> 2000 AD.
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2017 12:33
|
|
|
There definitely needs to be some sort of acceleration of settling in the ancient era to set the stage for a vicious tug-of-war of settled territories for the remaining eras, I think. Alternatively the game could make a "head start" and begin not with a settler, but with 2 or 3 settlements already present and a decent amount of land already captured in each city's territory. That might be too big a shift from Civ's formula though.
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2017 12:51
|
|
|
JeremoudCorbynejad posted:There definitely needs to be some sort of acceleration of settling in the ancient era to set the stage for a vicious tug-of-war of settled territories for the remaining eras, I think. To be fair, so were 1 unit per tile and districts.
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2017 13:54
|
|
|
JeremoudCorbynejad posted:There definitely needs to be some sort of acceleration of settling in the ancient era to set the stage for a vicious tug-of-war of settled territories for the remaining eras, I think. IMO: - Make culture claim tiles quicker so new cities aren't useless puddles of crap unless you dump gold on them - Allow us to choose which tile culture goes towards claiming (with varying costs depending on resources/features/improvements) - Make internal trade routes generate culture if going from a city making less to a city generating more - Drop down the per-city penalties on costs of things - Get rid of the "settlers remove 1 pop" thing - Allow direct culture contests over tiles between players - Have some techs that either start new cities with more pop, or greatly reduce growth time for any city that isn't one of your 3 largest, or something, to make later game settling viable and as ever, expand diplomacy. Specifically I want a Threaten button which tells the AI "I will go to war over this if you don't comply" when it comes to asking them not to settle near me or convert cities or whatever. Give it a warmonger reduction if they violate the request within however many turns. But then warmongering needs an overhaul too.
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2017 14:55
|
|
|
I don't really understand these changes, does ICS need to be stronger in 6? I feel like the game already leans too far in this direction since there's no penalty for filling every square inch of the world with shitties.
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2017 15:14
|
|
|
Mata posted:I don't really understand these changes, does ICS need to be stronger in 6? I feel like the game already leans too far in this direction since there's no penalty for filling every square inch of the world with shitties. I mean, the aim was to stop the vast gulfs of empty space on the map, so... yes? If people aren't expanding it's because they can't, don't need to, or it's an active detriment to them. Also catchup bonuses for new settlements would make more of the cities less lovely.
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2017 18:34
|
|
|
Founding a new city in an later era should be like when you use Advanced Start.
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2017 20:19
|
|
|
MarquiseMindfang posted:- Get rid of the "settlers remove 1 pop" thing civ 5 did this (6 too?), they just freeze pop growth now.
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2017 20:24
|
|
|
MarquiseMindfang posted:I mean, the aim was to stop the vast gulfs of empty space on the map, so... yes? If people aren't expanding it's because they can't, don't need to, or it's an active detriment to them. Civ4 managed to allow you to not expand because you couldn't be bothered but ALSO have the map get covered by borders. Again, it's because the border expands in a circle outwards instead of bit by bit.
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2017 21:22
|
|
|
Byzantine posted:Founding a new city in an later era should be like when you use Advanced Start. Yeah, the Vox Populi mod for Civ 5 did this by having there be more advanced versions of the Settler unit which gave you larger cities with more buildings initially constructed.
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2017 21:55
|
|
|
It was in by default in Call To Power 2 (no idea about the first game) as an urban planner you unlocked in the modern age.
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2017 22:01
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 7, 2024 16:16 |
|
|
Settlers are too expensive and I don't see any point in scaling costs either. The early game should be a land grab.
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2017 22:02
|
|