|
turboraton posted:I can also confirm this. I tried a clean steam install with the latest vox populi consolidated patch and it was missing a bunch of button and other textures 
|
#
?
Nov 9, 2017 20:31
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 16, 2024 02:02 |
|
|
Make sure to clear all other mods and try the Automatic Installer in this page: https://forums.civfanatics.com/threads/community-patch-how-to-install.528034/
|
|
#
?
Nov 9, 2017 20:34
|
|
|
Never tried vox populi because is windows only, no linux/mac version
|
|
#
?
Nov 9, 2017 21:34
|
|
|
Yup on the linux thing. Also that gui is a drat cluttered mess.
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2017 01:10
|
|
|
ate poo poo on live tv posted:It's so dumb. It's an idiotic monkey cheese system that there is literally no way to actually play organically except by creating a huge stack in your capital that you then use to conquer all the rebel city-states that branch off of your empire. It's useless non-engaging busy work. I get what you're saying and it's not the best thing if you're playing Civ games to win them. But it's great fun for roleplaying purposes. I don't think I've ever played a game with victory conditions turned on.
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2017 10:14
|
|
|
John F Bennett posted:I get what you're saying and it's not the best thing if you're playing Civ games to win them. But it's great fun for roleplaying purposes. That kind of thing better fits Paradox games like Crusader Kings II imo than Civ games. Civ games have always been about more down-to-earth 4X strategy where you manage each individual city and unit on the map rather than the more hands-off roleplay focus of grand strategy. To each their own though, certainly Civ games can probably be modded to be more GS-like. It's just not really what I play Civ games for.
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2017 16:18
|
|
|
Huh, never occurred to me to turn victory conditions OFF. I'm wondering how that would change the way I play.
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2017 18:33
|
|
|
Yeah as much as I like to see more "realism" in Civ, I still think it should stay largely true to its board-game nature with tiles, gamey mechanics and win conditions. I'd love a mechanic which sees empires split apart in secession movements and civil wars. But such an event would be a death blow with the way the game is currently balanced. The rage-quitting would be epidemic. A lot would have to change to make it viable, I think, and it would certainly have to be far from random.
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2017 18:41
|
|
|
JeremoudCorbynejad posted:I'd love a mechanic which sees empires split apart in secession movements and civil wars. But such an event would be a death blow with the way the game is currently balanced. The rage-quitting would be epidemic. i'd hate it because you just know they would implement it the same way they implemented vedic archer events in civ 4, or the way they do civil unrest in 6. because i just love it when an advanced barbarian unit spawns and captures a city ahead of me, or arbitrarily wipes out my army, because they immediately act when they spawn in this lovely game. oh and don't even get me started on the awful "we're under attack by barbarians/separatists/terrorists!" city state events
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2017 19:21
|
|
|
The game does need a secession/revolution mechanic. A little over halfway through the game, you can already tell which three empires will stagnate the game. There needs to be some way to introduce some new powers mid-game.
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2017 19:58
|
|
|
The Human Crouton posted:The game does need a secession/revolution mechanic. A little over halfway through the game, you can already tell which three empires will stagnate the game. There needs to be some way to introduce some new powers mid-game. I would enjoy a game that had such a mechanism. I would want "culture" to be more than a single number for each civilization, though, to "explain" (i.e. allow players to partially predict and influence) these changes.
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2017 20:04
|
|
|
homullus posted:I would enjoy a game that had such a mechanism. I would want "culture" to be more than a single number for each civilization, though, to "explain" (i.e. allow players to partially predict and influence) these changes. I was thinking something similar. I'm imagining a culture mechanic somewhat like the ideology mechanic from V. Some kind of mechanic that wouldn't force players to quit right after a city secedes. Maybe that city has a similar culture to you, so that it is very likely to be a good ally or trading partner after the civil war as long as it didn't drag on to long. So you lose a city, but it's not catastrophic because you get a friend. Also, I'm thinking of things like artworks affecting culture similarity, and would give some kind of tangible in-game bonus. If Baltimore successfully secedes and becomes a new civ, they will still have all of this American artwork in their cities, which will increase their favor toward America. It would also be a fun game of manipulating other powers by giving them artwork to sway global politics.
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2017 21:05
|
|
|
The Human Crouton posted:So you lose a city, but it's not catastrophic because you get a friend. - you granted us our independence (+4) - WE WILL NEVER FORGIVE YOUR EVIL OPPRESSION (-6991725)
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2017 21:15
|
|
|
The White Dragon posted:- you granted us our independence (+4) Obviously, all of my suggestions depend on the game actually being fixed and reasonable, which will never happen.
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2017 21:25
|
|
|
The Human Crouton posted:The game does need a secession/revolution mechanic. A little over halfway through the game, you can already tell which three empires will stagnate the game. There needs to be some way to introduce some new powers mid-game. That's a thing with strategy games though, obviously 99% of the time you can tell who the big players are by the midgame because they've played their openings well and have built a solid base to start from, usually at the expense of others. It's the snowball effect and it's not necessarily a bad thing; here's why: if you decide to include mechanics to arbitrarily punish players who played well for the first 50 turns, then what the hell is the point of putting in the effort to build a stable, prosperous empire for those first 50 turns? If I deliberately play to stymie my greatest rival throughout the early game, then no, I don't want the game to randomly spawn in a tougher empire for me to deal with partway through. I should know who the threats are by looking at their positions and how they've played the game (provided, of course, I have made efforts to procure that information, via scouting/demographics/etc.). You can't just flip the game on its head halfway because you decide it needs to be shaken up without undermining something very core to the game.
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2017 21:58
|
|
|
Magil Zeal posted:That's a thing with strategy games though, obviously 99% of the time you can tell who the big players are by the midgame because they've played their openings well and have built a solid base to start from, usually at the expense of others. It's the snowball effect and it's not necessarily a bad thing; here's why: if you decide to include mechanics to arbitrarily punish players who played well for the first 50 turns, then what the hell is the point of putting in the effort to build a stable, prosperous empire for those first 50 turns? If I deliberately play to stymie my greatest rival throughout the early game, then no, I don't want the game to randomly spawn in a tougher empire for me to deal with partway through. I should know who the threats are by looking at their positions and how they've played the game (provided, of course, I have made efforts to procure that information, via scouting/demographics/etc.). Ok. Then end the game on turn 50. New players don't have to appear at random or be tougher, or even equal to the game leaders. They don't even really have to be in a winnable position. They just have to be in position to threaten and be able to change the dynamic between the three players who are able to win. Those three players all played the game well for the first 150 turns, and that is why we know one of those three players out of the original eight will win. But now they all have to sit for another 150 turns, barely doing anything, waiting to see who wins. Introducing a new element to the game does not only affect the game leader. It affects all of the game leaders. This still gives the leaders the best chance of winning, and from taking the win from one of the other leaders, but also opens up opportunities for remaining players to catch up. The Human Crouton fucked around with this message at 22:51 on Nov 10, 2017 |
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2017 22:12
|
|
|
The Human Crouton posted:Ok. Then end the game on turn 50. and this cuts toward the dichotomy of civ players, the strategy players who want optimal play to be rewarded with victory and the roleplayers/simulator seekers who want an organic tapestry to experience a grand narrative through. Civ2-4 allowed more successfully for both play styles. I've been disengaged with civ 5-6 after one or two breakthroughs because they seem very slanted towards the strategy/wargaming side.
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2017 00:26
|
|
|
i will admit that after a certain point in a game, this series shifts from something that scratches my wargame/AI exploiting itch to a game that satisfies my citybuilder sim itch. from my perspective as a player outside the AI looking in, one of the most fascinating things is when i'm on positive terms with every remaining (doomed to lose) civ and watching them ineptly wage wars on one another, like a sideshow to Civ City 5. when you get to watch two civs throw down and just go ham producing knight vs knight for two dozen turns until one of them gets the upper hand through rng while you're like "shall i build neuschwanstein? yes, lets", it's the epitome of 
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2017 00:59
|
|
|
The White Dragon posted:i will admit that after a certain point in a game, this series shifts from something that scratches my wargame/AI exploiting itch to a game that satisfies my citybuilder sim itch. from my perspective as a player outside the AI looking in, one of the most fascinating things is when i'm on positive terms with every remaining (doomed to lose) civ and watching them ineptly wage wars on one another, like a sideshow to Civ City 5. I've never seen this. In 100% of the games I played in V, the larger civs just eat the smaller civs. In VI, the larger civs eat the smaller civs, or nobody ever declares war on anybody at all later in the game.
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2017 01:57
|
|
|
once in a while, you get the great fortune of seeing a group of civs who are doing fairly well and are roughly the same size--they just roll the same somewhat aggressive AI routines and they're in just the right starting positions so that once they run up against each other/some natural city state buffers, they basically have the same number of cities. they'll just continually butt heads for the whole game... especially if you pay them to go to war with each other. i played world police just one time because napoleon thought it would be a good idea to attack my CS ally, but i took his capital (to steal some free great works  ), liberated the CS, and then gave him back his city and then he asked for a dof 
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2017 02:08
|
|
|
Before BNW, a fun way to play Civ 5 was to turtle your own civ up (isolated OCC with Haile, anyone?) and cheat yourself a huge pile of money to use to bribe a civ to declare on another civ here and there, and watch the fireworks. Then BNW made it so you had to be DOF'd to trade cash and you couldn't do that anymore.  Civ 4 is still the best for just walling yourself off and watching the AI do its thing, largely because it has an Aggressive AI option and Civ 5 does not
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2017 02:18
|
|
|
Could be part from one of the mods I'm using but there's also a 'Ruthless AI' option in Civ 4. I like to put that on combined with 'Random personalities' for a very unpredictable game.
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2017 10:52
|
|
|
I wish civ hot grabbed by some decent developer like Paradox instead. For example with Stellaris, they have a clear vision about how to improve the game, tell weekly about it to fans and release steadily free and paid updates to the game. Civ 6 has been a barren wasteland.
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2017 12:16
|
|
|
John F Bennett posted:Could be part from one of the mods I'm using but there's also a 'Ruthless AI' option in Civ 4. I like to put that on combined with 'Random personalities' for a very unpredictable game. Yeah that's a RevDCM thing I'm pretty sure. Ihmemies posted:I wish civ hot grabbed by some decent developer like Paradox instead. For example with Stellaris, they have a clear vision about how to improve the game, tell weekly about it to fans and release steadily free and paid updates to the game. Civ 6 has been a barren wasteland. Wouldn't surprise me at all if Paradox were already starting to think about publishing a Civ clone. They printed Scrooge McDuck money by publishing Cities:Skylines after EA grotesquely murdered its SimCity golden goose. Firaxis is quite firmly on the late-2000s EA path right now (read:Marketing has way more power in the company than it should) and if they similarly botch Civ 7--distinctly possible--the opportunity will definitely be there.
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2017 15:55
|
|
|
Eric the Mauve posted:Wouldn't surprise me at all if Paradox were already starting to think about publishing a Civ clone. They printed Scrooge McDuck money by publishing Cities:Skylines after EA grotesquely murdered its SimCity golden goose. Firaxis is quite firmly on the late-2000s EA path right now (read:Marketing has way more power in the company than it should) and if they similarly botch Civ 7--distinctly possible--the opportunity will definitely be there. Of course! That's what they hired Shafer for!
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2017 16:37
|
|
|
Autonomous Monster posted:Of course! That's what they hired Shafer for! They hired Jon Shafer, the dude behind Civ V?! drat 
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2017 19:36
|
|
|
I guess that means it's time for EA to buy Paradox
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2017 19:50
|
|
|
Autonomous Monster posted:Of course! That's what they hired Shafer for! That's what I think. Imagine a launch Civ 5, only it got regular updates and bug fixes. I'm ready to abandon Civilization for a good competing series at this point. I abandoned Sim City for skylines, and I don't miss it.
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2017 21:34
|
|
|
same. beyond earth was bad enough but i played more games of that than i ever bothered to with 6. but at least now i know uluru doesn't have a loving wifi signal
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2017 21:50
|
|
|
Civ 5 (or 6!) with actual meaningful diplomacy and ditching 1UPT in favor of basically Civ 2's stacking/combat system would be such a fun game.
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2017 22:07
|
|
|
Ihmemies posted:They hired Jon Shafer, the dude behind Civ V?! drat Launch Civ V was awful. Far worse than VI. Hell, Shafer is one who in retrospect panned basically the entire setup for V, pointing out that one unit per tile simply doesn't work. And then tried to launch some other dud game. Suffice it to say I don't have very much confidence in the guy. Now, Stellaris is a different story. Let me quote a Stellaris dev: Wiz posted:There is nothing that players more claim they want yet utterly despise in practice than for their empires to fall apart. I have faith in this guy. He gets it.
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2017 22:15
|
|
|
shafer also took a bunch of kickstarter money for at the gates and didnt finish it
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2017 23:33
|
|
|
More seriously, the Paradox devs have always been pretty dismissive of all-era games. A tile/turn-based game would be pretty far out of their wheelhouse. Of course, they did try to pivot into RPGs that one time, so maybe they're feeling adventurous. 
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2017 23:34
|
|
|
I don't have much nice to say about Shafer, who seems like a textbook example of overpromotion, but I'll say it's quite probable that he realized halfway through development that 1UPT didn't work, but there was no way in hell upper management was going to delay the game by a year while they started over. Maybe he should have conceptually grasped that it wasn't going to work right from the get-go--a number of interested players certainly did--but once they started developing the game that way, they were committed. And here's the thing: people who post on this thread and the civfanatics crowd are NOT the market Firaxis is after. Firaxis (correctly) assumed that we all would buy the game ASAP no matter what, and from there reasoned (incorrectly) that therefore there's no reason to give a poo poo what we want. The game was designed to get casual players and Civ newbies to buy... and it was spectacularly successful at that. So no way in hell were they going to scrap 1UPT for Civ 6.
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2017 23:38
|
|
|
I do wish Firaxis was a lot more open and conversational with fans, of course. And that patches came out more frequently. We all want those things. And while I like some of the stuff Paradox does, turn-based is strictly superior to real-time in my list of gaming preferences, so I'll always hold affection for Civ.
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2017 23:47
|
|
|
Without Shafer, we'd still have squares instead of hexes. Civ V was only bad at launch because it remained on launch state for 2 years. Getting regular updates, and responses from devs would made it light years better.
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2017 00:54
|
|
|
The Human Crouton posted:Civ V was only bad at launch because it remained on launch state for 2 years. Getting regular updates, and responses from devs would made it light years better. This is not so, Firaxis did attempt to address Civ V issues in patches before expansions (notably, I remember that Libraries had 2 specialist slots and Universities had none, and they changed that in a patch). It just couldn't fix the fundamentally broken concepts V was built upon.
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2017 01:00
|
|
|
Paradox would just turn this into another mess of a game with a single mechanic and a million modifiers slapped on top of it. Civ remains one of the best examples of game design in a strategy game. It’s the only game where progression actually feels like progression - unlocking new tech doesn’t just give you +10% to this and that, it actually unlocks new mechanics, changes the existing ones, transforms the game. Up until the very end, the game keeps changing, and everything is fine tuned to provide just the right amount of decisions to make instead of just busywork. The design is brilliant (unfortunately the AI doesn’t know how to play). There has never been a game that felt more like historic progress than Civ V and VI. Compare to EU4 where nothing in how the game plays ever changes despite representing centuries of history. It’s always the same game, just with different numbers. Endless Legend tried but also failed and ended up being just another 4x game with a set of non-evolving mechanics, in which you only unlocked newer and newer modifiers. The stories were nice though.
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2017 02:14
|
|
|
Magil Zeal posted:This is not so, Firaxis did attempt to address Civ V issues in patches before expansions (notably, I remember that Libraries had 2 specialist slots and Universities had none, and they changed that in a patch). It just couldn't fix the fundamentally broken concepts V was built upon. Good to know someone called his BS. It's amazing how revisionists the same 3 goons can get and claim that vainilla Civ5 was not B A D.
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2017 02:36
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 16, 2024 02:02 |
|
|
Please note that, once again to cite the antidote to SimShitty as an example, Paradox published Cities:Skylines but did not develop it; a smaller studio called Colossal Order is the developer. A similar arrangement could easily be done with a Civ clone.
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2017 03:39
|
|