|
The Human Crouton posted:There is a mod that does this exactly. The only problem is that it's a mod, and will break after every official update. It also slows the game down considerably since mods don't have access to the source code, and have to be implemented in very inefficient ways. For the record, not every mod breaks on every update. I have published several different mods out on the workshop but only one broke with the latest patch.
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2017 02:57
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 4, 2024 12:33 |
|
|
Magil Zeal posted:For the record, not every mod breaks on every update. I have published several different mods out on the workshop but only one broke with the latest patch. Are they mods that make major changes to existing lua files? Rule with Faith and CQUI break at least a little with every official update because they have to touch a lot of existing files.
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2017 03:09
|
|
|
The Human Crouton posted:Are they mods that make major changes to existing lua files? Rule with Faith and CQUI break at least a little with every official update because they have to touch a lot of existing files. Nah, they're don't mess with the .lua. That may be the distinction.
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2017 03:28
|
|
|
Was there any new info during the livestream? Or known info seen in a new light? Such as the above example about GP points during the renaissance.
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2017 07:26
|
|
|
So I've got back into this... I see a lot of AI players laying down TONNES of cities. In Civ V, that would be death. I'm still kinda approaching Civ VI like V in the sense that I go for about 3-4 cities and develop the poo poo out of them. Invading and razing whenever somebody gets too close. It's been working for me, but I'm wondering if Civ VI is more supportive to laying down a fuckload of cities and having a huge empire instead of a...civilisation? The other thing I dislike about having huge cities is the micromanagement aspect. Is it possible to puppet your own cities?
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2017 07:44
|
|
|
John F Bennett posted:Was there any new info during the livestream? Or known info seen in a new light? Such as the above example about GP points during the renaissance. Nothing that we didn't really know. Tons of little details. The era system is a risk for the game because you are now basically playing the game in 8 chunks so instead of thinking "I have to build this campus so I'm not behind 150 turns from now", you might be thinking "I'd better build this theater square so I don't enter a dark age." It seems like it might be fun, but it also seems like enough of a departure from the long term plans that it might change the nature of the game in a way one cannot predict will work or not. Governments no longer give legacy bonuses. Instead you a wildcard policy that you can slot in like other policies for the rest of the game. (America's UA has changed to an ability where your diplomatic slots become wildcard slots, so you have the option to slot more of these previous governments wildcards, so it preserves the spirit of their current UA) For each tier of government, 3 building become available. You can build only 1 of these 3 in each tier, and they give some very cool bonuses. The government buildings and the governors have a lot of powerful options for tall civs so I think that those along with the new loyalty system might make tall civs competitive in this game. That's something I'm excited about if it works. UI is still poo poo.
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2017 08:05
|
|
|
That all sounds pretty good to me. Still, I'm going to wait until after the first patch of the expansion hits before I buy.
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2017 08:10
|
|
|
H13 posted:So I've got back into this... So far I can't see a downside of building lots of cities. I don't know of wonders that require a certain building in every city. It doesn't stunt civic policy growth, and in fact boosts it. The penalties for 10 small cities that civ 5 worked out are removed so why not expand at every possible opportunity?
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2017 15:44
|
|
|
edit: nevermind I cant read
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2017 16:00
|
|
|
H13 posted:So I've got back into this... If you dislike micromanagement, then I feel like this series as a whole isn't really for you.
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2017 16:46
|
|
|
Borsche69 posted:If you dislike micromanagement, then I feel like this series as a whole isn't really for you. It wouldn't be so bad if there was a production queue - then you could just line up a load of buildings and pretend the governor did it and you wouldn't have to look at the city again for 100 years. But for some unfathomable reason, the production queue is gone. I think that, above all else, is the most rear end-backwards decision they've made in Civ6. It was so bone-headedly stupid I was convinced it was a bug, but nope, it's still not there after... how long has it been now?
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2017 17:31
|
|
|
I did a Google and found a production queue mod. Perhaps I'm being cynical, but I wouldn't be surprised if Firaxis' approach was to work on the production queue after release and then drop it after they discovered someone else did the work for them for free.
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2017 17:34
|
|
|
JeremoudCorbynejad posted:It wouldn't be so bad if there was a production queue - then you could just line up a load of buildings and pretend the governor did it and you wouldn't have to look at the city again for 100 years. Yea a production queue is really important in any type of game like this. Without it turns become a slog, and even with it, because of the way units work, it's still not that great.
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2017 18:08
|
|
|
Firaxis' old-school approach to development sure is souring the well with a lot of their fans. I didn't buy Rising Tide, and only bought VI because of Ed Beach. Unless the xpack actually fixes major problems, I doubt I'll be getting it. I've gotten over 2k hours playing IV and V, but only 300 in VI. There's a good game in there, but goddammit it just seems like they don't care.
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2017 18:41
|
|
|
Yeah, I didn't buy Rising Tide either since it's clear they weren't expending any real effort on fixing Beyond Earth. I figured Civ 6 being a flagship title would've gotten a better deal, but it's been out more than a year and the AI still has no idea how to play it. I think Firaxis just don't have any real talent any more and are just coasting on their earlier titles.
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2017 18:43
|
|
|
I'm glad I bought RT because Space Twitter was great. I also really liked what it did with being able to "buy" spoils with Warscore after a war with someone. A modified version of that would fix a lot of problems I have with Civ VI. You could have, say, warmonger penalties reduce by (% of earned warscore you haven't spent). So if someone attacks you and you chew up their units and occupy a couple cities, winning yourself for example 100 War Points, you could either spend 50 of them to keep one of those captured cities and eat half the warmonger penalties for everything you did in the war, spend 10 to force them to give you a tech they have but you don't, and eat 10% of the warmonger penalties for everything you did, or completely "forgive" them in return for complete "forgiveness" from them (and everyone else). As a sort of "you could have pillaged them dry, but didn't". Or take a city and five techs and have everyone hate you forever. This could even stack additive with a Casus, so if you declare using a Casus with 25% absolvement, you can spend 25% of your War Points guilt-free at the end of the war and still get 100% forgiveness. You'd probably have to bump the Casus absolvement values down a bit though. It's obviously not a fully fleshed out idea because I literally just had it and started typing, but it might pacify those of us who think the AI should play a little more like a person and expect to lose things if they pick a fight with someone who can beat them back. And hate you more the more you take, and recognise when you show restraint and mercy (even if it is just because their cities are lovely). I suppose you then have to add in modifiers (if Civ VI doesn't already do this) where people who hate the guy you declare war on will dislike you a little for not taking everything you can, and people who like you more than them will forgive you a little bit anyway because gently caress that dude. And vice versa. If someone hates your loving guts they shouldn't forgive you so easily just because you show mercy. In that way early totalitarian warmongering follows you the whole game because it makes people hate you and that therefore makes them less inclined to forgive any later, less totalitarian warmongering. So villains will tend to remain villains unless they stay on best behaviour for a good while afterwards. (Would also require defensive wars to have slightly separate rules than offensive ones. I don't think 100% forgiveness should be possible for an offensive war without a proper casus, ever, but on the flipside even if you're Literally Hitler it should always be possible to be fully forgiven in war for just defending your borders and not taking anything, for example. Your past crimes will still be held against you but merely defending yourself won't compound them if you don't gain anything from it.) Slap a variable on leaders for "willingness to spend war points" and you can differentiate the greedy and warlike ones from the defensive or liberators. I'll stop typing for now because this poo poo never leads anywhere except making me want to dev my own 4X and I do NOT have the time for that. MarquiseMindfang fucked around with this message at 21:15 on Dec 14, 2017 |
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2017 20:49
|
|
|
Trivia posted:Unless the xpack actually fixes major problems, I doubt I'll be getting it. I've gotten over 2k hours playing IV and V, but only 300 in VI. There's a good game in there, but goddammit it just seems like they don't care. It doesn't fix anything. UI still sucks, still no production queue, still meaningless gossip spam at the start of the turn.
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2017 23:47
|
|
|
The Human Crouton posted:still no production queue This is the dumbest goddamn thing. Also gossip chat and forced interaction with the AI screen is obnoxious and I hate it.
|
|
#
?
Dec 15, 2017 00:55
|
|
|
MarquiseMindfang posted:liberators. lol a civ AI that can fathom the idea of liberating cities
|
|
#
?
Dec 15, 2017 01:01
|
|
|
Trivia posted:This is the dumbest goddamn thing. What really pissed me off about gossip is that it's a great idea, but executed in the worst way. Instead of telling me that India is trading with China, just give me a screen that shows this. And I don't mean a screen that just lists all of the stupid messages. Give me a chart where I see the trade relations between every civ. And after telling me that England is building Big Ben, highlight Big Ben in yellow on the tech tree so I know it is already being built. When I hover over Big Ben in my production screen show me a tooltip that lets me know that England started building this 7 turns ago so I can estimate my risk of not completing it if I build it myself. If they just gave me the information form the gossip system in a legible way, it would be awesome. I'd be actually working toward increasing my openness level, if this were the case. Right now, gaining information about other empires is incidental, and not something I try to do.
|
|
#
?
Dec 15, 2017 01:25
|
|
|
Same. Spies are my least built unit. They mostly sit in cities that I'm about to invade so I can get a snapshot of units in the area. Building a listening post is a stalling tactic for when I don't want the spy to do anything. It's never something I'm actively working for.
|
|
#
?
Dec 15, 2017 01:38
|
|
|
The Human Crouton posted:What really pissed me off about gossip is that it's a great idea, but executed in the worst way. Instead of telling me that India is trading with China, just give me a screen that shows this. And I don't mean a screen that just lists all of the stupid messages. Give me a chart where I see the trade relations between every civ. Yeah I can't fathom why they've abandoned the relationship web. That thing was quick and easy to read.
|
|
#
?
Dec 15, 2017 02:53
|
|
|
Look at this dumbass lending artillery support while I snipe England's cities out from under him.  We don't have any alliance, he didn't bring any melee units. I took 3 cities that way including the capital.
|
|
#
?
Dec 15, 2017 05:23
|
|
|
Borsche69 posted:If you dislike micromanagement, then I feel like this series as a whole isn't really for you. Don't get me wrong, I like micromanagement...but to a point. I like micromanagement when I'm developing something, but not when I'm repeating the same "development" 12 times over.
|
|
#
?
Dec 15, 2017 11:42
|
|
|
The Human Crouton posted:What really pissed me off about gossip is that it's a great idea, but executed in the worst way. Instead of telling me that India is trading with China, just give me a screen that shows this. And I don't mean a screen that just lists all of the stupid messages. Give me a chart where I see the trade relations between every civ. Civ 4 did it.
|
|
#
?
Dec 15, 2017 11:55
|
|
|
It's the most infuriating thing about Civ V (although it does have a build queue) and Civ VI. Why are things that were in older games not in the newer ones?
|
|
#
?
Dec 15, 2017 12:01
|
|
|
H13 posted:Don't get me wrong, I like micromanagement...but to a point. I like micromanagement when I'm developing something, but not when I'm repeating the same "development" 12 times over. This is exactly how I feel too. Civ6 wants you to spam cities and I've never enjoyed that.
|
|
#
?
Dec 15, 2017 12:21
|
|
|
Taear posted:This is exactly how I feel too. Civ6 wants you to spam cities and I've never enjoyed that. Define "spamming cities".
|
|
#
?
Dec 15, 2017 13:30
|
|
|
Chucat posted:Define "spamming cities". "There's never a time where it's a bad idea to build another city and having loads is always a good thing". I prefer having 6 or 8 or so and the game definitely prefers you to just keep going.
|
|
#
?
Dec 15, 2017 13:34
|
|
|
Taear posted:"There's never a time where it's a bad idea to build another city and having loads is always a good thing". Yeah the optimal count is really in the 12-15 range in Civ 6, which is just dumb. Sure Tradition's 3-4 tall cities in Civ 5 may have been too few, but 12-15 is silly. You honestly can't reliably win on deity unless you have, at a minimum, 8 cities in civ 6. And that's really the upper cusp of the number of cities I am interested in managing late game. They seem to be trying to promote some tall gameplay with the governors, but I doubt it'll work. They need something more to push the acceptable cities count closer to the 6-8 range.
|
|
#
?
Dec 15, 2017 13:56
|
|
|
there's nothing wrong with lots of cities. the game just needs decent automation options for the less relevant ones.
|
|
#
?
Dec 15, 2017 14:02
|
|
|
I always thought the best compromise was the "core city" and "outlying city" mechanic. Core cities are full cities you can build things in yourself. Outlying cities are more automated - you pick a specialisation and they self-govern to grant you as much of their specialisation as possible, but they're never going to be as good as a core city. The nice thing about doing it that way is that it's never a bad thing to have a giant empire, but you don't get as much from your 50th city (because it's outlying) as you do from your 4th city (because it's core). Larger empires would then invest resources (civics, government choices etc) in gaining as many core cities as possible, while more crowded empires would invest those resources into the cities they do have.
|
|
#
?
Dec 15, 2017 14:21
|
|
|
CompeAnansi posted:Yeah the optimal count is really in the 12-15 range in Civ 6, which is just dumb. Sure Tradition's 3-4 tall cities in Civ 5 may have been too few, but 12-15 is silly. You honestly can't reliably win on deity unless you have, at a minimum, 8 cities in civ 6. And that's really the upper cusp of the number of cities I am interested in managing late game. They seem to be trying to promote some tall gameplay with the governors, but I doubt it'll work. They need something more to push the acceptable cities count closer to the 6-8 range. Okay, so this is a difference I'm not used to (or understand), but bear in mind that Civ V was my first Civ game. To me, it makes sense to have 3-4 AWESOME cities that are super-well developed. Everything is easily controllable, you don't need a massively huge army to protect the small chunk of land that you have and everything plods along nicely. Especially considering in the early game how long it takes to build settlers and builders etc. Since production cannot be shared amongst cities, what benefit is there to having "a minimum" of 8 cities?
|
|
#
?
Dec 15, 2017 14:25
|
|
|
More cities = more stuff. The main reason to stick at four cities in Civ 5 was that happiness was prohibitive and it was the limit of the overpowered Tradition social policy tree. This is no longer the case.
|
|
#
?
Dec 15, 2017 14:28
|
|
|
If each small city can reliably produce 4 science, 4 culture and 10 gold within a few turns, having 10 small cities increases overall production of all these things. There is no penalty, so limiting yourself to 5 small cities is a net loss to production.
|
|
#
?
Dec 15, 2017 14:52
|
|
|
CompeAnansi posted:Yeah the optimal count is really in the 12-15 range in Civ 6, which is just dumb. Sure Tradition's 3-4 tall cities in Civ 5 may have been too few, but 12-15 is silly. You honestly can't reliably win on deity unless you have, at a minimum, 8 cities in civ 6. And that's really the upper cusp of the number of cities I am interested in managing late game. They seem to be trying to promote some tall gameplay with the governors, but I doubt it'll work. They need something more to push the acceptable cities count closer to the 6-8 range. Taear posted:"There's never a time where it's a bad idea to build another city and having loads is always a good thing". If you play on a smaller map you'll have less cities total.
|
|
#
?
Dec 15, 2017 14:55
|
|
|
Chucat posted:If you play on a smaller map you'll have less cities total. True, but even on small maps it's always better to have more on Civ 6. This means, for instance, that there is no reason not to hold as many as you can during conquests. It's never a real decision whether to keep or raise a city (unless you intend to resettle it) because there are no real consequences to having too many cities. Put corruption or happiness or some functional equivalents back in the game. Or, if not that, do something else to give the player a reason to not have all the cities. 
CompeAnansi fucked around with this message at 15:55 on Dec 15, 2017 |
|
#
?
Dec 15, 2017 15:52
|
|
|
I would rather see an emphasis on making larger cities more useful than more, smaller cities in the same land area. As it is not only do you get the traditional benefits of filling out borders faster and sharing tiles, but you also get to stack districts for free stuff and more trade routes. You're also harder to invade with multiple overlapping cities and encampments, but, well, lol.
|
|
#
?
Dec 15, 2017 16:10
|
|
|
CompeAnansi posted:True, but even on small maps it's always better to have more on Civ 6. This means, for instance, that there is no reason not to hold as many as you can during conquests. It's never a real decision whether to keep or raise a city (unless you intend to resettle it) because there are no real consequences to having too many cities. Put corruption or happiness or some functional equivalents back in the game. Or, if not that, do something else to give the player a reason to not have all the cities. Note that corruption is largely a failed mechanic, because it didn't really make you want to have less cities, it just made sure those cities were worth less. It was still better to have a city than not have a city. A player should want to have all the cities, all the land, all the resources. If you don't do that then what's the point of playing? The player should be rewarded for getting more. The magic is finding the right balance where it's harder to get more, and this is one area where Civ VI could stand to improve, I agree. But please don't bring back Civ V-style mechanics which layered you with about 50 different penalties for settling a new city. I could never go back to that.
|
|
#
?
Dec 15, 2017 16:19
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 4, 2024 12:33 |
|
|
one of the things 5 and 6 hosed up is having flat yields from infrastructure instead of multipliers, and a very expensive food curve, both which lead you to wanting significantly more cities than you'd otherwise need to simply work the tiles - the thing that ought to be the priority 5 of course also plays a lot of tricks to try and force the player into having the correct amount of cities. whatever that is. i don't think they ever really decided, but it ended up at 4ish.
|
|
#
?
Dec 15, 2017 16:36
|
|