|
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. It sounds like you want to play a city builder and not an empire management game.
|
#
?
Dec 15, 2017 19:08
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 28, 2024 16:58 |
|
|
Chucat posted:If you play on a smaller map you'll have less cities total. The game is boring on smaller maps.
|
|
#
?
Dec 15, 2017 19:10
|
|
|
Francis posted: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. There's some kind of false paradigm here where people believe the question is: bigger cities, or more cities, when in reality the one correct answer is More Bigger Cities. It's not like building new cities should stop all of your old cities from growing. If I have 3 cities and I build a settler, two of my cities should continue to grow. Now I have 4 cities to someone else's 3, while two of my cities are the same size as their two.
|
|
#
?
Dec 15, 2017 19:12
|
|
|
Taear posted:The game is boring on smaller maps. Add more civs to the game. A medium map with 20 civs means you only have to look over a couple of cities!
|
|
#
?
Dec 15, 2017 19:12
|
|
|
Borsche69 posted:Add more civs to the game. A medium map with 20 civs means you only have to look over a couple of cities! And as a bonus you won't have to deal with those pesky religions, city-states, and/or Wonders. Because lol if you think you'll have any.
|
|
#
?
Dec 15, 2017 19:25
|
|
|
I don’t know why Korea is the designated science civ. They don’t really seem to have outperformed in science at any point in history.
|
|
#
?
Dec 15, 2017 19:29
|
|
|
Borsche69 posted:Add more civs to the game. A medium map with 20 civs means you only have to look over a couple of cities! That isn't how tall works though. I get to have a decent amount of cities and a huge amount of land that my borders cover. And so do other civs, so it looks like a "real" map. When you've got thirty cities regardless of their size it just looks messy and I don't like it.
|
|
#
?
Dec 15, 2017 19:33
|
|
|
skooma512 posted:I don’t know why Korea is the designated science civ. They don’t really seem to have outperformed in science at any point in history. Eh, they were pretty ahead-of-the-game when it came to printing, which is fairly important.
|
|
#
?
Dec 15, 2017 19:33
|
|
|
Gort posted:Eh, they were pretty ahead-of-the-game when it came to printing, which is fairly important. What a civilization's bonuses should be themed after is something that's always amused me about Civilization's portrayal of the USA, because it's been so different in every game. Is the USA a cultural civ, as in 6? Hard to argue with that, especially if you're looking at the USA post-WW2. Is the USA an expansionist civ, as in 5? Absolutely, going from the 13 Colonies to a world-spanning imperial superpower. Is the USA an economic civ, as in 4? Yes indeed, again especially in the post-WW2 period. Is the USA an industrial civ, as in 3? The social policy Arsenal of Freedom in 5 speaks to a history of yes. Is the USA a militaristic civ? Absolutely. The USA's never been a science civ, but it's not at all hard to imagine it being so in a future game. Beyond Earth even portrays the USA as an espionage and sabotage focused civilization, and with justification. America's military has almost always been associated with air power in these games, and there's never been any lip service to the largest and historically most influential and innovative branch of the American military, its navy. A unique carrier or submarine or battleship or destroyer wouldn't be at all out of place, though perhaps even more appropriate would be unique transports. It's fascinating to think about how series like Civilization choose to portray different civilizations and nations. Britain is always a nautical power. France is always cultured. Rome is always expansionist and brings the Legions. Most lasting civilizations have crystallized some particular era in the popular imagination, and one of the things that interests me about the USA in such games is the common feeling that America as a civilization hasn't quite captured a particular moment in time as the defining era of that nation and culture. History has yet to make a full judgment of the USA, it seems.
|
|
#
?
Dec 15, 2017 19:50
|
|
|
Gort posted: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. my biggest concern about an outlying city mechanic would be that it would end up like 5's puppets, where they would space out and not build anything at all even though they can put up a library, university, monument, etc etc. it sure liked to build walls though Prav posted: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. four is the "best," but i always liked five or six because with six you can have five food trade routes into your capital, and five out 
Fur20 fucked around with this message at 19:52 on Dec 15, 2017 |
|
#
?
Dec 15, 2017 19:50
|
|
|
Borsche69 posted:It sounds like you want to play a city builder and not an empire management game. No, I just have absolutely no confidence in their ability to implement effective automation. I would be happy to play a 30 city late game if I could set conditional rules and they had reasonable automation. But, since I don't think that'll happen, I think we need to hold fixed the current level of automation. In that case, then yes, I do not find the level of micromanaging involved in the late game with 12+ cities fun. I'd prefer they just did better, but since they won't, I'd like them to make 6-8 cities viable.
|
|
#
?
Dec 15, 2017 20:27
|
|
|
Prav posted: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 I agree, but even more than further dialing back %-based modifiers I believe it was moving the economy/commerce "off the land", so to speak, that was the real game-changer. In Civ V, population = science! Same in VI, to a slightly lesser degree. In I-IV, a pop point would not grant you science at all. It needed to work a commerce tile to produce science. IMO Civ V is actually the worst Civ game because it disassociated science/"commerce" (which is to say science/gold/culture/faith) from working tiles. This isn't really a thing in VI either but at least the adjacency bonuses of the campus and the fact that it takes up a tile on the map give the land some additional importance. I've been working on an experimental mod that aims at making buildings give %-based modifiers with the base numbers needing to come from working tiles in VI, but it's not terribly far along. Plus currently it's hard to mess with specialists in the XML/SQL backend very much, which I feel is an aspect of the game that could use more improvement. CompeAnansi posted:No, I just have absolutely no confidence in their ability to implement effective automation. I would be happy to play a 30 city late game if I could set conditional rules and they had reasonable automation. But, since I don't think that'll happen, I think we need to hold fixed the current level of automation. In that case, then yes, I do not find the level of micromanaging involved in the late game with 12+ cities fun. I'd prefer they just did better, but since they won't, I'd like them to make 6-8 cities viable. I am reminded of Stellaris and sectors. In Stellaris, sectors are basically swaths of your empire that are cordoned off for the AI to manage, in an attempt to address this very problem. Bitching about sectors/the decisions they made was so rampant it had to be cordoned off into a "sector bitching megathread" on the Paradox forums. In the latest patch, it would appear that the devs have basically given up because now you can directly intervene and override sector decisions, something they previously never allowed because of the philosophy "if people can micro they'll feel obligated to, so obviously the solution is to take away the ability to micro". And tile management in that game is much simpler than Civ VI.
|
|
#
?
Dec 15, 2017 20:35
|
|
|
Magil Zeal posted:
Even Nobunaga's Ambition does a pretty good job with this, and they get a fraction of the budget that Civ gets. In fact you have very little control of your bases outside of a certain radius (which can be affected by a few 'civics' in the game).
|
|
#
?
Dec 15, 2017 20:47
|
|
|
Fryhtaning posted:Even Nobunaga's Ambition does a pretty good job with this, and they get a fraction of the budget that Civ gets. In fact you have very little control of your bases outside of a certain radius (which can be affected by a few 'civics' in the game). Of course Nobunaga's ambition has a vastly more simple economic system as it's a war focused game. You build up your army training, you build up your army supply and you go conquer. The parts of your empire that you don't directly manage will give you both food and metal consistently allowing you to build up the parts of the empire you directly manage, and when you declare war, they will deploy actual armies and conquer objectives you give them. If Stellaris did that (I've never played it, so I can't comment) I'd bet people wouldn't have as big of a complaint. Of course in stellaris, as in any 4x game, Science is king, and if the parts of your empire aren't putting out as much science as it could if they were managed directly, it shows that the AI is incompetent and an astute player is right in wanting to control them.
|
|
#
?
Dec 15, 2017 21:11
|
|
|
Just expand workable tiles from 3 radius to 4 or 5 and you can control the same amount of land with less cities. So 12 cities becomes like 6 or 7. Make working further out tiles a midgame tech if you want. Or tie it to districts. Like you can only build districts within the 3-tile radius, and ordinarily only work tiles within the 3-tile radius -- but you can also work (and gold-buy, I guess) any within a 2-tile radius of a district. Or something. Makes those "culture bomb" powers some civs get from districts a bit better too.
|
|
#
?
Dec 15, 2017 22:45
|
|
|
I actually think it'd be cool if districts expanded your city borders. It's pretty easy to solve the excessive micromanagement of having a shitload of cities by being able to puppet them. Generally in Civ V when I went conquering, I'd puppet every city and just focus on my starting cities.
|
|
#
?
Dec 16, 2017 00:19
|
|
|
Bigger maps = more cities; smaller maps = fewer cities. That’s not a difficult equation to understand. If you don’t like micromanaging dozens of units and cities, you shouldn’t be playing large maps. Personally I only play the game on small maps and quick or online speed.
|
|
#
?
Dec 16, 2017 01:13
|
|
|
I don't know about you guys but automatic +6 bonus in Science District looks MASSIVE to me. Korea is gonna be top tier.
|
|
#
?
Dec 16, 2017 01:31
|
|
|
turboraton posted:I don't know about you guys but automatic +6 bonus in Science District looks MASSIVE to me. Korea is gonna be top tier. Yup, if you're smart enough to resist the temptation of founding a religion (making science the first district) you'll be fragging spearchuckers with riflemen by the medieval age.
|
|
#
?
Dec 16, 2017 02:27
|
|
|
turboraton posted:I don't know about you guys but automatic +6 bonus in Science District looks MASSIVE to me. Korea is gonna be top tier. Yeah, I was thinking the same thing. The Seowon looks ridiculous, particularly since hill tiles tend to be surrounded by, well, more hill tiles, which you can then put mines on for more science as well as production (the most important stat). Just make sure you build it one tile away from your city center if possible, though really 5 science instead of 6 (due to it losing science from adjacent districts) isn't awful if you have to build it close. Unrelated, I don't know when this happened but they made it so that Immortals can do melee attacks as well as ranged ones now. Just move them into the target for the melee attack (though it still uses the ranged attack animation). This is really good; they can now take cities on their own and use their higher melee attack strength when it's preferable to the weaker but uncounterable ranged attack, which combined with them benefiting from Oligarchy and having the melee unit upgrade tree instead of ranged one, and of course Fall of Babylon's movement bonus, makes them actually pretty good now. Persia was already awesome, and now they're even better with this.
|
|
#
?
Dec 16, 2017 02:51
|
|
|
Magil Zeal posted:I am reminded of Stellaris and sectors. In Stellaris, sectors are basically swaths of your empire that are cordoned off for the AI to manage, in an attempt to address this very problem. Well, yes, because sector AI in Stellaris was incredibly stupid from day 1 and still is pretty dumb in a bunch of ways. I don't mean just "not perfectly optimal decisions", I mean "consistently puts pops on exactly the wrong tiles for their bonuses".
|
|
#
?
Dec 16, 2017 03:05
|
|
|
Cythereal posted:It's fascinating to think about how series like Civilization choose to portray different civilizations and nations. Britain is always a nautical power. France is always cultured. Rome is always expansionist and brings the Legions. Most lasting civilizations have crystallized some particular era in the popular imagination, and one of the things that interests me about the USA in such games is the common feeling that America as a civilization hasn't quite captured a particular moment in time as the defining era of that nation and culture. History has yet to make a full judgment of the USA, it seems. Troy Goodfellow once did a series on this: http://flashofsteel.com/index.php/2010/11/05/national-characters/ Not particularly in depth, but if you've an interest in the subject it's worth taking a look at.
|
|
#
?
Dec 16, 2017 05:42
|
|
|
I really like that point about imperial British foreign policy often mirroring the way humans tend to play vs ai... Anyway, I still remember fondly a French guy on the civfanatics forums deriding the idea that America had achieved a real-world cultural victory.... by using America's language to discuss an American game over the American internet...
|
|
#
?
Dec 16, 2017 07:40
|
|
|
Saying English is "America's language" is a massive stretch in many ways, isn't it?
|
|
#
?
Dec 16, 2017 09:05
|
|
|
Oh, for sure. Mostly I was after a quick way of saying that pretty much everyone on the planet has an idea of what the american accent sounds like thanks to the ubiquity of cultural wonders like Hollywood, etc etc. (I'm Australian, if that makes any difference.)
|
|
#
?
Dec 16, 2017 09:25
|
|
|
Depends which game. In Civ 5 your tourism bucket for each Civ has to exceed the culture bucket for that Civ, and I would say America's tourism hasn't really penetrated North Korea's culture (not helped by the lack of multipliers from same ideology, open borders, trade routes etc) E: North Korea is that one cultural holdout that makes you want to just wipe them out
|
|
#
?
Dec 16, 2017 09:39
|
|
|
MarquiseMindfang posted:Just expand workable tiles from 3 radius to 4 or 5 and you can control the same amount of land with less cities. So 12 cities becomes like 6 or 7. Make working further out tiles a midgame tech if you want. Or tie it to districts. Like you can only build districts within the 3-tile radius, and ordinarily only work tiles within the 3-tile radius -- but you can also work (and gold-buy, I guess) any within a 2-tile radius of a district. Or something. Makes those "culture bomb" powers some civs get from districts a bit better too. My dude, this would change literally nothing. Giant, expansive cities are ineffective for everything except city-specific wonders like Ruhr, Petra, Oxford, etc. Growing out a single city to five tiles would take for-ev-er and faster production of a single, expensive build is the only benefit. In that five tile radius you can stuff seven cities that will grow faster, each get flat gold/science/faith/culture from infrastructure and districts, and each provide a trade route. Focusing those trade routes internally on the center city with the right policies will actually cause it to grow faster and with comparable production to if you grew it out as a megacity. Civ 6 is just broken. It encourages you to develop land and infrastructure in a way that the ICS games didn't, but it lacks any real pressure to concentrate control of that land in fewer cities rather than as many as possible.
|
|
#
?
Dec 16, 2017 09:52
|
|
|
https://squawker.org/culture-wars/sjwciv/ Lol nerds
|
|
#
?
Dec 16, 2017 11:51
|
|
|
A modern era Dark Age should be the appearance of "gamer culture" in your civilization.
|
|
#
?
Dec 16, 2017 12:09
|
|
|
Given the current political climate in Brazil, I would love if they had chosen a female leader like Isabel (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isabel,_Princess_Imperial_of_Brazil) instead of Pedro II as always. Even if it made little sense, the outrage would be delicious
|
|
#
?
Dec 16, 2017 12:21
|
|
|
Ship Civ with nothing but female leaders, make male leaders DLC. Or available via lootcrates.
|
|
#
?
Dec 16, 2017 12:36
|
|
|
Kassad posted:A modern era Dark Age should be the appearance of "gamer culture" in your civilization. This would be the best thing ever (particularly qua gamergate culture). But sadly I don't think Firaxis will bite the hand the feeds it.
|
|
#
?
Dec 16, 2017 12:43
|
|
|
wanting things out of spite is sad
|
|
#
?
Dec 16, 2017 12:58
|
|
|
Elias_Maluco posted:Given the current political climate in Brazil, I would love if they had chosen a female leader like Isabel (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isabel,_Princess_Imperial_of_Brazil) instead of Pedro II as always. Even if it made little sense, the outrage would be delicious As always? They only got introduced in Civ 5.
|
|
#
?
Dec 16, 2017 13:19
|
|
|
Tree Bucket posted:Oh, for sure. Mostly I was after a quick way of saying that pretty much everyone on the planet has an idea of what the american accent sounds like thanks to the ubiquity of cultural wonders like Hollywood, etc etc. (I'm Australian, if that makes any difference.) Yeah, I think that looking at history to date there's maybe three good eras to base the USA on for a game like this: Early (Founding up to the Civil War): Expansionist civ, good at trade and fighting "barbarians." Potential unique units: Minuteman (musketman), Constitution Class (frigate or privateer) Middle: (Civil War up to 1930s): Expansionist and industrial, strong military. Potential unique units: Rough Rider (cavalry), Monitor (ironclad), Conestoga (settler) Late: (WW2 - Present): Economic and cultural, potentially science or diplomacy as well. Potential unique units: any aircraft, supercarrier The internet was an American invention after all, then add the sheer ubiquity of American movies and televised media and corporate products.
|
|
#
?
Dec 16, 2017 14:34
|
|
|
"Alright, we're gonna make a civ that has massive, overwhelming production when it's attacked, based on its performance in World War 2" "So it's Am-" "Right! Australia!"
|
|
#
?
Dec 16, 2017 16:50
|
|
|
Continuing 6's theme of using leaders never or rarely used for a civ before, Harry Truman would be an interesting alternate American leader - make him focused on diplomacy and trade, possibly with some kind of ability to make trading with recent enemies especially profitable. I'm surprised there haven't been just alternate leader DLCs. Have to imagine a "classic leaders pack" would be an easy sell - Catherine, Elizabeth, Isabella, Napoleon, Ramses II, Abraham Lincoln, and Bismarck, say.
|
|
#
?
Dec 16, 2017 16:58
|
|
|
For the US, I'd want JFK with some space race bonuses.
|
|
#
?
Dec 16, 2017 17:05
|
|
|
Cythereal posted:I'm surprised there haven't been just alternate leader DLCs. Have to imagine a "classic leaders pack" would be an easy sell - Catherine, Elizabeth, Isabella, Napoleon, Ramses II, Abraham Lincoln, and Bismarck, say. It's a lot of work for not as much payoff as having "original" civs. I know I'm more excited about the idea of playing as a new country than a changed ability and new animation for an existing one.
|
|
#
?
Dec 16, 2017 17:08
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 28, 2024 16:58 |
|
|
The leaders are probably the most expensive new art assets and stuff as well, so making a new civ instead of just a new leader isn't that much more work relatively. Or, looking at it the other way around, making a new leader is almost as much work and money as making a whole new civ, but players feel like the latter is a lot more, so making the latter as DLC and charging nearly as much probably wouldn't be nearly as successful or popular, while making it considerably cheaper since gameplay-wise it's a lot less makes it not worth the investment. This is just a guess based on what I've seen and heard, though.
|
|
#
?
Dec 16, 2017 17:39
|
|