|
So apparently if you play with Japan + YNAEMP mods on with the real city names option turned on, this happens: ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 'Ritchimondo' 'Nasshubiru 'Atoranta'
|
#
?
Dec 16, 2017 18:50
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 14, 2024 00:15 |
|
|
JVNO posted:So apparently if you play with Japan + YNAEMP mods on with the real city names option turned on, this happens:  atoranta is beautiful.Is Koronbasu supposed to be Toronto? Amazing.
|
|
#
?
Dec 16, 2017 19:04
|
|
|
Judge Schnoopy posted:
Columbus, Ohio
|
|
#
?
Dec 16, 2017 19:07
|
|
|
Taear posted: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. 'Tall' doesn't work though. It has no place in Civ, or really any 4X game where on of your core concepts is 'expansion'. I think you just don't like civ or 4x games and are trying to fit a square peg in a round hole
|
|
#
?
Dec 16, 2017 19:11
|
|
|
Makes much more sense, just looked too far north. I've never played one of those mods, how long does it take between turns?
|
|
#
?
Dec 16, 2017 19:11
|
|
|
Borsche69 posted:'Tall' doesn't work though. It has no place in Civ, or really any 4X game where on of your core concepts is 'expansion'. It worked in every other version of Civ before this. And I include SMAC!
|
|
#
?
Dec 16, 2017 19:14
|
|
|
Davincie posted:wanting things out of spite is sad making things out of spite is a great way to make negative money though
|
|
#
?
Dec 16, 2017 19:18
|
|
|
JVNO posted:So apparently if you play with Japan + YNAEMP mods on with the real city names option turned on, this happens: so do the cities actually map well?
|
|
#
?
Dec 16, 2017 19:24
|
|
|
Taear posted:It worked in every other version of Civ before this. And I include SMAC! You could do it, but it wasn't optimal. It was just shooting yourself in the foot for no good reason. Just like VI, really.
|
|
#
?
Dec 16, 2017 20:40
|
|
|
Couple questions since I'm still learning VI: 1. Do adjacency bonuses go up if you add something that wasn't there when you first built it, or are they fixed from the point when you started production on the district? For example: adding a third mine next to an industrial zone after it was built next to two originally. 2. When you get to the point where you can make fleets/corps/armies, is there a way to produce units as a corps? Our do you always have to build them individually? 3. Are threads route yields per turn, or is that the yield for a single round trip?
|
|
#
?
Dec 16, 2017 20:42
|
|
|
Alpine Mustache posted:Couple questions since I'm still learning VI: 1) yes 2) no, but there are one or two very limited exceptions like great general abilities that spawn corps and armies 3) per turn
|
|
#
?
Dec 16, 2017 20:47
|
|
|
Magil Zeal posted:You could do it, but it wasn't optimal. It was just shooting yourself in the foot for no good reason. Just like VI, really. In Civ4 it was actively encouraged! But it didn't hurt you as much as it does in 6. I feel like most of my cities are just... numbers in this. And while I know a lot of people play the games like that anyway I don't and Civ6 doesn't really support playing it in any other way. I'm a narrative player and Civ6 doesn't create one.
|
|
#
?
Dec 16, 2017 20:48
|
|
|
The White Dragon posted:2) no, but there are one or two very limited exceptions like great general abilities that spawn corps and armies Actually, there is. I think only cities with an encampment can do it, but there is a drop down menu on the unit production selection in the city.
|
|
#
?
Dec 16, 2017 20:50
|
|
|
Taear posted:In Civ4 it was actively encouraged! I need the biggest thonkang you have.
|
|
#
?
Dec 16, 2017 21:25
|
|
|
Alpine Mustache posted:2. When you get to the point where you can make fleets/corps/armies, is there a way to produce units as a corps? Our do you always have to build them individually? OperaMouse posted:Actually, there is. I think only cities with an encampment can do it, but there is a drop down menu on the unit production selection in the city. Correct, but I think it may require a military academy (for troops) or seaport (for ships). Taear posted:In Civ4 it was actively encouraged! Civ IV encouraged building both upwards and outwards. It really didn't encourage building "tall" because a well-managed empire had lots of developed cities instead of just a few developed cities. It did have the best take on an expansion-limiting mechanic imo though. Magil Zeal fucked around with this message at 22:02 on Dec 16, 2017 |
|
#
?
Dec 16, 2017 21:53
|
|
|
Civ 4 certainly didn't encourage "build 4 cities then stop" at anything but the lowest tech levels.
|
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2017 03:51
|
|
|
Just started a game with Japan's starting units 3 tiles away. Makes it easy to take them out, but it seems a bit wrong.
|
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2017 04:18
|
|
|
Gort posted:Civ 4 certainly didn't encourage "build 4 cities then stop" at anything but the lowest tech levels. honestly with start bias, civ 5 discouraged even building a city. why waste one of your precious four slots on a suboptimal strategic landgrab or grabbing just one new luxury resource that'll merely neutralize the happiness penalty for having another city? just destroy your three closest neighbors and steal their amazing starting positions that you'd have to scour the entire earth to find one or two places as good and with as many unique luxuries. i loved that part of civ 4, it was almost like cataan where you're racing to produce everything necessary to secure a mountain pass or a coastal choke point to claim a stretch of fertile land or force a rival into a bad position. civ 5? you can forget about that, the penalties for having more cities are so huge that in the long run, or even in the short term, the "empire malus" you get from that suboptimal city is gonna bite you in the rear end hard. Glass of Milk posted:Just started a game with Japan's starting units 3 tiles away. Makes it easy to take them out, but it seems a bit wrong. this is actually a bug that firaxis released a patch to fix over a month ago and, as you can plainly see, it didn't change anything Fur20 fucked around with this message at 04:21 on Dec 17, 2017 |
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2017 04:18
|
|
|
I've heard a lot about how having a big empire in Civ V is bad, which makes me wonder how you're supposed to play domination civs in it. Like, I'm starting a Civ V game for the first time in years with some friends since most of them don't have VI, and picked Persia, and while I've checked some guides and stuff and they recommend being somewhat aggressive at points of the game, everything I hear makes it sound like ever going beyond four cities is catastrophic.
|
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2017 06:36
|
|
|
Roland Jones posted:everything I hear makes it sound like ever going beyond four cities is catastrophic. The short answer is that the formula for Culture, Science and the like reach max efficiency at four cities, plus the Tradition policy tree only affecting your first four cities with the free buildings means that you are behind the curve with 1-3 cities, and at 5+, you are actually losing out as the newer cities cannot produce enough Culture or science to offset the penalties you acquire for having the cities, especially with the relatively slow development of them.
|
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2017 06:47
|
|
|
going over four cities isn't catastrophic but it has far-reaching consequences. the tech cost is increased by the maximum number of cities you've ever controlled--if you lose one, or trade it away, or raze it, whatever, gently caress you, enjoy your permanently-increased tech and culture costs forever. also, the Tradition civic tree is based around having four cities, and any cities in excess of that only receive extremely minimal benefits. of course it doesn't scale to map size. you'll pretty much only ever be able to fit four cities in a Duel map, but on a Huge map, four cities remains the mathematically optimal number. the only time having a ton of cities is actually beneficial is if you're going for a culture victory, because more cities == more museums == more tourism output, because that's not scaled either  there are no Domination rules in 5 like how there are in 4 (which is %landmass control), the military victory is just "your team controls every capital."
|
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2017 06:51
|
|
|
Alright. And are you basically always going Tradition, every civ, or are there some where it's worth doing something else? Like, this one thing I checked recommended Liberty for Persia for the early Golden Age, and the free Great Person could be timed to get an Engineer and rush Chichen Itza, among other things. Should I be ignoring things like this and just going Tradition anyway?
|
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2017 06:59
|
|
|
The White Dragon posted:going over four cities isn't catastrophic but it has far-reaching consequences. the tech cost is increased by the maximum number of cities you've ever controlled--if you lose one, or trade it away, or raze it, whatever, gently caress you, enjoy your permanently-increased tech and culture costs forever. The penalties actually do scale to map size. Huge has half the penalties that Standard does.
|
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2017 07:10
|
|
|
I feel the extra city penalties in Civ V is greatly exaggerated. I think Liberty is quite anaemic and could have been balanced much better, but even so I rarely have trouble making a city 'pay for itself' until at least mid game.
|
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2017 07:22
|
|
|
Got it. Lastly, is there a good beginner's guide to Civ V? Some of the friends are new to Civ and got the game as part of some deal or whatever, so a basic thing to help them get the basics down (and refresh me on things I forgot since playing this back in 2013) would be helpful.
|
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2017 07:27
|
|
|
Roland Jones posted:Alright. And are you basically always going Tradition, every civ, or are there some where it's worth doing something else? Like, this one thing I checked recommended Liberty for Persia for the early Golden Age, and the free Great Person could be timed to get an Engineer and rush Chichen Itza, among other things. Should I be ignoring things like this and just going Tradition anyway? If you're using NQmod (which I recommend) all the trees are viable. If not, Tradition is always the best choice. There are niche circumstances where you NEED a religion, or where you can actually benefit from an early war, but you won't be able to recognise them for a while.
|
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2017 07:32
|
|
|
Roland Jones posted:Alright. And are you basically always going Tradition, every civ, or are there some where it's worth doing something else? Like, this one thing I checked recommended Liberty for Persia for the early Golden Age, and the free Great Person could be timed to get an Engineer and rush Chichen Itza, among other things. Should I be ignoring things like this and just going Tradition anyway? tradition is strictly the best opening civic, even with civ-specific timings. you get: 1) +3 culture in your capital which, at that point in the game, is a 300% increase in your culture output. by opening tradition, you effectively quarter the civic TNL. liberty is a weak rear end +1, and your second city will increase the amount of culture TNL the moment you settle it. 2) an upkeep-free culture building is completed instantly in your first four cities. if you already have monuments, your 0gpt building is upgraded to a free amphitheater. 3) 1 gold for every 2 citizens in your capital city. 4) the population in your capital city effectively generates only half  holy poo poo5) you get +2 food in your capital--effectively a free specialist, two later on if you go Freedom--and +10% growth on top of that. this applies to total base food production, so yes, you get this bonus on internal trade routes and the free food you get from maritime city states  6) and as if that wasn't enough, there's one policy that makes you build wonders slightly faster but also basically reduces your entire empire's unhappiness by 10%. 7) and and, the capstone gives you +15% food in all cities (additive to the +10% from landed elite in your capital), and then free aqueducts in your first four cities. chichen itza is... it's a nice wonder, but the only immediate benefit it actually gives you is +4  , which you can get from two coliseums or two circuses. the golden age duration is great, but it's extremely doubtful you'll actually be able to reliably time a golden age to its completion.if you open tradition, you'll be so far ahead in tech that you won't even need to rush it, you can take your sweet rear end time because everyone else will just barely be entering the classical era while you speed ahead at full tilt with your capital city's oppressively massive population. if you play smart and chop liberally to build trade routes early, your capital can hit like 20+ pop when everyone else is languishing at 7. Byzantine posted:The penalties actually do scale to map size. Huge has half the penalties that Standard does. this is true, but i was talking like the tradition bonuses are always keyed to four cities no matter the map size. Krazyface posted:If you're using NQmod (which I recommend) all the trees are viable. If not, Tradition is always the best choice. There are niche circumstances where you NEED a religion, or where you can actually benefit from an early war, but you won't be able to recognise them for a while. the worst part about Honor is that you don't even need it to wage an early war. the "ping on barbarian camp spawn" is nice, though, if you clear them aggressively and purposefully leave a ton of fog of war. obviously you can't do this against human players, but i basically run a barbarian-based economy until Compass and Harbors 
Fur20 fucked around with this message at 07:45 on Dec 17, 2017 |
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2017 07:43
|
|
|
Krazyface posted:If you're using NQmod (which I recommend) all the trees are viable. If not, Tradition is always the best choice. There are niche circumstances where you NEED a religion, or where you can actually benefit from an early war, but you won't be able to recognise them for a while. Gotcha. I'll see if people want to use NQMod. One wants to play Venice, which isn't in that, so she might be against it, but otherwise the biggest issue might just be helping them all get it installed.
|
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2017 08:40
|
|
|
Roland Jones posted:Gotcha. I'll see if people want to use NQMod. One wants to play Venice, which isn't in that, so she might be against it, but otherwise the biggest issue might just be helping them all get it installed. In my opinion, NQMod is the best way to play Civ 5, both single player and multiplayer.
|
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2017 10:06
|
|
|
Gort posted:Civ 4 certainly didn't encourage "build 4 cities then stop" at anything but the lowest tech levels. I never said 4, I said 8!
|
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2017 11:42
|
|
|
Um, does NQMod improve multiplayer  ), crashes and wonderful issues like some players randomly being unable to join for no reason.
|
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2017 11:46
|
|
|
Not really. It doesn't make the stability worse! vv
|
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2017 12:00
|
|
|
JVNO posted:I feel the extra city penalties in Civ V is greatly exaggerated. I think Liberty is quite anaemic and could have been balanced much better, but even so I rarely have trouble making a city 'pay for itself' until at least mid game. It is possible to do so, but I don't understand the desire to make founding cities late in the game so unappealing. In past Civ games, founding a late city would not provide you with as much benefit as early cities, but it generally wouldn't actively hurt you like it does in V. A big problem I have with Civ V's design is how it makes it so that you can win with just the four cities from Tradition. If you can win with that, then why do anything? Four cities is safe and easy. You don't have to compete with other civs for territory and resources (once the cities are settled). You don't have to play the game, basically. You just sit back and build and wait to win. And some people find that more fun than other Civ games...? I don't get it. You don't do anything with Traditions 4-city style play. You just sit back and let things happen to you. It's weird. And having it in the game is bad because it removes the impetus to actually play the game.
|
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2017 17:21
|
|
|
Yeah, originally the obvious route to victory in Civ 5 was to spam as many cities as you could. They swung back hard against that so now it's only worth building four cities.
|
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2017 17:26
|
|
|
Lmao at eight cities being tall. I can tell you are a narrative plsyer because all your posts are fictional stories. Civ 5 multiplayer trip report: I bombarded his city and let my ally city state take one of his cities. He accepted defeat then by I guess he is never gonna play with me again. http://steamcommunity.com/id/turboraton/screenshot/893266397588497838 turboraton fucked around with this message at 17:31 on Dec 17, 2017 |
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2017 17:28
|
|
|
I spam cities everywhere and build a bunch of churches in them.
|
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2017 17:39
|
|
|
I remember when they crippled ICS in Civ 5 they forgot to tweak Egypt, which thanks to the happiness-giving burial tomb, could still ICS with 4-pop cities
|
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2017 17:43
|
|
|
Magil Zeal posted:You could do it, but it wasn't optimal. It was just shooting yourself in the foot for no good reason. Just like VI, really. It seemed like the only way to play V was tall. It's one of things I disliked about it.
|
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2017 19:28
|
|
|
skooma512 posted:It seemed like the only way to play V was tall. It's one of things I disliked about it. V is the exception.
|
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2017 19:29
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 14, 2024 00:15 |
|
|
I'm still playing VI as V too. I don't settle cities unless the location is amazing.
|
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2017 19:33
|
|