|
John F Bennett posted:Makes sense, though? Why would you ally with a lesser power? Who does that? Same reason I Ally with city states. They are a great defensive buffers during war. If I could pay an ally to build more troops and fight on my behalf that would be perfect. Outside of war I'd be willing to give science and culture to that ally so they could better effectively threaten my neighbors. It would be a great way to avoid war weariness penalties without being a total pacifist.
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2018 16:25
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 15, 2024 10:17 |
|
|
Presumably they're aware of the Joint War bullshit and it'll be fixed in the expansion patch, because otherwise there's really very little point to expanding on diplomacy options.MarquiseMindfang posted:So the only reason to ally with shmucks is to give them gifts out of the goodness of your heart, because most of these supposed "benefits" are actually drawbacks (can't convert cities, meanwhile you bleed tech boosts/science/culture/tourism/GPP to them). How is it a drawback? Outside of Great Persons, you're not actually losing anything. Giving a tech boost to a civ that's not going to out-tech you isn't hurting you in any way, and you get science and tech boosts as well. Religious alliances are obviously a hurdle if you're going for a religious victory, but you can benefit from investing in a religion while going for other victories. Unless you're consistently an era ahead of every other civ, there's going to be someone with whom it makes sense to buddy up.
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2018 16:27
|
|
|
Zulily Zoetrope posted:Presumably they're aware of the Joint War bullshit and it'll be fixed in the expansion patch, because otherwise there's really very little point to expanding on diplomacy options. I haven't noticed any Joint Wars being declared on the players in the preview videos that are going out, which is promising though hardly a guarantee of anything. I think quill got offered one in a Trade, and there is now a warmonger pop-up for Joint Wars. Several new Great People have been spotted though, utilizing the new mechanics like Culture Bomb and Government Titles. Which is good, because running dry on Great People feels bad.
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2018 16:30
|
|
|
What's the beef with joint wars anyway? I actually thought it was kind of cool that since I had a superior military, the AI consistently brought a friend or two with them to fight. Not that it matters because the AI is so atrocious at fighting wars, but it had the potential to even the playing field and allowed the AI to at least pillage a bunch of stuff in a two-front war.
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2018 16:38
|
|
|
Judge Schnoopy posted:What's the beef with joint wars anyway? I actually thought it was kind of cool that since I had a superior military, the AI consistently brought a friend or two with them to fight. Joint Wars aren't bad as a concept, but the AI doesn't seem to properly weigh relationships and warmonger penalties when declaring them. I get a lot more inexplicable Joint Wars than any other kind of war. I'm just hoping it's a thing they've fixed in Rise and Fall.
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2018 16:49
|
|
|
Yeah, the AI seems like it doesn't consider the same factors when it declares joint wars as it does every other type. Might be due to it being a trade option, unlike the others; rather than a war, it just sees them as a good deal. Then it gets wrecked because it wasn't actually prepared for war and might not have really wanted it even. But yeah, it's been such a prominent problem that I really hope they decided to fix it finally.
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2018 17:10
|
|
|
Judge Schnoopy posted:What's the beef with joint wars anyway? I actually thought it was kind of cool that since I had a superior military, the AI consistently brought a friend or two with them to fight. Well, from a player's point of view, they bypass the Casus Belli system and always count as formal wars, which makes absolutely no sense and lets anyone declare a surprise war without being penalized. Additionally, you can only ever declare a joint war with exactly one other civ against someone that neither of you are fighting. You cannot ask for help against a civ that's invading you, and you can never have a coalition of more than two players. In single player, whatever decision process the AI is running for joint wars is super busted. Civs that hate each other and are friendly with you will band together to fight you. Civs that are nowhere near your borders and have no means of attacking you will happily declare war. Civs that have just lost a war and have no military left will happily take on the world. Usually all three at once. Have you ever actually been in a two-front joint war? The AI doesn't even seem to plan for them, the way it does with surprise/Casus Belli wars. The only multiple front wars I've seen have been the regular kinds, where opportunistic neighbors start dogpiling you because they see your military is tied up. I've had multiple games end up in a cycle of the same three-four pairs of civs declare war every 20 turns, even though most of them had no way to attack me, and the ones that did were tied up fighting all their other neighbors. Zulily Zoetrope fucked around with this message at 17:18 on Jan 23, 2018 |
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2018 17:15
|
|
|
Two games come to mind but I think it was a fluke over valid strategy. In one game, two civs declared a joint war on the same turn another civ declared a formal war, making it seem like three civs had teamed up. The joint war attacked the east near my capital, the formal war attacked the south and pillaged a bunch of poo poo. In the most recent game I was sandwiched between the two colluding civs, Egypt and Norway. Because Norway is all boats and my East coast was on an ocean, Norway had a solid front that kept me out of the water and struggling to stop them from pillaging coast tiles. Egypt tied up my troops to the West which created a pretty valid two front war, though nothing that could really take any of my cities. In both games I had to struggle to switch from science production to military really quickly to defend myself. I thought it was decent of the AI to use this to knock me down a peg scientifically. But of course I won both games because the AI is atrocious at fighting wars and are never really a threat. I miss the days of Civ V where Catherine declaring a war on you in the classic era was incredibly dangerous and you could expect heavy losses if you weren't prepared.
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2018 18:02
|
|
|
Judge Schnoopy posted:In both games I had to struggle to switch from science production to military really quickly to defend myself. I thought it was decent of the AI to use this to knock me down a peg scientifically. But of course I won both games because the AI is atrocious at fighting wars and are never really a threat. It's a bit maddening because the AI actually seems to be able to cope with melee combat way better than Civ V, but melee units are less relevant than ever since ranged units parked in rough terrain are functionally immune from infantry and the AI still doesn't grasp that.
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2018 18:15
|
|
|
I'm really looking forward to emergencies if only because it might prompt the AI to actually team up to try to stop me when I go demolishing stuff.
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2018 18:15
|
|
|
homullus posted:What's the "correct" opening in chess? What.
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2018 19:40
|
|
|
No civs today?
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2018 19:41
|
|
|
Kurtofan posted:No civs today? Teaser for tomorrow https://twitter.com/CivGame/status/955817484115894272 Civfanatics has already come to the conclusion that it's Robert the Bruce of Scotland
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2018 19:47
|
|
|
ixnay posted:Teaser for tomorrow With that spider and that quote? Definitely.
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2018 20:01
|
|
|
Clearly the Incas.
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2018 20:54
|
|
|
Not William Wallace then? Well, some people will be happy about that. Edit: Meanwhile, some wonder news: Colosseum now only gives +2 amenities to cities in range, but also gives +2 loyalty. The Great Library now gives +1 Great Writer point per turn and gives you a random Eureka every time a Great Scientist is claimed. So that's interesting. Roland Jones fucked around with this message at 00:00 on Jan 24, 2018 |
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2018 22:01
|
|
|
Hello is the AI still complete rear end like they were in the release of this game or can i have a semblance of difficulty in actual battles instead of fighting enemies from 2-4 time periods earlier? Civ 5 was at the most enjoyable but my initial playthrough of this game just left a really bad impression :/
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2018 02:03
|
|
|
Nope! The AI poses no threat in a military conquest game. The other game systems have cool upgrades to V but the game is not very challenging. Every problem can be solved as such: 10 winning 20 AI gets close to 1st place 30 build ranged units 40 annihilate the world from two tiles away 50 go to 10
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2018 02:20
|
|
|
Zulily Zoetrope posted:Presumably they're aware of the Joint War bullshit and it'll be fixed in the expansion patch, because otherwise there's really very little point to expanding on diplomacy options. joint war insanity is a "feature," or they would've patched it out already
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2018 02:27
|
|
|
Roland Jones posted:Not William Wallace then? Well, some people will be happy about that. I'm one of them. I hated the prospect of William Wallace leading Scotland, but Robert the Bruce is a fine choice.
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2018 02:45
|
|
|
Judge Schnoopy posted:Nope! The AI poses no threat in a military conquest game. wtf!!! drat whats the incentive then on playing if AI isn't going to pull its strings to poo poo out units like crazy? i was baffled at how bad it was compared to 5 when it comes to war..surely y'all are playing for some challenge besides optimization?
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2018 03:09
|
|
|
For what it's worth, the AI does pose a military threat in the beginning of the game where they start with free units/techs, have bonus combat strength from difficulty settings and naturally hate the player. It's entirely possible to lose your cities to an early game AI rush ... until you build some walls and ranged units. At that point, the military threat of even the highest-leveled AI instantly evaporates and it's no longer a question of whether you'll win or not but how you'll win and how long it'll take. From what I've heard, it's sessions in multiplayer games with real humans where the game mechanics mostly shine.
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2018 03:21
|
|
|
As someone who plays a lot of MP in this game, I, at least, love it. Still has some issues, but it's pretty fun. Early game is more interesting than V's, too. As for the AI, I hear about people losing on Deity a lot and stuff, even the people who stream/LP the game for a living, but I admittedly haven't actually watched many of those streams so I'm not sure if it's being conquered that ruins them or something else. Edit: Also, of course, a big reason the higher-level AI is hard is because it cheats, but, that's always been the case with Civ. It's never had good AI, really. I think a major problem with VI's AI, compared to past games, is that it doesn't know how to deal with a lot of the new stuff. It doesn't get that joint wars are wars and not just another thing to trade, it doesn't get that it needs to prioritize districts even past the early game once it has more options, it doesn't get how the movement rules are more restrictive now, and so on. That, combined with things like how the leader screen takes longer to load and leave whenever it decides to pester you, and it doing that more often due to reasons like agendas and it praising/warning you based on how it feels about you (which would otherwise be a good thing compared to how opaque V's AI could be), make it a lot more annoying than it was in past games despite, I expect, really being pretty similar to V's AI under the hood. Rather than being worse, exactly, it's probably mostly the same, but the game changed around it and it can't handle it. I could be completely off here, of course. But it makes sense to me, at least. (This is also mostly semantic, since the final result is still the AI sucking at the game.) Roland Jones fucked around with this message at 03:55 on Jan 24, 2018 |
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2018 03:40
|
|
|
Yea I should probably play civ6 as a board game and forget about single player. I would really like a single player focus Civ challenge though.
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2018 04:01
|
|
|
ate poo poo on live tv posted:Yea I should probably play civ6 as a board game and forget about single player. Try the scenarios, maybe? They're supposed to generally be pretty interesting, from what I hear.
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2018 04:04
|
|
|
I've been watching some of the streams, and I kind of like what I see of golden and dark ages. Seems like you have to really work for a golden age, might accidentally end up in a dark age, but will most likely end up in a normal age. I like that, if that pattern holds true. However, once one gets the tempo and requirements down, I think every decent player will be able to play Georgia in the following way nearly every game: Ancient normal -> Classic normal -> Medieval dark -> Renaissance heroic -> Industrial golden -> Modern golden -> Atomic normal -> Information golden -> spaceship
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2018 04:06
|
|
|
The Human Crouton posted:I've been watching some of the streams, and I kind of like what I see of golden and dark ages. Seems like you have to really work for a golden age, might accidentally end up in a dark age, but will most likely end up in a normal age. I like that, if that pattern holds true. That is probably a safer way of playing Georgia than my idea, which is to go for a Dark Age immediately in the Classical Era, then a Heroic Medieval, and try to maintain a Golden Age as long as possible from there. Keeps you a bit safer during the Ancient and Classical Eras, i.e. when poo poo is really dangerous, lets you still try to grab an early religion and stuff that you'll want, and benefits from their unique unit apparently coming under Military Tactics, which is a Medieval tech. If you can pull off a Classical Golden Age, then that's even better, but might not be possible all the time.
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2018 04:22
|
|
|
Roland Jones posted:That is probably a safer way of playing Georgia than my idea, which is to go for a Dark Age immediately in the Classical Era, then a Heroic Medieval, and try to maintain a Golden Age as long as possible from there. Keeps you a bit safer during the Ancient and Classical Eras, i.e. when poo poo is really dangerous, lets you still try to grab an early religion and stuff that you'll want, and benefits from their unique unit apparently coming under Military Tactics, which is a Medieval tech. If you can pull off a Classical Golden Age, then that's even better, but might not be possible all the time. Yes, we do have the same idea only mine is safer. Yours may be totally doable. It all depends on how much each successive golden age requirement is.
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2018 05:10
|
|
|
I really hope unrestricted leaders becomes a thing in the future, because I absolutely want to play Mongolia as Catherine, and here's why: There's a new mechanic in Rise and Fall in which you get +3 combat strength per diplomatic visibility you have relative to what the player has on you. De Medici automatically gets visibility over all civs. +1 visibility, +3 strength. Mongolia gets diplomatic visibility when it establishes a trading post to another civ (instantly when the trade route is created). +2 visibility, +6 strength. De Medici gets a free spy at Castles, who can go on a mission to increase visibility on any civ. +3 visibility, +9 strength. The Printing Press tech automatically grants another level of visibility over all civs. +4 visibility, +12 strength. There's also a Great Merchant who can automatically grant another level of visibility over all civs. +5 visibility, +15 strength. Oh, also Mongolia's ability doubles that bonus to +6 strength per level of visibility. It could be crazy even without Catherine as its leader, to be honest.
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2018 05:35
|
|
|
Bluff Buster posted:I really hope unrestricted leaders becomes a thing in the future, because I absolutely want to play Mongolia as Catherine, and here's why: Unrestricted leaders could get really silly. Putting someone other than Mvemba in charge of Kongo, so they can get their own Reliquaries religion and apostles, and thus relics via Martyr, and more places to put said relics since they can build temples now, could be fun, if extremely gimmicky. Maybe put Cyrus in charge of Scythia so you get hordes of 6 movement cavalry. Or put him in Sumeria and have even scarier war carts. (Really, Cyrus is good for any military civ.) Not that this is a bad thing, mind. It'd probably be really fun, both playing it and just trying to figure out the most ridiculous leader-civ combinations.
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2018 05:48
|
|
|
Roland Jones posted:Not that this is a bad thing, mind. It'd probably be really fun, both playing it and just trying to figure out the most ridiculous leader-civ combinations. i loved playing as willem of america or england in civ 4. cre/fin + supermarkets or stock exchanges in holy cities and corporate HQs 
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2018 05:51
|
|
|
Unrestricted leaders was discussed a while back in the thread when the possibility of multiple leaders per Civ was raised, and it's an interesting idea, could certainly lead to some power combos. If I'm not mistaken, you could play Barbarossa of Greece and have both an extra military and extra wildcard slot. That'd be pretty nice, like having Autocracy from Code of Laws onward. Or anyone else of Russia since I dislike Peter's leader ability but like the Civ abilities.
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2018 06:09
|
|
|
Magil Zeal posted:Unrestricted leaders was discussed a while back in the thread when the possibility of multiple leaders per Civ was raised, and it's an interesting idea, could certainly lead to some power combos. If I'm not mistaken, you could play Barbarossa of Greece and have both an extra military and extra wildcard slot. That'd be pretty nice, like having Autocracy from Code of Laws onward. Or anyone else of Russia since I dislike Peter's leader ability but like the Civ abilities. Barbarossa + Greece probably wouldn't be the most effective combination, and his bonus and the Arcopolis's have contradictory purposes, but being able to equip all four policies you get from Code of Laws right away would be pretty amusing. Meanwhile, in much the same way Cyrus is a great leader for anyone who wants to be aggressive, Curtin would be good for anyone who wants to be defensive. Doubled production when attacked might help some civs survive the early eras better.
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2018 07:34
|
|
|
I can't watch these streams for any length of time, my brain starts screaming every time they make a mistake.
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2018 10:13
|
|
|
Before the game allowed teams and I'd play with my girlfriend the AI would offer us joint wars against the other player all the time. Even if they were super friendly with the other player. It's not much of a leap to assume it's something they're doing constantly. And when you are playing a team game two teams declare war at the same time as each other in almost all your early wars.
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2018 10:33
|
|
|
Bluff Buster posted:For what it's worth, the AI does pose a military threat in the beginning of the game where they start with free units/techs, have bonus combat strength from difficulty settings and naturally hate the player. It's entirely possible to lose your cities to an early game AI rush If they used the escort formation that is in the game as a mechanic, which they could use, this would not be a problem.
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2018 11:24
|
|
|
Still hilarious that you can capture a settler and it stays a settler, IMO. Didn't they change that pretty early on in Civ 5 because it was bonkers broken?
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2018 13:44
|
|
|
JeremoudCorbynejad posted:Still hilarious that you can capture a settler and it stays a settler, IMO. Didn't they change that pretty early on in Civ 5 because it was bonkers broken? Yes. So early that I don't ever remember being able to capture settlers as settlers. Also, it's even funnier that the last patch for VI not only allows you to still steal settlers, but also starts the game with you next to one.
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2018 13:53
|
|
|
So... Scotland's UI is a Golf Course. Just putting that out there.
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2018 15:52
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 15, 2024 10:17 |
|
|
Magil Zeal posted:So... Scotland's UI is a Golf Course. Just putting that out there. "Be sure to combat war weariness with golf courses." Awesome.
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2018 15:56
|
|