|
I'm feeling like this expansion is as good as BNW, relatively speaking. Especially considering that Civ VI was so comparatively feature rich at launch. My problem with Civ VI was and continues to be dumb AI and bad use interface decisions. R&F is definitely a step in the right direction for the UI, but it continues with some mind bogglingly stupid decisions. I feel the scroll bar on a great person screen is like a perfect microcosm of all the wrong decisions Civ VI made.
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2018 19:19
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 3, 2024 23:03 |
|
|
I really like the ages. I think the unique units should probably be a bigger era bonus, though; I like the idea of the unique unit being a central part of a Heroic Age Haymaker.
|
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2018 19:21
|
|
|
Stealing solo Settlers with Persia is the funniest thing. Surprise War, then zooooooooom!, back to the homeland.
|
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2018 21:31
|
|
|
JVNO posted:I'm feeling like this expansion is as good as BNW, relatively speaking. Especially considering that Civ VI was so comparatively feature rich at launch. My problem with Civ VI was and continues to be dumb AI and bad use interface decisions. R&F is definitely a step in the right direction for the UI, but it continues with some mind bogglingly stupid decisions. Did anyone ever make an acceptable AI tweaks mod? I assume pretty much nothing is updated atm but I figured I'd ask.
|
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2018 22:01
|
|
|
JVNO posted:I'm feeling like this expansion is as good as BNW, relatively speaking. Especially considering that Civ VI was so comparatively feature rich at launch. My problem with Civ VI was and continues to be dumb AI and bad use interface decisions. R&F is definitely a step in the right direction for the UI, but it continues with some mind bogglingly stupid decisions. The scroll bar wouldn't even be so bad if the damned Great Prophet was at least put to one side or the other. Who's idiot idea was it to make the great person slot that spends 9/10th of a full-length game barren in the dead center?
|
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2018 22:11
|
|
|
I can't believe alliances still hard cancel every 30 turns. Especially since the AI is still finicky and will occasionally decide it doesn't want to be your friend until two turns after the alliance expired.
|
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2018 22:21
|
|
|
I'm not asking for skynet here, but you'd think after surprise war number 5 fails, it would be pretty evident that they are both not surprises and not much of a war
|
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2018 22:27
|
|
|
Koryk posted:Stealing solo Settlers with Persia is the funniest thing. Surprise War, then zooooooooom!, back to the homeland. It really is. Fall of Babylon is such a good ability. R&F's version is slightly nerfed (instead of no penalties in occupied cities, Cyrus gets +5 loyalty in occupied cities with a garrisoned unit, so it takes a little more effort for that particular benefit) but it's still really good. Alkydere posted:The scroll bar wouldn't even be so bad if the damned Great Prophet was at least put to one side or the other. Who's idiot idea was it to make the great person slot that spends 9/10th of a full-length game barren in the dead center? There being scrollbars in the big menu you move with a scrollbar trips me up; every time, I try to use the scroll wheel to scroll down the list of who's earning what points before being reminded that that moves the whole thing left and right instead.
|
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2018 22:35
|
|
|
Raserys posted:I'm not asking for skynet here, but you'd think after surprise war number 5 fails, it would be pretty evident that they are both not surprises and not much of a war People still get surprised by surprise parties
|
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2018 22:37
|
|
|
Straight White Shark posted:So far emergencies seem to be the only real dud. They pop up pretty randomly and really gently caress with the already-tenuous diplomacy. After playing several games of Civ 6 without seeing the dreaded nonsense joint war, I had friendly Tomyris and Trajan randomly declare on me. This created a backstab emergency, which Trajan joined, forcing him to backstab his backstab partner to punish her for backstabbing. I like the concept, but they really needed to put in more work on figuring out what should qualify for an emergency. A random betrayal or city-state conquest does not feel like the kind of OH poo poo, DOGPILE NOW moment that emergencies are designed for. I'm still on my first R&F game and have only had one emergency, which happened when I converted Korea's Taoist holy city to my own religion, Memes*. It was about my civ's lack of religious tolerance, and the goal was to re-convert the holy city back to Taoism after 30 turns which was a losing proposition all-around since I had converted pretty much every city on the continent at that point. The only one who joined in was Korea, and all this did was spur me to be more aggressive with religious conversions in that area until the emergency was over. *gently caress you I think it's funny because I get messages like "Zanzibar wants Memes" and I imagine a missionary singing "We Are Number One", telling tales of Steamed Hams, and distributing icons of Advice Dog 
|
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2018 22:40
|
|
|
Beef Hardcheese posted:*gently caress you I think it's funny because I get messages like "Zanzibar wants Memes" and I imagine a missionary singing "We Are Number One", telling tales of Steamed Hams, and distributing icons of Advice Dog Hey man, I can't judge. I used to do poo poo like name the Civ V Wold Congress as "World Farting Contest" or one time "Wu's A Bitch" when she unlocked printing press one turn before me so she got the first go-around. I've also named my religion stuff like "Sandwiches" so I get stuff like "Kandy wants Sandwiches". Also, Emergencies seem mainly capital-related. Taking a city state or a civ's capital tends to trigger an instant military emergency, as does flipping a holy city's religion. There seem to be a few others (take a lot of cities from someone or use a nuke) but those are the big ones.
|
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2018 22:49
|
|
|
CascadeBeta posted:Did anyone ever make an acceptable AI tweaks mod? I assume pretty much nothing is updated atm but I figured I'd ask. The AI is basically unmoddable. The best you can do is modify things about the game and hope they make the game easier for the AI to play. The big issue I've seen with the AI is that it doesn't attack when it should. Rocket artillery rolling around inside city strike range getting hit over and over, for example. Tanks that could easily take a city sitting still nearby instead. I'm not sure what you can do to fix an AI that won't commit to sure-fire 100% positive attacks.
|
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2018 22:54
|
|
|
How come I get the war monger penalty even if I've never declared a war. Zulu and Spain declared war on me early on and now ever other civ hates me because I'm winning the war.
|
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2018 23:01
|
|
|
Popete posted:How come I get the war monger penalty even if I've never declared a war. Zulu and Spain declared war on me early on and now ever other civ hates me because I'm winning the war. Declaring a war isn't the main source of warmonger penalty. Capturing cities is.
|
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2018 23:08
|
|
|
Gort posted:Declaring a war isn't the main source of warmonger penalty. Capturing cities is. Well then maybe they shouldn't have declared war on me. I've never had a game in Civ 6 where I didn't end up with war mongering even when I'm not being particularly aggressive.
|
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2018 23:11
|
|
|
Popete posted:How come I get the war monger penalty even if I've never declared a war. Zulu and Spain declared war on me early on and now ever other civ hates me because I'm winning the war. Taking cities turns the war from a defensive one to an offensive one, where you're using conquest to benefit yourself, and if you think about things from an RP/in-universe perspective involves you slaughtering a bunch of civilians, and people don't like that even if the other side struck first. And before the "but that's not fair, I'm doing the same thing warmongers do for a good reason" conversation starts again, it was that way in V too. It's easy to fight off an enemy civ without outright taking their cities, and if you defend yourself long enough, even if you aren't winning, they'll probably give you their cities because the AI is really dumb about war. Just kill their units and pillage their stuff if you go on the offensive. Roland Jones fucked around with this message at 23:15 on Feb 12, 2018 |
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2018 23:12
|
|
|
Popete posted:Well then maybe they shouldn't have declared war on me. Yeah, it's unintuitive, but it's the way it works. You could imagine if France had just kept hold of all of Germany's cities after World War One that the rest of the world might have looked a little askance at them, though. I think a better system would be one of "grievances", where when someone does something bad to you (EG: Settles nearby when you've warned them not to, declares war on you, breaks a promise, gets caught spying) you get a "grievance" against them. Having a grievance against someone allows you to make a demand from them and go to war warmonger-free if they refuse it, and generate no warmonger penalty in the peace deal if all you take is what you originally demanded. The size of demands could be proportional to the target civilisation's strength in a given area, so if you demand gold from a rich civ you get a lot, but an impoverished civ would get you little, and a large civ with many big cities might lose a large city where a small civ would only lose a small one.
|
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2018 23:19
|
|
|
Gort posted:Yeah, it's unintuitive, but it's the way it works. You could imagine if France had just kept hold of all of Germany's cities after World War One that the rest of the world might have looked a little askance at them, though. This is a good point actually; giving the cities back after the war ends removes the warmongering penalties for taking them. I can't remember if having the AI cede them to you also lessens them or not, but I'm pretty sure it's better than just keeping them occupied (which also keeps them from growing, which is bad) at least.
|
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2018 23:21
|
|
|
I thought not getting the cities ceded just made those cities really lovely for you.
|
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2018 23:22
|
|
|
Is it possible to make Joint War trade options only available if the asking civ is already at war with the target civ? Because I feel like that'd go a long way toward making the mechanic not mindbogglingly obnoxious.
|
|
#
?
Feb 13, 2018 00:01
|
|
|
Gort posted:Yeah, it's unintuitive, but it's the way it works. You could imagine if France had just kept hold of all of Germany's cities after World War One that the rest of the world might have looked a little askance at them, though. I agree. The casus belli system is a good idea but the implementation leaves a lot to be desired. It bugs me that only the aggressor gains the benefit of casus belli (you'd think that "they're invading me!" would be a good excuse to cut down your warmonger, but apparently not!), and that they're so abstract. There's no real concept of what's "enough", it's just a question of how much warmongering penalty you want to take on. It sort of works in that you can keep your warmongering penalties small if you don't get greedy but it's frustratingly ambiguous as to where the line is drawn.
|
|
#
?
Feb 13, 2018 00:13
|
|
|
Popete posted:Well then maybe they shouldn't have declared war on me. Punitively taking cities is aggressive. For defensive wars I'd usually just pillage all the improvements I can before taking the city, steal any workers/great works that are in the city. Then give it back when suing for peace. That's usually enough to make up for having to divert resources and keep the AIs happy. Or, if possible, liberating a city state is great for reducing warmonger penalties. PS Impi corps are stupidly overpowered.
|
|
#
?
Feb 13, 2018 00:18
|
|
|
Call me crazy but declaring war on someone seems much more warmongery then liberating cities from a war mongerer.
|
|
#
?
Feb 13, 2018 01:34
|
|
|
ate poo poo on live tv posted:Call me crazy but declaring war on someone seems much more warmongery then liberating cities from a war mongerer. Liberating cities reduces your warmonger penalty, actually. It's a good way to get away with being an actual warmonger, even. Conquering and keeping cities is not the same as liberating them, though.
|
|
#
?
Feb 13, 2018 01:36
|
|
|
Popete posted:Well then maybe they shouldn't have declared war on me. Here's how I conquer whole empires without getting any warmonger penalty: wait until the AI attacks a city-state I'm suzerain of, then Declare Protectorate War and take everything. Also works with city-state emergencies. It was actually a neat game. I built Kilwa Kisiwani, and then got super protective of my cultural city-states, because I was suzerain of two and they were giving me +15% culture in all cities. Then Nubia tries to conquer one and I take all her land in the ensuring Protectorate War. Then Germany attacks another one and I take all his land. No warmonger penalties at all even though I control three other Civ capitals now (Nubia had conquered Egypt previously). Also, there's something weird going in the display for the Wish You Were Here Golden Age dedication and National Parks.  The lifetime tourism thing suggests I'm not actually getting 3645 tourism per turn from this single National Park, but who knows? The system is a bit opaque and I am getting a large amount of tourists per turn now, but the game is now hard-crashing on this turn and I suspect this National Park is the culprit. Usually when the game hard crashes the very last few lines of GameEffects.log point to the culprit, and in this case it appears to be GAME_HAS_ATOMIC_EYE_REQUIREMENTS for the Eye of the Sahara natural wonder that's partially a National Park and partially affected by Petra.
|
|
#
?
Feb 13, 2018 02:53
|
|
|
HappyCamperGL posted:Punitively taking cities is aggressive. The nice thing about giving territory back is that it's basically a given that the AI won't be able to cough up enough money/luxuries/great works to make up the value of the cities you return, so the AI will be grateful because it thinks you're giving it a really good deal by settling for all of its money and income and resources and art, so you'll probably have a really good relationship with whoever you just beat up.
|
|
#
?
Feb 13, 2018 04:13
|
|
|
Demands for improved AI are pretty consistent across all recent Civ releases and Firaxis games generally but it's a pretty fine balancing act. The problem is that if the AI was told to win and didn't have to abide by any restrictions it would win 99.9% of the time, particularly in a game as formulaic as Civ. Everybody wants good AI until they have to play against good AI.
|
|
#
?
Feb 13, 2018 04:36
|
|
|
Fojar38 posted:Demands for improved AI are pretty consistent across all recent Civ releases and Firaxis games generally but it's a pretty fine balancing act. The problem is that if the AI was told to win and didn't have to abide by any restrictions it would win 99.9% of the time, particularly in a game as formulaic as Civ. Everybody wants good AI until they have to play against good AI. Civ4 had a great Ai that performed the most important function it could, providing a challenge.
|
|
#
?
Feb 13, 2018 04:51
|
|
|
Fojar38 posted:Demands for improved AI are pretty consistent across all recent Civ releases and Firaxis games generally but it's a pretty fine balancing act. The problem is that if the AI was told to win and didn't have to abide by any restrictions it would win 99.9% of the time, particularly in a game as formulaic as Civ. Everybody wants good AI until they have to play against good AI. Designing an AI that can play a game as complex as Civ on a competitive level is a non-trivial challenge. It would be pretty simple to make a really scary rush AI that would level a human player with all the Deity start bonuses, but making an AI that could actually compete in the long run without needing a massive head start would probably take more work than just making Civ VII.
|
|
#
?
Feb 13, 2018 05:15
|
|
|
ate poo poo on live tv posted:Civ4 had a great Ai that performed the most important function it could, providing a challenge. The Civ 4 AI would still mindlessly suicide huge stacks of units into fortified cities over and over.
|
|
#
?
Feb 13, 2018 05:53
|
|
|
Magil Zeal posted:The Civ 4 AI would still mindlessly suicide huge stacks of units into fortified cities over and over. that honestly still sounds preferable over civ 6 ai being terrified of taking cities
|
|
#
?
Feb 13, 2018 06:10
|
|
|
Brother Entropy posted:that honestly still sounds preferable over civ 6 ai being terrified of taking cities I agree, but it's still not exactly a stellar performance on the AI's part when the player ends up with a K:D ratio of like 50:1.
|
|
#
?
Feb 13, 2018 06:20
|
|
|
ate poo poo on live tv posted:Civ4 had a great Ai that performed the most important function it could, providing a challenge. This isn't really true. The Civ4 AI was competent, but pretty reliably beaten. More importantly, it had competent personality. When you played and bordered Isabella, you knew you had to convert to her religion, convert her to yours, or fight. The equivalent in Civ6 is.. not caring at all, because the AI is fundamentally incapable of threatening you, in any way. Like maybe there is some similar personality(maybe?), but there's not that baseline where you care.
|
|
#
?
Feb 13, 2018 06:28
|
|
|
After buying the expansion and playing it for two half-games that I abandoned in the Industrial era, I've come to the sad conclusion that I don't care about Civ 6 all that much. However, it's entirely possible that I'm skimming over some new expansion thing. Did they add anything other than Governors and Golden Ages? I don't recall coming across anything else that seemed new.
|
|
#
?
Feb 13, 2018 07:23
|
|
|
The added the loyatly/city-flipping thing.
|
|
#
?
Feb 13, 2018 08:54
|
|
|
Just the loyalty system and emergencies, the latter of which is the only poorly implemented new feature (I feel like the idea is good, though). Governors and loyalty are both very good additions; there are lots of interesting, meaningful choices to make there. I really like the ages too but I haven't yet felt the need to 'farm' points by doing things I wouldn't otherwise be doing, which is one criticism I've seen repeated here and elsewhere. I was impressed by how good the expansion turned out because some of the ideas didn't seem that good on paper, but I think it's pretty obvious they were very carefully thought out and they fit this version of Civ really well. I just wish the AI could present a challenge throughout the course of the game. Civ AI never changes.
|
|
#
?
Feb 13, 2018 08:55
|
|
|
Beamed posted:This isn't really true. The Civ4 AI was competent, but pretty reliably beaten. in addition to that: the AI in 4 is moddable: Revolution, BUG and now C2C still improve it today
|
|
#
?
Feb 13, 2018 09:02
|
|
|
JeremoudCorbynejad posted:The added the loyatly/city-flipping thing. This is unrelated, but I sent you a friend request on Steam; I'm in the two games you replaced markus in, so I was hoping we'd be able to talk and stuff. (Though in one of the two, you took over his nation while I was in the process of attacking it, unfortunately.)
|
|
#
?
Feb 13, 2018 09:03
|
|
|
I remember before Civ 6 came out that it was supposed to be the most moddable of all civs. So, what was that all about?
|
|
#
?
Feb 13, 2018 09:10
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 3, 2024 23:03 |
|
|
JeremoudCorbynejad posted:The added the loyatly/city-flipping thing. Is there any way to control that, ie: intentionally make a rival city flip? The only anti-loyalty thing I found was the Diplomat governor, which seemed insignificant enough to be irrelevant. From the games I played, it was basically only a deterrent to extreme forward settling. Edit: Preferably without going to war; if I wanted to conquer a city I'd just do so directly.
|
|
#
?
Feb 13, 2018 09:12
|
|