|
Anyone know if it would be possible to mod districts to cost a fixed number of turns rather than a fixed (but scaling) amount of production?
|
#
?
Jul 15, 2018 03:12
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 6, 2024 07:04 |
|
|
I've got VI uninstalled at the moment so I can't check. Let's say you want a district to take 5 turns. You could probably do this with a lua table. Hold the city, district being constructed, and the number 5 in a row. At the start of every turn decrement that number by 1. When that number hits 1, set the production cost of the district to 1. To have the number of turns show up properly in the production panel, do some math whenever you open the panel that gets the production of the city and multiplies it by the number in your table. Set the district cost to that resulting number.
|
|
#
?
Jul 15, 2018 03:27
|
|
|
I missed the bulk of the discussion but: Civ V ruled because it brought upon us the blessing of the hex-grid. Squares are Abominations in the eyes of the Lord and they can go rot in hell. I don't care about 1UPT, I don't care about AI, I don't care cartoony graphics, except whether they are placed in a square or a hex. Civ VI has hexes too so I guess it's ok.
|
|
#
?
Jul 15, 2018 12:15
|
|
|
hexes are just squares with an offset
|
|
#
?
Jul 15, 2018 14:06
|
|
|
does it matter if 80% of the players in a game don't understand the difference between squares and hexes
|
|
#
?
Jul 15, 2018 15:17
|
|
|
How about instead of hexes Civ VII goes to diamonds?
|
|
#
?
Jul 15, 2018 15:23
|
|
|
I prefer squares since 8 adjacent tiles instead of 6. (assuming you can move diagonally, anyway.)
|
|
#
?
Jul 15, 2018 17:07
|
|
|
Ambaire posted:I prefer squares since 8 adjacent tiles instead of 6. (assuming you can move diagonally, anyway.) Its also visually more elegant gently caress hexes
|
|
#
?
Jul 15, 2018 17:12
|
|
|
The Human Crouton posted:I've got VI uninstalled at the moment so I can't check. Nice to know it might be possible. I don't really have the time to tinker with it now, but at some point I'd like to try it and see if I prefer district availability being leveled a bit across cities. Might limit some of the production-god-stat problems with VI.
|
|
#
?
Jul 15, 2018 19:18
|
|
|
Fhqwhgads posted:How about instead of hexes Civ VII goes to diamonds? I think Civ 7 should mix it up and use points on a line.
|
|
#
?
Jul 15, 2018 20:54
|
|
|
JeremoudCorbynejad posted:I think Civ 7 should mix it up and use points on a line. Civilization VII: Flatland!
|
|
#
?
Jul 15, 2018 21:43
|
|
|
Hell, I'd play it.
|
|
#
?
Jul 15, 2018 21:56
|
|
|
Arsenic Lupin posted:Civilization VII: Flatland! Pretty sure that technically, all of the Civ games have been Flatland. Would be interesting to see a 3D globe map... would need a rework to an arbitrary distance-based movement system, though. With no tiles at all.
|
|
#
?
Jul 15, 2018 23:02
|
|
|
Ambaire posted:Pretty sure that technically, all of the Civ games have been Flatland. Would be interesting to see a 3D globe map... would need a rework to an arbitrary distance-based movement system, though. With no tiles at all. Movement would be the least of your problems in trying to wean Civ off of tiles. The entire game is built around these little regular packets of land you can capture/develop/exploit. I think it'd probably be less hassle to stick with tiles and just accept that occasionally one of your hexagons is going to be a pentagon. Though I don't know what a global map would gain you, really. A greater proportion of tiles in the tropics and the poles are on the map (but remain inaccessible/worthless).
|
|
#
?
Jul 15, 2018 23:41
|
|
|
Ambaire posted:Pretty sure that technically, all of the Civ games have been Flatland. Would be interesting to see a 3D globe map... would need a rework to an arbitrary distance-based movement system, though. With no tiles at all. SMAC did it pretty well, I thought. Still more of a torus though I suppose
|
|
#
?
Jul 16, 2018 00:06
|
|
|
Ambaire posted:Pretty sure that technically, all of the Civ games have been Flatland. Would be interesting to see a 3D globe map... would need a rework to an arbitrary distance-based movement system, though. With no tiles at all. Didn't 4 let you zoom out into a globe or am I thinking of something else
|
|
#
?
Jul 16, 2018 00:37
|
|
|
Pigbuster posted:Didn't 4 let you zoom out into a globe or am I thinking of something else It would let you zoom out to reveal a low-res rectangular map stretched onto a sphere, yes.
|
|
#
?
Jul 16, 2018 00:57
|
|
|
Don Pigeon posted:It would let you zoom out to reveal a low-res rectangular map stretched onto a sphere, yes. it was cooler at the time though
|
|
#
?
Jul 16, 2018 00:59
|
|
|
Also completely useless for trying to play on, as a globe would be.
|
|
#
?
Jul 16, 2018 09:40
|
|
|
IMHO Civ5 favored Tall over Wide to a ridiculous degree. One thing Civ6 does right is that it does not overtly penalize the player for being an aggressive land-grabber.
|
|
#
?
Jul 16, 2018 16:55
|
|
|
I'll grant that V's expansion limitations were artificial and gamey as all hell, but I'd still take them over VI making districts take a ridiculous number of turns for low production cities to build and changing internal trade routes so you can't just ship a decent chunk of production from your core cities to get new ones up to speed.
|
|
#
?
Jul 16, 2018 18:36
|
|
|
Zulily Zoetrope posted:changing internal trade routes so you can't just ship a decent chunk of production from your core cities to get new ones up to speed. Could have fooled me 
|
|
#
?
Jul 16, 2018 18:39
|
|
|
Zulily Zoetrope posted:I'll grant that V's expansion limitations were artificial and gamey as all hell, but I'd still take them over VI making districts take a ridiculous number of turns for low production cities to build and changing internal trade routes so you can't just ship a decent chunk of production from your core cities to get new ones up to speed. One of the big missed opportunities in both 5 and 6 was the ability to build advanced settlers that construct cities which start with improvements already constructed and with more than one population unit. There's no point building cities in the late game since they'll never contribute enough to your empire to be worth developing. The sole exception is like a uranium camp in Antarctica, but that shouldn't be a city anyway.
|
|
#
?
Jul 16, 2018 19:10
|
|
|
Mining outposts is what they're called and they're a missed opportunity.
|
|
#
?
Jul 16, 2018 19:17
|
|
|
John F Bennett posted:Mining outposts is what they're called and they're a missed opportunity. Didn't 4 have those? It's been a very long time for me.
|
|
#
?
Jul 16, 2018 20:50
|
|
|
No, those were in Civ 3.
|
|
#
?
Jul 16, 2018 21:23
|
|
|
4 just let you build a fort + road on the lux/strat resource to gain access.
|
|
#
?
Jul 16, 2018 21:33
|
|
|
I think the resource still has to be inside your borders?
|
|
#
?
Jul 16, 2018 22:43
|
|
|
I'm a big fan of the golden age bonus that lets new cities on continents other than your home start with 3 extra population. Only downside is you pretty much have to send one or two workers alongside settlers to build farms so you don't immediately starve down to three pop.
|
|
#
?
Jul 17, 2018 23:16
|
|
|
Is there a Rise and fall updated wonder adjacency/requirements guide?
|
|
#
?
Jul 18, 2018 00:59
|
|
|
Everyone says the AI is bad but I rolled a fractal map, with the default number of civs, and Kongo spawned 5 tiles away and killed me with his free units on turn 6 or 7.
|
|
#
?
Jul 18, 2018 01:17
|
|
|
Antares posted:Everyone says the AI is bad but I rolled a fractal map, with the default number of civs, and Kongo spawned 5 tiles away and killed me with his free units on turn 6 or 7. Peak AI 
|
|
#
?
Jul 18, 2018 03:59
|
|
|
Maya and Inca when
|
|
#
?
Jul 18, 2018 04:27
|
|
|
But seriously, shouldn't we be hearing about the Summer update sometime soon?
|
|
#
?
Jul 18, 2018 05:45
|
|
|
I'd like an update that was nothing but alternative leaders for, like, 12 or so already existing civs.
|
|
#
?
Jul 18, 2018 05:59
|
|
|
Antares posted:Everyone says the AI is bad but I rolled a fractal map, with the default number of civs, and Kongo spawned 5 tiles away and killed me with his free units on turn 6 or 7.
|
|
#
?
Jul 18, 2018 09:03
|
|
|
thats why I only play Earth TSL Australia 
|
|
#
?
Jul 18, 2018 09:26
|
|
|
Der Kyhe posted:IMHO Civ5 favored Tall over Wide to a ridiculous degree. Wide is ugly and annoying for me and the fact that 6 almost forces you into it (and tends towards weaker cities with a strong one that gets loads of bonuses) is another reason I wasn't a fan.
|
|
#
?
Jul 18, 2018 12:39
|
|
|
Also there's still no production queue, which is a real hassle when you have 10+ cities and aren't keeping track of where you're going with each one.
|
|
#
?
Jul 18, 2018 13:09
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 6, 2024 07:04 |
|
|
Taear posted:Wide is ugly and annoying for me and the fact that 6 almost forces you into it (and tends towards weaker cities with a strong one that gets loads of bonuses) is another reason I wasn't a fan. The tall government building option in Rise & Fall is actually pretty goddamn powerful. Wide is still better but it's balanced way better than 5 in that respect.
|
|
#
?
Jul 18, 2018 13:23
|
|