|
Serephina posted:One thing civ doesn't do, and its kind of bizarre since you'd think it's the sort of thing that the 'dazzle' department would have wanted in, is seeing your own leader when you're playing. Like, when some stuffy french aristocrat comes complaining to my empire about whatever, I want myself as Hojo, kimono and sword and all, to go tell them to eat a back of dicks. Such an easy way of adding immersion, such opportunity wasted. You ironically never get to see your favorite leaders in-game, because you're too busy playing as them =[ And I'd like the throne room to develop like in civ 2... utterly meaningless to gameplay but the kind of thing I never switched off. It could be linked to the golden age mechanic or achievements, have the great work stored in your Palace on display, etc. Edit: I would of course always prefer gameplay improvements over graphical tweaks, and it needs far more of them first.
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2019 15:30
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 4, 2024 03:11 |
|
|
I think the game should have a picture of your leader on the bottom of the screen, like Wolfenstein 3D, and it should become bloodied or healthy depending on your performance.
|
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2019 15:38
|
|
|
Hey folks, I don't understand this district map, can someone give me an explanation for dummies? https://imgur.com/roUW0RN
|
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2019 15:50
|
|
|
Mayveena posted:Hey folks, I don't understand this district map, can someone give me an explanation for dummies? Do you understand the basics of district placement and adjacency bonuses? I used a graphic helper similar to this when I started playing, but it's usefulness has a very small window of player skill. Either way, this is hard to read because it's trying to do too much. It would be best if there was a different graphic for each district instead of just cramming them all in one image. But the way to read it is that each arrow is showing how many bonus yields that district gets for being adjacent to a feature or other district. So a campus gets +1 science for each adjacent mountain, and +.5 science for each adjacent rainforest. The graphic also shows which buildings can go into each district, but the buildings are irrelevant to the adjacency yields, and probably shouldn't even be in this graphic.
|
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2019 16:04
|
|
|
OK Thanks, that gives me a great way to actually understand what the chart is trying to say.
|
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2019 16:35
|
|
|
Mayveena posted:Stacks of doom went away in 5 and have not returned in 6. Which is why I will only play 5 or 6, I hated the stacks, the spread out units make so much more sense to me. I don't get this. A carpet is way more tedious to manage and results in unnecessary traffic jams.
|
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2019 16:38
|
|
|
Borsche69 posted:I don't get this. A carpet is way more tedious to manage and results in unnecessary traffic jams. I prefer managing traffic jams to managing stacks.
|
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2019 16:41
|
|
|
Mayveena posted:OK Thanks, that gives me a great way to actually understand what the chart is trying to say. Cool. Be aware that the image was two years old though. While much of it is still relevant, there may be some yields that have been changed. So don't get confused when you don't get the output the graphic predicts.
|
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2019 16:43
|
|
|
Cythereal posted:I prefer managing traffic jams to managing stacks. Me as well. Feels much more intuitive even if there's more micro needed to make things work the way you want.
|
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2019 16:48
|
|
|
Borsche69 posted:I don't get this. A carpet is way more tedious to manage and results in unnecessary traffic jams. Also is kinda weird to say it "makes sense". I mean, how does it makes sense that you cant fit 2 units of spearmen in an area large enough to fit a farm? Or that an archer can shoot across a distance of twice that (and a riflemen cant)? I know thats the least of the problems with 1UPT, but is never made much sense But yeah. the real problems is that it becomes a chore when you have dozens of units to move and, of course, that the AI cant play it at all
|
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2019 16:49
|
|
|
The Human Crouton posted:Cool. Be aware that the image was two years old though. While much of it is still relevant, there may be some yields that have been changed. So don't get confused when you don't get the output the graphic predicts. Are there any more current charts around? That would be nice. Seems like since video has become 'the thing' it's a lot harder to find this type of info in a nicely done graphic.
|
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2019 16:49
|
|
|
Cythereal posted:I prefer managing traffic jams to managing stacks. What's so bad about managing stacks?
|
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2019 16:51
|
|
|
Mayveena posted:Are there any more current charts around? That would be nice. Seems like since video has become 'the thing' it's a lot harder to find this type of info in a nicely done graphic. Don't know. If you have the expansion then the only major change is that there is a government district that gives +1 bonus to all adjacent districts instead of just +.5. For everything else, I think the graphic is accurate, but I'm not sure about some of the finer points like if the information about what affects appeal is still accurate and things like that. So you can probably use it just fine as long as you don't get hung up on figuring out what you did wrong if your numbers don't match up perfectly with the graphic.
|
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2019 16:56
|
|
|
Borsche69 posted:What's so bad about managing stacks? Jamming so many units into one tile and trying to understand how they all interact and assess their strength relative to other stacks. 1UPT is, to me, far more intuitive.
|
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2019 16:58
|
|
|
The Human Crouton posted:Don't know. If you have the expansion then the only major change is that there is a government district that gives +1 bonus to all adjacent districts instead of just +.5. Wonders are +2 adjacency for Theater Squares instead of +1, that's the only thing that jumped out at me.
|
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2019 17:04
|
|
|
Cythereal posted:Jamming so many units into one tile and trying to understand how they all interact and assess their strength relative to other stacks. I mean, in Civ games, they all have strength ratings, and they 'interact' in so far that they can all move at the same time (as a group move), and whoever has the highest strength rating is the one that defends if the stack is attacked. It seems pretty clear simple, especially in a 4X series like this. It provides you a list of all the units on the tile, and all units are pretty distinctive. Strength relative to other stacks can be somewhat unintuitive (is a stack with 10 knights, 5 maces, 3 xbows stronger than a stack with 15 maces, and 3 muskets? [depends on the promos and probably yes]), and I'd love to see some kind of 'army group' function take over for stacks/1upt where all the units on the tile 'lock' together into a single unit and lend their strength and abilities together.
|
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2019 17:18
|
|
|
As far as I'm concerned the only real issue with 1UPT is that the AI in these games simply can't handle it. Sadly it's also such a major issue that it by itself torpedoes everything else for me.
|
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2019 17:19
|
|
|
Borsche69 posted:I'd love to see some kind of 'army group' function take over for stacks/1upt where all the units on the tile 'lock' together into a single unit and lend their strength and abilities together. this is my next big dream feature for Civ
|
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2019 17:20
|
|
|
Borsche69 posted:Strength relative to other stacks can be somewhat unintuitive (is a stack with 10 knights, 5 maces, 3 xbows stronger than a stack with 15 maces, and 3 muskets? [depends on the promos and probably yes]), This is precisely what I'm talking about, and what I hate. Same kind of reasoning for why I loathe the ship designers that are such a blight on space 4X games. I do not give a rat's rear end about all the complexities of military gameplay, I want something intuitive that I can understand at a glance and waste no more time on than I have to.
|
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2019 17:23
|
|
|
Straight White Shark posted:this is my next big dream feature for Civ Like, ideally you're only ever managing like 5 army groups, and this number never changes throughout the course of the game, so you don't have to deal so much with micro. It will have to require a good UI, though, that clearly tells you how strong a group is, what bonuses it gets, how much the strength would increase if you were to add a certain unit, the ability to split army groups, the ability to set waypoints from cities to certain armies (creating a supply line of some kind) etc.
|
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2019 17:24
|
|
|
Borsche69 posted:Like, ideally you're only ever managing like 5 army groups, and this number never changes throughout the course of the game, so you don't have to deal so much with micro. Oh Jesus no, I'd never buy a game if that's the military system.
|
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2019 17:25
|
|
|
Cythereal posted:This is precisely what I'm talking about, and what I hate. Same kind of reasoning for why I loathe the ship designers that are such a blight on space 4X games. I do not give a rat's rear end about all the complexities of military gameplay, I want something intuitive that I can understand at a glance and waste no more time on than I have to. Generally with 4 at least you kinda know that if you have a decent number of siege, you'll roll over most any stack, but yeah my biggest grip in playing in pitboss games was always having to sim out certain battles. One thing I do like about 5/6's combat is that it's no longer binary - units will auto retreat if they do not kill the other unit. In everything before 5, getting an unlucky roll could mean losing a city, a stack of artillery, or whatever else.
|
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2019 17:26
|
|
|
Borsche69 posted:What's so bad about managing stacks? You can lose to a stack if you neglect your military, whereas two archers and a warrior can handle an infinite carpet of units.
|
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2019 17:28
|
|
|
Cythereal posted:Oh Jesus no, I'd never buy a game if that's the military system. Most of those ideas already exist in 4's stack systems (waypoints, unit strength, promos, splitting the stack are all pretty clearly labeled). Shoot, a pseudo supply lines exists in carpets too, when you reinforce the rear end of the carpet with another bunch of units waiting to hit the meat grinder at the front.
|
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2019 17:28
|
|
|
I mean, this is a 4x, none of these ideas are particularly insane, and if the idea of reinforcing an army scares you I might suggest something else. (A city builder maybe? But those also have complex game mechanics.)
|
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2019 17:30
|
|
|
I like the interface and graphics in Civ V the most out of all the Civ games and hope Civ 7 looks more like V. That is all.
|
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2019 17:34
|
|
|
Borsche69 posted:I mean, this is a 4x, none of these ideas are particularly insane, and if the idea of reinforcing an army scares you I might suggest something else. (A city builder maybe? But those also have complex game mechanics.) Nice condescending grog.
|
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2019 17:50
|
|
|
I love a good stacks chat. I hate stacks but reckon good UI can fix it - my problem was that civ4's UI was terrible for managing stacks. You hover over a stack and the units are listed, in text, in the corner, with no background so they just clash with map colours. Absolutely poo poo UI and frankly Civ4 was modern enough to do far better. Ideally, i reckon, it should be a tableau of colour-coded icons next to the stack, not unlike the icons currently above units in civ5/6
|
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2019 17:53
|
|
|
Cythereal posted:Nice condescending grog. I felt it was an appropriate response to the 'oh jesus no!' pearl clutching and the thought of certain mechanics with no reason given.
|
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2019 17:57
|
|
|
I think stacks are ok if the combat is on its own screen and not straight on the world map, which is Civ's style. I find combat in games like Age of Wonders or HoMM to be pretty drat fun. Having a stack on a square next to other stacks on a square and looking at tons of mouse-over data isn't very fun for me otherwise.
|
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2019 17:57
|
|
|
I can't help but feel that both Age of Wonders and Endless Legend both solved this problem for me. You have armies that band together and then the engage either on a smaller tactical map (age of wonders) or a section of the world map (Endless Legend). I much prefer either of these system to how Civ IV or V/VI go about it. Given how much Civ Vi seemed to be inspired by Endless Legend with its "unstacked cities" and "Governed heroes" I am surprised they didn't crib the combat systems from other games too.
|
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2019 17:59
|
|
|
JeremoudCorbynejad posted:I love a good stacks chat. I hate stacks but reckon good UI can fix it - my problem was that civ4's UI was terrible for managing stacks. This is where I see army groups helping since you would get a single strength value for the entire stack and whatever bonuses/promos listed underneath it, as opposed to looking through a list of units. So you could have a stack of 30 spears / 15 axes / 15 horsemen and instead of trying to parse what that means, it just lists a Strength Value of 100 and +50% bonus against mounted units, and a 25% bonus against melee units or whatever listed underneath the strength value. The difficulty here would be parsing unit bonuses (e.g. How would the above stack fair against a stack with 30 spears / 15 axes / 1 horseman? How would the 50% bonus against mounted units be applied?) but yeah, that comes back to having a very clear UI that communicates to the player exactly what's going on.
|
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2019 18:03
|
|
|
mitochondritom posted:I can't help but feel that both Age of Wonders and Endless Legend both solved this problem for me. You have armies that band together and then the engage either on a smaller tactical map (age of wonders) or a section of the world map (Endless Legend). I much prefer either of these system to how Civ IV or V/VI go about it. It is surprising that noted bad game developer Firaxis didn't adopt EL's garbage turd pile combat but apparently they get something right every once in a while.
|
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2019 18:03
|
|
|
Borsche69 posted:This is where I see army groups helping since you would get a single strength value for the entire stack and whatever bonuses/promos listed underneath it, as opposed to looking through a list of units. So you could have a stack of 30 spears / 15 axes / 15 horsemen and instead of trying to parse what that means, it just lists a Strength Value of 100 and +50% bonus against mounted units, and a 25% bonus against melee units or whatever listed underneath the strength value. This actually isn't a bad idea. I'd keep it simple like Civ already does, but the idea of "ok, you can put units in a stack, but its still just 1 unit with a higher number" doesn't sound bad to me. I guess that was the idea behind forming corps or whatever in VI, but I feel the PC would be able to play the game more efficiently if it wasn't so easy to use the environment against them.
|
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2019 18:09
|
|
|
I don't necessarily mean the way you issue commands and the units then go and do something entirely different, but you could have a system where two armies meet on a map and then the local terrain becomes an enclosed area, where you stacked army becomes ~unstacked~
|
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2019 18:09
|
|
|
Borsche69 posted:I felt it was an appropriate response to the 'oh jesus no!' pearl clutching and the thought of certain mechanics with no reason given. Combat is already the most tedious, fiddly, and in my opinion boring part of Civilization, and people want to make it even more so?
|
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2019 18:19
|
|
|
Cythereal posted:Combat is already the most tedious, fiddly, and in my opinion boring part of Civilization, and people want to make it even more so? I see it as the best of both worlds, given that you get the benefit of not having to deal with a lot of units on the map, clogging chokepoints with a carpet, while also not having to sim out battles and having individual units attack from a stack. It would be less micro on both ends. The only complexity would come from army group composition and reinforcements, which is already something that both combat models have to deal with anyway.
|
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2019 18:48
|
|
|
My idea for stacks is this- units can stack on a tile. Only one ranged and one melee unit can attack from the tile per turn. If the stacked units are attacked, the one best suited for defense against the attacker is used (i.e. pikeman if cav attacks, AA if a plane, etc). Damage only applies to the defending unit, but when a defending unit dies, the rest of the stacked units are damaged. My theory here is that this should result in fewer traffic jams but also help to negate stacks of doom by limiting their attack capability. It should also promote stacks of combined arms for defense.
|
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2019 19:32
|
|
|
JeremoudCorbynejad posted:I love a good stacks chat. I hate stacks but reckon good UI can fix it - my problem was that civ4's UI was terrible for managing stacks. Yea agreed there.
|
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2019 19:39
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 4, 2024 03:11 |
|
|
I am also the person who builds pre-designed ships and auto-resolves combat in any game where I can. War in 4X games is tedious and fiddly and tends to make turns take at least 10-20 times as long as they do in peacetime, and I hate that. I feel like I'd prefer a game where it was streamlined simplified as much as possible. Like maybe if the stack was just a single unit with N power that decreases with attrition. Maybe if you have access to horses or other resources your stack can move faster or something. Rather than building discrete horse units.
|
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2019 20:14
|
|
