|
Mahasamatman posted:Way too dumb to figure it out on my own but if I want to just play really tall with 2-3 cities who should I pick? Inca and Kongo but who else? Is it housing that typically gates tall? More like food production, it's not hard to get 30+ housing in a city if you place them without overlapping worked tiles. But actually growing to that size will take the whole game. Try Incas, terrace farm is absurdly good and bonus food in trade routes also helps. Pyromancer fucked around with this message at 09:05 on Mar 1, 2019 |
#
?
Mar 1, 2019 08:58
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 4, 2024 09:00 |
|
|
Trade routes are a pretty solid source of food if you get the bonus to allies (from the alliance civic and Democracy/Democratic legacy), but you'll be pretty limited in those with three cities. Maybe Mali for the bonus trade routes or Australia for getting tons of food and hammers from wide, open cities.
|
|
#
?
Mar 1, 2019 09:08
|
|
|
Is there a way I'm missing to keep your rockbands from disbanding after one show? I'm lucky if I can get 2 shows out of one.
|
|
#
?
Mar 1, 2019 09:12
|
|
|
afaik, all rockbands have to be disbanded before crossing the Rubicon.
|
|
#
?
Mar 1, 2019 10:23
|
|
|
Canada is an... interesting civ to play. Their tundra farms and unique improvement are absolutely not worth settling tons of terrible tundra for but they're kind of a perk I guess. The security of knowing that none of the AI civs will ever attack you without some advance notice is quite nice and allows you to play risky and military-light as well as dictate war on your own terms. But oh man, those Mounties. I had thought that designating National Parks would kill the unit just like the Naturalist, but it turns out it's just a one-time ability, so you end up with a 60-strength light cavalry unit whose tech is easily rushable that you can spam endlessly (cause it requires no resource) to turn your entire empire into one giant national park and then have those units on standby to go to war for more land to create more parks and save all that faith you would have used for Naturalists for other stuff. Like, so say, Rock Bands.  Oh yeah, and all the tourism you get from those parks gives a ton of Favor too, so by the industrial/modern era if you've been focusing tourism you own the World Congress basically forever, so Diplo victory is incredibly easy by that point too.I still think they're pretty weak overall cause they've got no useful eco or military bonus to speak of, so until you go for the park spam you're basically playing a vanilla civ with nothing useful. But it's quite fun and turns the National Park game from "where are a few spots I can set aside for some extra tourism" to "how much of my empire can I dismantle before my cities start starving?" 
|
|
#
?
Mar 1, 2019 12:17
|
|
|
Gobblecoque posted:This gets me a lot too. Disasters compound it even more and if one of your dumbfuck allies decides to park a military unit on your busted mine then you have to wait for them to move. Like I said earlier it's really poo poo at telling you if something that's happening is happening to you or 50 squares away in someone else's territory. I don't care if Mount Big Boom is exploding there, but if it's next to my capital please zoom to it and go "OH poo poo" thanks. Mahasamatman posted:Way too dumb to figure it out on my own but if I want to just play really tall with 2-3 cities who should I pick? Inca and Kongo but who else? Is it housing that typically gates tall? The game really doesn't support this, I wouldn't recommend it. My preferred way to play would be like 4-5 cities but you start to fall behind.
|
|
#
?
Mar 1, 2019 12:42
|
|
|
Made a new PYDT game cause i want to see how Gathering Storm works in multiplayer. Game Name: Goon Storm Password bitchnipples Do not pick Korea. Taear posted:Like I said earlier it's really poo poo at telling you if something that's happening is happening to you or 50 squares away in someone else's territory. Playing tall is a civ 5 thing. It really doesn't work in any other civ game, 6 included. Expand is one of the 4 Xes, I'd argue the most important one. Tofu Injection fucked around with this message at 13:28 on Mar 1, 2019 |
|
#
?
Mar 1, 2019 13:21
|
|
|
I loaded up a Pangaea map with more civs than should be supported to play with Eleanor and all the city flipping happened towards the end of the game when I was fast tracked to a Culture victory anyway. Flipping caps is pretty awesome, though, and once you flip the first city, watching the cascade happen is pretty awesome, especially when all the cities are so tightly placed. Still have not gotten a Rock Band yet, I should probably read up on how exactly to get those.
|
|
#
?
Mar 1, 2019 13:44
|
|
|
Tofu Injection posted:Made a new PYDT game cause i want to see how Gathering Storm works in multiplayer. It works fine in SMAC, it works fine in Civ4. Yea it's not ideal, but you can do well. Even on low difficulties you can't do it in Civ6 which is part of the reason it's my least favourite. (okay, after civ3)
|
|
#
?
Mar 1, 2019 14:09
|
|
|
Mahasamatman posted:Way too dumb to figure it out on my own but if I want to just play really tall with 2-3 cities who should I pick? Inca and Kongo but who else? Is it housing that typically gates tall? I really don't think there is any answer but Kongo, you need to keep growing to have any hope of standing up to civs with multiple cities. Further your pretty much forced into a culture game as you will not have nearly the pop to keep up with a science victory, but with proper building of wonders and such you should have enough great work slots to propel you ahead, this combined with the bonus great person points, bonus great work slots and bonus production and food from sculpture, relic's and artifacts you should be able to push ahead, unless there is a Russia with Lavra spam in the game.
|
|
#
?
Mar 1, 2019 14:14
|
|
|
Tall can be situationally OK, at least in SP. You need some strong city spots and the government plaza building that adds housing (which got nerfed for some reason???) You still want to shoot for at least 4 cities, preferably 5. More cities is always going to be better, but unless you're playing on Deity that's generally enough to beat the AI.
|
|
#
?
Mar 1, 2019 14:33
|
|
|
Three/four cities works fine on prince/king
|
|
#
?
Mar 1, 2019 14:45
|
|
|
SHY NUDIST GRRL posted:Three/four cities works fine on prince/king Anything works well on prince/king
|
|
#
?
Mar 1, 2019 14:50
|
|
|
Super Jay Mann posted:Canada is an... interesting civ to play. Their tundra farms and unique improvement are absolutely not worth settling tons of terrible tundra for but they're kind of a perk I guess. The security of knowing that none of the AI civs will ever attack you without some advance notice is quite nice and allows you to play risky and military-light as well as dictate war on your own terms. So Canada's strategy involves Mounties, Parks, and Rush.
|
|
#
?
Mar 1, 2019 14:58
|
|
|
Super Jay Mann posted:turn your entire empire into one giant national park There are barely any locations fit for parks usually because of appeal, until you get Eiffel Tower wonder. Though I suppose Canada could drop some hockey rinks to create an appealing park location where there was none
|
|
#
?
Mar 1, 2019 15:18
|
|
|
Straight White Shark posted:Tall can be situationally OK, at least in SP. You need some strong city spots and the government plaza building that adds housing (which got nerfed for some reason???) You still want to shoot for at least 4 cities, preferably 5. I feel like that govt plaza building got nerfed because I kept always taking it. In theory I like the free builder and +50% settler one more but the problem is by the time I built it I've generally already finished expanding peacefully, so unless I was going warlike it was the obvious choice. -2 loyalty is pretty much a non-issue 99% of the time. Taear posted:It works fine in SMAC, it works fine in Civ4. Yea it's not ideal, but you can do well. You can do it in low difficulties in VI. The AI rarely ever blunders into an actual win. Madmarker posted:Anything works well on prince/king Yes, well, that's the point. You can't really get away with that at higher difficulties in other Civ games either, barring some special settings/circumstances. V was the only one that really supported it (and it was the worst one for it). Hell, pre-1UPT the AI would become far more dangerous as you scaled up difficulty due to being able to actually leverage their production advantages to a greater degree. twistedmentat posted:Is there a way I'm missing to keep your rockbands from disbanding after one show? I'm lucky if I can get 2 shows out of one. Luck mostly, try to get the +2 levels promotions and play in the appropriate venues, then once they get up to level 4 they have a fairly low chance of retiring but they still probably will eventually. Though in my current game I have one that's been going for so long that its up to ~17k gold/34k tourism per show and increasing every time. I had like 6-7 others that disbanded after a few shows. Magil Zeal fucked around with this message at 16:15 on Mar 1, 2019 |
|
#
?
Mar 1, 2019 16:10
|
|
|
Not to the degree of Venice but it would have been neat if there was a civ or two that benifitted from not expanding much
|
|
#
?
Mar 1, 2019 16:40
|
|
|
SHY NUDIST GRRL posted:Not to the degree of Venice but it would have been neat if there was a civ or two that benifitted from not expanding much If they wanted to make religion more of a thing they could go with a Papal States civ, where you just have Vatican City but can use faith to convert cities through extreme culture/religion pressure, get gold and pop from civs you've converted, the ability to call Crusades against enemies, etc.
|
|
#
?
Mar 1, 2019 17:06
|
|
|
I kinda still have an issue with how emissions work in this game; like I can completely swap over to nuclear and renewables but inevitably a modern standing army will still cause the world to flood. Navies consume oil, tanks consume oil, mechanized infantry consume oil, and anything that consumes oil produces emissions. And I never seem to have aluminum for an airforce anymore.
|
|
#
?
Mar 1, 2019 17:06
|
|
|
Venice was an awesome civ in 5, I'd love to see them come back.
|
|
#
?
Mar 1, 2019 17:22
|
|
|
I always play on prince/king and 4 cities means you're still not QUITE level with everyone unless you're mega efficient and lucky with where you can put your cities.
|
|
#
?
Mar 1, 2019 17:35
|
|
|
Taear posted:I always play on prince/king and 4 cities means you're still not QUITE level with everyone unless you're mega efficient and lucky with where you can put your cities. The AI being a bit ahead of you usually doesn't mean they'll win the game. Higher level games for many players are spent "behind" the AI for quite a while, particularly if Korea is in the game. Only time to really get concerned is if you're on a smaller map size and an AI is getting religion-happy, on larger maps there are enough AIs with religions to make sure you don't randomly lose to religion.
|
|
#
?
Mar 1, 2019 17:48
|
|
|
Gyshall posted:Venice was an awesome civ in 5, I'd love to see them come back. Yeah I'm weird I guess in that I love playing one city civs and playing super tall. Doing OCC really isn't the same thing.
|
|
#
?
Mar 1, 2019 17:56
|
|
|
Magil Zeal posted:I feel like that govt plaza building got nerfed because I kept always taking it. In theory I like the free builder and +50% settler one more but the problem is by the time I built it I've generally already finished expanding peacefully, so unless I was going warlike it was the obvious choice. -2 loyalty is pretty much a non-issue 99% of the time. I mean, I usually took it because I'm lazy, but I'm not sure how optimal it really was. I usually felt like I was doing better with a well executed settler spam rush.
|
|
#
?
Mar 1, 2019 17:57
|
|
|
ManifunkDestiny posted:If they wanted to make religion more of a thing they could go with a Papal States civ, where you just have Vatican City but can use faith to convert cities through extreme culture/religion pressure, get gold and pop from civs you've converted, the ability to call Crusades against enemies, etc. Oh that's a neat idea.
|
|
#
?
Mar 1, 2019 17:59
|
|
|
Magil Zeal posted:Only time to really get concerned is if you're on a smaller map size and an AI is getting religion-happy, on larger maps there are enough AIs with religions to make sure you don't randomly lose to religion. I lost Civ VI this week for the first time I can remember, for this very reason -- ignored religion entirely on a small map.
|
|
#
?
Mar 1, 2019 18:11
|
|
|
homullus posted:I lost Civ VI this week for the first time I can remember, for this very reason -- ignored religion entirely on a small map. This happened to me once in a game I was really enjoying. I disable religious victory now every time because if you don’t get a religion (really hard on high difficulties) then it’s not fun to try to pay attention and stop another civ.
|
|
#
?
Mar 1, 2019 18:24
|
|
|
What the hell!? I finally had time to really play through a full game... and in 1610AD Montezuma wins a religious victory against me. I had absolutely no idea it was coming or even possible. He had been spamming apostles all game somehow and it was too tedious to try and combat him... anyways I was focusing all of my attention on trying to siege mansu musa (walls apparently can resist industrial era units shockingly well). So uhh, I guess in the future I should take care to play with religious victories turned off? Oh also, by the late game I couldn’t figure out how to avoid dark ages. How the hell am I supposed to get like 175 era score when my empire is totally established and I’m just grinding through sieges all day? My cities all becoming pop 15-20 industrial powerhouses doesn’t seem to matter to the era score system at all. Conquering in dark ages blows too, I take cities, they immediately revolt and I don’t even get any era score for breaking another empire over my back. Heer98 fucked around with this message at 19:16 on Mar 1, 2019 |
|
#
?
Mar 1, 2019 18:51
|
|
|
Magil Zeal posted:I kinda still have an issue with how emissions work in this game; like I can completely swap over to nuclear and renewables but inevitably a modern standing army will still cause the world to flood. Navies consume oil, tanks consume oil, mechanized infantry consume oil, and anything that consumes oil produces emissions. And I never seem to have aluminum for an airforce anymore. You're supposed to only have Giant Death Robots once you get to that point. They give you a hint by adding a "future era" that is nothing but GDR upgrades. The future era is really lame in this game. BE is lame. Firaxis sucks at the future.
|
|
#
?
Mar 1, 2019 18:54
|
|
|
Taear posted:It works fine in SMAC, it works fine in Civ4. Yea it's not ideal, but you can do well. It does not work in Civ4 at all lmfao, what are you talking about.
|
|
#
?
Mar 1, 2019 19:14
|
|
|
You can run a one city challenge but it comes with its own bonuses (two national wonders in your capital instead of one) as well as relying on exploitation of the game's AI. If you're just running into Civ4 and only settling 3 cities you're gonna get creamed.
|
|
#
?
Mar 1, 2019 19:15
|
|
|
The Human Crouton posted:You're supposed to only have Giant Death Robots once you get to that point. They give you a hint by adding a "future era" that is nothing but GDR upgrades. I guess it might have something to do with I'm intentionally playing with a mod that slows down the later eras to a large degree to give more time to play around in them, so I haven't reached the future era yet Though I'm also slowing carbon emissions. I just don't really like the feeling of "well, I could build more tanks and infantry, but that would flood the world". I actually like most of the later builder stuff... or I like the concept of it at least. I think power needs to be utilized more. Decent enough idea, not taken far enough. Heer98 posted:What the hell!? I finally had time to really play through a full game... and in 1610AD Montezuma wine a religious victory against me. I had absolutely no idea it was coming or even possible. He had been spamming apostles all game somehow and it was too tedious to try and combat him... anyways I was focusing all of my attention on trying to siege mansu musa (walls apparently can resist industrial era units shockingly well). Easiest way I've found to chain golden ages is to grow lots and get lots of Great People, max out your districts, build a wonder or two etc.. Religious victory by surprise is, as previously stated, mostly a problem only on smaller maps. Disable it I guess if you want to play on smaller maps and aren't too keen on keeping a close eye on the victory screen? Magil Zeal fucked around with this message at 20:10 on Mar 1, 2019 |
|
#
?
Mar 1, 2019 19:19
|
|
|
Borsche69 posted:You can run a one city challenge but it comes with its own bonuses (two national wonders in your capital instead of one) as well as relying on exploitation of the game's AI. If you're just running into Civ4 and only settling 3 cities you're gonna get creamed. As I recall two national wonders per city was the baseline in Civ 4, and checking the OCC box lifted that? Am I remembering wrong?
|
|
#
?
Mar 1, 2019 19:20
|
|
|
"Tall" as a gameplay strategy doesn't even make sense outside of the context of global happiness. It's not like the cities in a 'wide' empire stop growing, outside of building a settler. A 'wide' empire will still have large cities, in addition to MORE cities (that will, themselves, grow larger). Civ5's global happiness is basically the only mechanic that restricts city and empire growth at the same time (for god know's what reasons. Expansion has always been a huge part of Civ/4X games, and the attempt to make "Tall" and "Wide" as competing strategies has always been a misguided notion.)
|
|
#
?
Mar 1, 2019 19:22
|
|
|
Magil Zeal posted:As I recall two national wonders per city was the baseline in Civ 4, and checking the OCC box lifted that? Am I remembering wrong? Sorry, you're right, take what I said and flip-reverse it. You gain more national wonders in order to make your only city stronger.
|
|
#
?
Mar 1, 2019 19:23
|
|
|
Borsche69 posted:(Expansion has always been a huge part of Civ/4X games, and the attempt to make "Tall" and "Wide" as competing strategies has always been a misguided notion.) It's part of the genre that hasn't really aged well in my opinion, and I don't blame games for trying to find a way around the problem. More expansion means more micromanagement and more decisions to make while at the same time making individual decisions less important (both because you have more of them to make, and because successful expansion at the expense of your opponents makes the game easier overall.) The end result is a weird curve where games get both slower and less interesting the longer they go on, which isn't really super gripping for most people.
|
|
#
?
Mar 1, 2019 19:48
|
|
|
Straight White Shark posted:The end result is a weird curve where games get both slower and less interesting the longer they go on Really hits the nail on the head here, with how I feel most of my Civ games devolve into lategame. Game's not won yet, far from, yet I honestly don't care anymore to finish pulling ahead and winning.
|
|
#
?
Mar 1, 2019 19:57
|
|
|
Tofu Injection posted:Made a new PYDT game cause i want to see how Gathering Storm works in multiplayer. Nice, i'm in. Going to try my luck on Maori, I've been having some really good single player maps with them, and they are currently my favorite new civ next to the Inca. Here's hoping I don't choose the wrong direction to search first on this one.
|
|
#
?
Mar 1, 2019 20:01
|
|
|
Straight White Shark posted:It's part of the genre that hasn't really aged well in my opinion, and I don't blame games for trying to find a way around the problem. More expansion means more micromanagement and more decisions to make while at the same time making individual decisions less important (both because you have more of them to make, and because successful expansion at the expense of your opponents makes the game easier overall.) The end result is a weird curve where games get both slower and less interesting the longer they go on, which isn't really super gripping for most people. Would you say the game is at it's most fun in the early stages when you are expanding?
|
|
#
?
Mar 1, 2019 20:04
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 4, 2024 09:00 |
|
|
Borsche69 posted:Would you say the game is at it's most fun in the early stages when you are expanding? Not really. It's more fun than the long tail end of the game by virtue of being faster and less predictable, but my favorite part is engine-building in the middle stretch after expansion slows down (even when going conquest heavy I enjoy gearing up to win an arms race more than rushing.)
|
|
#
?
Mar 1, 2019 20:18
|
|