|
Clarste posted:I play on Prince, build 4-6 cities, and win a culture victory before the modern era without ever being at war. Congratulations! I've also won this game before.
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2019 06:22
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 31, 2024 19:03 |
|
|
i play on deity and cheese the ai
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2019 06:24
|
|
|
Torrannor posted:I played so much more Colonization than Civilization II as a kid. I only became a real Civ fan with Civ IV. Colonization was a great game. The remake didn't quite capture the same magic as the original, though. Yeah, I dunno.  The name alone gives it a lot of slack. If it's an explicit sequel it has a shot, but I don't know if I trust Firaxis' hand at it, given their sequels to other Civ-offshoots.EDIT: The remake not having the same magic is honestly inexplicable to me, considering the core gameplay wasn't too far off. The mods that came out for it later were also pretty good, but obviously the community never grew around it to keep it going. Amethyst posted:Roleplaying style is supported by the existence of lower difficulty levels. No one is talking about roleplay vs. strategic play here except you, where you believe people saying "hey both wide and tall being viable depending on millions of variables is Fun and Good" are actually saying "i love larping". Reconsider this. Civ 5 definitely does have the mis-step of following the same set of steps during the start, which is boring. That doesn't mean Civ 6 should go radically in the direction of another set of identical steps. That's boring too!
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2019 06:25
|
|
|
Beamed posted:No one is talking about roleplay vs. strategic play here except you, where you believe people saying "hey both wide and tall being viable depending on millions of variables is Fun and Good" are actually saying "i love larping". Reconsider this. Why should both wide and tall be equally viable, though? I suspect it's because people want to roleplay. I literally see no other reason. I don't accept that it makes the game more diverse, since the only way to make it "equally" viable seems to stamp out player options like in Civ 5. Like, you say "i just want tall to be equally viable" as if that's good enough prima facie, but I think that's a load of horse poo poo.
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2019 06:28
|
|
|
Amethyst posted:Congratulations! I've also won this game before. My point is that I'm roleplaying and it's absolutely not restrictive at lower difficulty levels. IE: I agree with you.
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2019 06:29
|
|
|
Clarste posted:My point is that I'm roleplaying and it's absolutely not restrictive at lower difficulty levels. IE: I agree with you. Oh okay then, sorry.
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2019 06:30
|
|
|
I guess the other argument against wide empires is the ergonomic argument: that the game simply isn't fun to play with more than four cities. That's a UI issue. One that i'll grant no civilization game has completely solved, but reducing the scope of the game is definitely not the solution.
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2019 06:35
|
|
|
Amethyst posted:Why should both wide and tall be equally viable, though? I suspect it's because people want to roleplay. I literally see no other reason. I don't accept that it makes the game more diverse, since the only way to make it "equally" viable seems to stamp out player options like in Civ 5. Maybe your argument here should be "I don't know how to make both viable without artificial gameplay constraints", rather than making poo poo up and sounding like an rear end in a top hat? Here's an article from Civ 5's release that really hated Civ 5's wide-oriented playstyle way more than I ever did, before they artificially limited it: http://www.sullla.com/Civ5/whatwentwrong.html I agree artificially limiting it was bad and dumb! But like the article notes, it's not like this is a new problem no other game has had. You can design a game which encourages both playstyles. And bluntly, if you think "only playing a game one way is bad" is horse poo poo, you're not really making valuable contributions to a discussion, bub.
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2019 06:35
|
|
|
IMO it all comes back to the AI being bad. The player can simply choose between going tall and wide, because the AI can't stop them from going wide. The player can simply choose their preferred victory type, and it's very rare for them to have to change course to respond to an AI, unless it's someone super OP like Korea. I like playing chill zen garden Civ sometimes, but it shouldn't be the only option available.
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2019 06:38
|
|
|
Krazyface posted:IMO it all comes back to the AI being bad. The player can simply choose between going tall and wide, because the AI can't stop them from going wide. The player can simply choose their preferred victory type, and it's very rare for them to have to change course to respond to an AI, unless it's someone super OP like Korea. I like playing chill zen garden Civ sometimes, but it shouldn't be the only option available. Yeah to be honest this is true and makes the discussion a moot point; the AI means there's no restrictions on playstyle 
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2019 06:39
|
|
|
Beamed posted:Maybe your argument here should be "I don't know how to make both viable without artificial gameplay constraints", rather than making poo poo up and sounding like an rear end in a top hat? I dunno why you're calling me an rear end in a top hat "bub", all i'm doing is challenging your ideas and asking for detail in your thinking. I already said you can support both playstyles, but not all the way up the difficulty curve. You seem to think both playstyles should be EQUALLY viable, right to the top of the difficulty curve. I'm yet to understand why you think this. I also think you completely misread that sulla article. he doesn't hate civ 5 becuase it's "wide" oriented, but becuase their design to prevent wide empires doesn't work, and as a result the game is trivially easy.
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2019 06:39
|
|
|
Krazyface posted:IMO it all comes back to the AI being bad. The player can simply choose between going tall and wide, because the AI can't stop them from going wide. The player can simply choose their preferred victory type, and it's very rare for them to have to change course to respond to an AI, unless it's someone super OP like Korea. I like playing chill zen garden Civ sometimes, but it shouldn't be the only option available. Play Civ IV on deity.
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2019 06:39
|
|
|
Amethyst posted:I already said you can support both playstyles, but not all the way up the difficulty curve. You seem to think both playstyles should be EQUALLY viable, right to the top of the difficulty curve. I'm yet to understand why you think this. Amethyst posted:I also think you completely misread that sulla article. he doesn't hate civ 5 becuase it's "wide" oriented, but becuase their design to prevent wide empires doesn't work, and as a result the game is trivially easy. that's exactly people's point? If a game is designed in a way that one playstyle is magnitudes better than the others, than the other playstyles aren't really made viable*. You seem to acknowledge this point, but think "viable" means "can do it on easy mode in a sandbox". *see above - since Firaxis forgot to make an AI for the game they've given up on, technically anything is really viable in SP, and MP isn't really humming.
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2019 06:43
|
|
|
Beamed posted:It's not exactly a viable playstyle if it's not actually viable That wasn't my question. I don't require clarification on what you want, I want to know why you want it.
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2019 06:45
|
|
|
Amethyst posted:Play Civ IV on deity. I thought we were just talking about VI
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2019 06:46
|
|
|
Like, I think that we can both agree, at least, that more territory = mechanical penalties is, at least, really counter-intuitive. To justify that you need a good reason. "I want to roleplay on the highest difficulty" is a reason I can understand, even if I disagree. You seem to have some other reason. More diverse play? I don't buy it because the rules are restrictive. Amethyst fucked around with this message at 06:49 on Mar 4, 2019 |
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2019 06:47
|
|
|
Krazyface posted:I thought we were just talking about VI My point being that you can pose a serious strategic challenge even with unimpressive AI, if the game is designed to allow it. When you truncate the difficulty with weird restrictions like "expanding too much incurs a crippling science penalty", you aren't going to have a challenge without miracle A.I
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2019 06:49
|
|
|
Amethyst posted:That wasn't my question. I don't require clarification on what you want, I want to know why you want it. gonna ignore rest of my post because you realized you defeated your own argument huh Amethyst posted:Like, I think that we can both agree, at least, that more territory = mechanical penalties is, at least, really counter-intuitive. To justify that you need a good reason. Amethyst posted:"I want to roleplay on the highest difficulty" is a reason I can understand, even if I disagree. Amethyst posted:You see to have some other reason. More diverse play? I don't buy it becuase the rules are restrictive. what? this is a nonsense post. of course I want more diverse play. one of the worst parts of civ5 is that you do the same opening every god drat time. Amethyst posted:My point being that you can pose a serious strategic challenge even with unimpressive AI, if the game is designed to allow it. When you truncate the difficulty with weird restrictions like "expanding too much incurs a crippling science penalty", you aren't going to have a challenge without miracle A.I This is also a nonsense post. Restrictions like that should help the AI, because it's less factors for the AI to consider. What's being truncated there is, in fact, gameplay options, which is why it's bad.
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2019 06:50
|
|
|
Beamed posted:gonna ignore rest of my post because you realized you defeated your own argument huh ah ok thank you. It's perfectly intuitive that getting more territory give you less stuff because "Infinite growth curves immediately make the hairs on the back of my neck creep up. I expect diminishing returns" My post was nonsense. This, on the other hand, makes perfect sense.
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2019 06:52
|
|
|
Amethyst posted:ah ok thank you. It's perfectly intuitive that getting more territory give you less stuff because "Infinite growth curves immediately make the hairs on the back of my neck creep up. I expect diminishing returns" Did you also shake with rage when you found out that cities need more food to grow the bigger they are?
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2019 06:54
|
|
|
Beamed posted:Did you also shake with rage when you found out that cities need more food to grow the bigger they are? What?
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2019 06:54
|
|
|
Seriously that's a non sequitur. I guess in your world bigger farms produce less food.
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2019 06:56
|
|
|
Sometimes I just sit there and I think, wow, I really wish Alpha Centauri was playable by modern standards for someone who's never touched it before.somepartsareme posted:wanna get into this game casually so i checked out the thread, is there anyone here who actually enjoys it Me. I really like it. It's not perfect, but I'm comfortable with its flaws and I enjoy all of the things the game has going for it.
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2019 06:58
|
|
|
Beamed posted:Civ is not a game about realism, even a tiny little bit. This is a humorous statement if you follow the quote chain back a bit.
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2019 07:00
|
|
|
Playing a fun game as expansive Inca and I really like how I can play a little game of trying to get the best yields out of my terrace farms by thinking about where to put an aqueduct but also place some mines and districts. Civ VI's strength is definitely in figuring out how to build your cities and on which tiles.
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2019 08:02
|
|
|
I only now noticed that the border colours on the minimap don't cross over into the oceans anymore. That's a nice little change.
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2019 09:17
|
|
|
Beamed posted:Maybe your argument here should be "I don't know how to make both viable without artificial gameplay constraints", rather than making poo poo up and sounding like an rear end in a top hat? Sullla's entire point is that he hated ICS (aka Infinite City Sprawl). The entire point of this isn't Tall vs Wide, in fact he even says that that's a false argument (in a follow up article!) because you ALWAYS want more cities, he's saying there needs to be a sufficient drawback to just crapping out cities all over the map. Because that limits choice as well. quote:Brave New World is an empire-building game where there is literally no reason to build an empire, and you are actively penalized for doing so. Source: http://www.sullla.com/Civ5/bnwreview.html
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2019 09:29
|
|
|
Chucat posted:Sullla's entire point is that he hated ICS (aka Infinite City Sprawl). The entire point of this isn't Tall vs Wide, in fact he even says that that's a false argument (in a follow up article!) because you ALWAYS want more cities, he's saying there needs to be a sufficient drawback to just crapping out cities all over the map. Because that limits choice as well. And more importantly it's ugly. I don't think I've ever had to abandon a civ6 game because I'm losing. I'd like to say that's because I'm better now than I was in the past but it's for sure not that. I'd lose in Civ4 because I never built any military and we'd get attacked and I'd die because I just couldn't quite match what the AI did. Now because I can purchase a unit or two any war is just.....an annoyance, not an actual challenge. And I'm on King which for me used to be too hard (in Civ4 or 5) but is now a pushover. When that's the case I dunno how people are coming saying Civ6 is a good game. It's not the worst thing ever but it's another Civ3 - really flawed and waiting for the next release to perfect what it's done.
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2019 09:38
|
|
|
As a Civ 4 grognard, since Gathering Storm Civ 6 has become my favorite one.
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2019 09:46
|
|
|
somepartsareme posted:wanna get into this game casually so i checked out the thread, is there anyone here who actually enjoys it yes it is a good game
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2019 09:56
|
|
|
Yeah this game is fun and people itt should stop being so argumentative about it. It’s clearly flawed but still a fun time sink.
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2019 10:13
|
|
|
There's like a hundred resources in this overcomplicated game, it makes sense that food and production scale in such a way that wider empires will eventually get more. But surely there is a way to design a system where one of the other resources (beakers, notes, suitcases, gold, birds, etc etc) might be gathered or spent more effectively by a tall empire, at least in some situations. I hope in civ7 they remove one or more of the resources and distinguish the remaining ones. I don't know why our progress bars need to have 8 different colors?
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2019 10:21
|
|
|
Civ games have a lot of abstractions on the whole, but none of the abstractions in V were arbitrary. Expanding penalized your output of science, culture and great person points, but your individual cities could produce the same amount of gold, hammers and food regardless of empire size. Techs and civics don't just represent discovering things; they're also implemented at the same time. You can build lumbermills everywhere once you discover the technology, you can implement the New Deal and it will take full effect the year you discover suffrage, all your caravans become trucks as soon as you discover combustion, etc. etc. Portraying the dissemination of advances throughout your empire based on infrastructure and connectivity would be a massive pain, so your cost of development is just increased based on number of cities, which is a reasonable abstraction on paper. Where civ V falls short is a combination of the standard Civ pitfall of science and culture having a much larger payoff than any other yields, and the expansion penalty being linear rather than proportional. It doesn't make a whole lot of sense that your 15th city slows you down as much as your 4th city in theory, and even less that it's actually a much larger burden in practice, because you'll have hit the point where it cannot possibly make up for its diminishing returns by then. VI jumps straight to the other extreme; there is a hard cap on how much yield of a given type you can get from a single city, and there is no penalty to expansion other than the up-front cost of building a settler and drawing a couple of amenities from your luxury resource pool. You cannot compete with a larger empire's development without enough cities, you can't develop more trade routes without founding cities and building markets/lighthouses, and you can barely specialize your cities past getting the handful of yield points and four great person points a district provides. I can understand preferring VI's mechanics based on gameplay, but they are far more arbitrary than their predecessors, and I'm not sure why anyone would think otherwise.
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2019 11:19
|
|
|
Civ6 is ok but it has a lot of flaws, some of which could easily be fixed. One thing that was super fun in Civ5 was playing in teams, it had it's issues but was fun, in Civ6 co-op MP is just a huge mess.
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2019 11:37
|
|
|
Ragnar34 posted:Sometimes I just sit there and I think, wow, I really wish Alpha Centauri was playable by modern standards for someone who's never touched it before. It is. Hell, I first played it around 2011 and it was an instant hit for me. The UI takes a teensy bit of getting used to but that's all. Even besides the fantastic sci-fi atmosphere and cool unique mechanics, all the fundamental gameplay is as solid as any 4X has ever been.
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2019 11:38
|
|
|
Mymla posted:Civ 5 favoring tall empires over wide ones is one of the best parts of the game imo. I like micromanaging cities, but it gets tedious if I have too many. 4 is right around the right number for me. I can't even balance happiness. The AI starts banning what few luxury resources I have and that is on king 
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2019 11:40
|
|
|
Taear posted:And more importantly it's ugly. Yeah that's also a thing as well. I think what's important is to treat "Carpet of cities" as the default state of the game, because cities are really, really good (they let you build things, you need things to win! Look at workers in Euro Games, it's the same thing, you want workers!) and everything from that point on is designed to deal with that (because it's a one right choice thing, which is boring). - Space is a natural limiter to the number of cities you can get. If you want more cities after that, you have to take them from other people. - Tile/Hex management and things like districts could work to make a city more efficient as well (for example, in lategame Civ 4, you don't go and plant cities in your highly developed empire where cities are working every tile because they'll just function as lovely leeches). For this though, you still want a lot of cities, they just become much more developed. - Cities not being able to build anything while building a Settler also counts, since you're investing in the future. (Same way that you can't take an action or two if you choose to get another worker in a Euro Game). - Penalties for expansion are also a thing, whether it's a penalty for 'lovely' and 'reckless' expansion (in Civ 4, where you just end up in the hole if you expand badly, because cities are loss leaders), or just a penalty for expanding at all (Corruption in 3 and the kneecapping in 5). 3's didn't work so you still had the carpet of cities. 4's worked (you expanded in bursts basically, lining up with Code of Laws and Currency, then finally the limiters came off with State Property, but at that point, your core was widely developed enough to where you weren't just going to put cities there, and you were touching borders with opponents, so it was more for far flung stuff and final outskirts), 5's also worked, you were just forced to remain at a small number of cities. Also as a couple question, since I'm legitimately curious here: What do you imagine a tall empire to be, what number of cities, what makes the cities or empire more 'highly developed'? What do you imagine a wide empire to be, what number of cities, what makes the cities or empire 'highly developed'? Note: I'm not only asking WHY are there is a difference in development, I'm asking what are the differences between the cities in the playstyles to make them differently developed (from there, you can say WHY that's the case) Chucat fucked around with this message at 11:44 on Mar 4, 2019 |
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2019 11:41
|
|
|
Chucat posted:What do you imagine a tall empire to be, what number of cities, what makes the cities or empire more 'highly developed'? My idea of a tall civ is that you've got a few very big cities with probably all the available buildings in them. They all build stuff fast, they're in really good locations that are probably pretty far away from other cities but (in civ4 terms) close enough that nearly-max border expansion will mean the borders touch. You remember the name of each city, where it is and what's around it. And maybe the theme of the city if the game supports that. Wide you've got hundreds of smaller cities that produce roughly the same stuff but over a much larger area. You don't remember them and they're not particularly placed well, they're just placed. But it doesn't matter, because you've got loads. For me the distinction was clearest in SMAC where I'd have maybe 6 really good big cities spread out over a large area but the AI would have 50 tiny ones in the same area.
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2019 12:23
|
|
|
I played Civ2, Alpha Centauri, then left the series and came back for Civ5 (complete), BE, and Civ6. My opinions: ICS looks to be a total monstrosity. Civ2's railroads where fugly enough, but seeing screencaps of ICS (not sure which game it was, 3 or 4?) makes my eyes glaze. Tall vs Wide IS a legitimate question/option, imo. Yes, more cities are better, and you take them when you can for small cost, but for example there's a point early game when you can be "I can make 3 settlers NOW, or spike the Wonder (bad idea honestly most of the time), or just slam down a lot of buildings in my capital. Tech to more buildings and make them, or tech to other stuff and make settlers, hrm?" That's probably the first, most trivial, instance of it. Ideally, later on there'd be an increasing amount of building/districts/whatever that appeal to very large cities but are impractical for smaller ones. Maybe you need Social policies to support one style or the other. Whatever it is, it's not sufficiently present in current games that players can see strong choices to the left or right. Thanks to the way tech works in the past few games, you kinda just get everything as much as you can anyways. So, to answer your question, a 'Tall' empire would have prioritized food to push a few cities' pop high enough to be able to take advantage of some amazing niche/synergystic stuff that smaller cities can't. Wonder/Nuke production would be a very soft example of this in current games. A 'Wide' empire just plants cities as per normal, and builds things that are very value-for-money, and is more concerned with industry and money on a more aggregate scale (eg, military).
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2019 12:29
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 31, 2024 19:03 |
|
|
Tall vs Wide in Civ has been solved imo, just look at the Revolutions mod for Civ 4. You can expand as much as you want, but new cities will revolt if you have too many too far apart. To fix this you need to research and implement more and more decentralisation until you reach Federal States running an Empire. IIRC there is also a straight up gold cost limitations, you should only build more cities if your existing ones are profitable.
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2019 12:58
|
|
