|
ES2 did that, with being able to send back requests/complaints based on trivial poo poo. If they liked you, they might actually comply!
|
#
?
Oct 26, 2019 13:41
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 30, 2024 22:23 |
|
|
JeremoudCorbynejad posted:I'd never heard of that "chaos timer" thing though, you have a source for that? Not disbelieving it but I wanna know how people found out, and how it's coded in. It sounds awful. I believe the old games had it. Certainly people playing Civ 5 complained that it could become too easy to stabilize world affairs with trade routes and deals? So I don't know if the newer ones do.
|
|
#
?
Oct 26, 2019 19:13
|
|
|
PaybackJack posted:I think it's kind of nice that just giving the AI an impressively strong army doesn't mean they just don't go automatically conquer everything in sight. The combat AI is exploitable but it's not broken because it doesn't just roll over everything with its single death robot. Similarly, the fact that the AI is given a dozen nukes shouldn't necessitate it using them even if they're about to lose. I'd hope that even our real world leaders are smart enough to realize that dropping some nukes out of spite because you're losing is a lovely thing to do. How is that nice? An AI that is incapable of winning the game even when it is able to is boring for everyone.
|
|
#
?
Oct 26, 2019 19:36
|
|
|
Humankind looks great but the way to win by "influence" both scares and excite me. Era score in Civilization VI is such crap, I don't want to see a potentially great game botched by a similarly boneheaded implementation.
|
|
#
?
Oct 26, 2019 19:36
|
|
|
Tbh, so far I've read nothing about Humankind that I'm really looking for. I'm still intrigued though.
|
|
#
?
Oct 26, 2019 19:47
|
|
|
Same here. Actually everything Ive read about it sounds ... unfun? But in spite of that, I am excited. Their ideas sound at the very least new, and it was about time Civ got a contender Im definitely trying it Elias_Maluco fucked around with this message at 20:05 on Oct 26, 2019 |
|
#
?
Oct 26, 2019 20:01
|
|
|
humankind is doomed
|
|
#
?
Oct 26, 2019 21:10
|
|
|
Elias_Maluco posted:Same here. Actually everything Ive read about it sounds ... unfun? I really like the idea of choosing a civilization each era to create your own unique culture. The implementation doesn't sound perfect, and at worst janky, but it's still a good start. I found it weird in Civlization that I'd start with the Aztecs and have the leader screen still be all bronze age in the year 2200.
|
|
#
?
Oct 26, 2019 21:20
|
|
|
punk rebel ecks posted:Does anyone else make any "stories" of these nations I their heads? Like you see how civilizations in your game progress and interact with one another and go all Dark Souls and fill in the gaps with a grandiose story your head? Or am I just weird? This is basically what makes the game worth playing and the AI not especially annoying IMO.
|
|
#
?
Oct 26, 2019 21:23
|
|
|
ate poo poo on live tv posted:How is that nice? An AI that is incapable of winning the game even when it is able to is boring for everyone. The AI isn't incapable of winning. In this instance it was given a massive advantage and choice not to exploit that advantage. You say that's boring but imagine if you were in a game with 8 people and one of them was given a GDR and that player proceeded to just win the game by Domination over the course of the next 50 turns; would that be a 'fun' game? It's perfectly fine to program that AI in such a way that it doesn't just default to trying to take the shortest path to 'win' everytime and instead enteres the game with a series of goals it's trying to accomplish on the path to a victory condition.
|
|
#
?
Oct 26, 2019 21:44
|
|
|
People liked colonization and the AI is mostly incapable of winning that game.
|
|
#
?
Oct 26, 2019 21:48
|
|
|
Panzeh posted:People liked colonization and the AI is mostly incapable of winning that game. That game has the Independence War as an endboss which was satisfyingly difficult though
|
|
#
?
Oct 26, 2019 22:03
|
|
|
Gort posted:That game has the Independence War as an endboss which was satisfyingly difficult though I've almost never heard the war for independence in col described as 'satisfying' but i get the point. A lot of the problems with the war is shoving a huge bit of combat into a game with decidedly light combat, so it's more just a matter of stockpiling enough muskets and cannons in the correct cities.
|
|
#
?
Oct 26, 2019 22:09
|
|
|
PaybackJack posted:The AI isn't incapable of winning. In this instance it was given a massive advantage and choice not to exploit that advantage. You say that's boring but imagine if you were in a game with 8 people and one of them was given a GDR and that player proceeded to just win the game by Domination over the course of the next 50 turns; would that be a 'fun' game? The AI is not programmed like that though
|
|
#
?
Oct 27, 2019 00:17
|
|
|
punk rebel ecks posted:I really like the idea of choosing a civilization each era to create your own unique culture. The implementation doesn't sound perfect, and at worst janky, but it's still a good start. I found it weird in Civlization that I'd start with the Aztecs and have the leader screen still be all bronze age in the year 2200. they fixed this in civ 2 and civ 3 and then they broke it
|
|
#
?
Oct 27, 2019 00:38
|
|
|
PaybackJack posted:The AI isn't incapable of winning. In this instance it was given a massive advantage and choice not to exploit that advantage. You say that's boring but imagine if you were in a game with 8 people and one of them was given a GDR and that player proceeded to just win the game by Domination over the course of the next 50 turns; would that be a 'fun' game? The alternatives are either the GDR player draws out their inevitable victory to toy with people or they blatantly let someone else win, neither of which are any more satisfying as a conclusion. Realistically no one would want to bother playing out such an unbalanced scenario, but if it arose naturally through play that one player had amassed such a massive lead, a swift end to the game is the best outcome for all involved. This is what players object to: at high levels the AI has enough bonuses that it can occasionally stumble into a position where by rights it should be able to crush the player, but just doesn't. Winning when the AI clearly has more than enough means to stop you but doesn't bother lifting a finger against you is not particularly satisfying.
|
|
#
?
Oct 27, 2019 05:53
|
|
|
5 and 6 both have nifty rubber band/balancing mechanics... and ai so useless that they're never necessary.
|
|
#
?
Oct 27, 2019 09:05
|
|
|
Incidentally I've been playing an unofficial contination to a mod of a mod of a mod of Civ IV which brings together a variety of other mods and mods of mods in two-person multiplayer. I love how deep the rabbit hole we've somehow ended up and that people are still making stuff for that game. At the same time it makes me sad the later entries never had the chance to get a similar treatment.
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2019 00:30
|
|
|
PaybackJack posted:The AI isn't incapable of winning. In this instance it was given a massive advantage and choice not to exploit that advantage. You say that's boring but imagine if you were in a game with 8 people and one of them was given a GDR and that player proceeded to just win the game by Domination over the course of the next 50 turns; would that be a 'fun' game? If Civ weren't a board game which multiple players in this thread emphasize they just seek to min/max as much as possible, sure, I'd agree with your point on the AI. But it is a moot point either way, since Firaxis' AI is far, far worse than you give it credit for.
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2019 04:13
|
|
|
Beamed posted:If Civ weren't a board game which multiple players in this thread emphasize they just seek to min/max as much as possible, sure, I'd agree with your point on the AI. But it is a moot point either way, since Firaxis' AI is far, far worse than you give it credit for. There are plenty of players that enjoy the story of building their Civilization and don't need a completely cutthroat AI. The AI has a lot of problems but "doesn't auto win Domination with GDR" and "doesn't launch all its nukes" aren't representative of them; and saying the AI is incapable of winning is hyperbolic.
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2019 07:01
|
|
|
PaybackJack posted:There are plenty of players that enjoy the story of building their Civilization and don't need a completely cutthroat AI. the passivity of the AI very much is a problem, though? and if you're happy with a passive AI that's all well and good, but the game has no fewer than 8 difficulty settings and perhaps an AI that is willing to use the most powerful unit in the game to its advantage belongs at one of the higher ones.
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2019 07:33
|
|
|
PaybackJack posted:The AI isn't incapable of winning. In this instance it was given a massive advantage and choice not to exploit that advantage. You say that's boring but imagine if you were in a game with 8 people and one of them was given a GDR and that player proceeded to just win the game by Domination over the course of the next 50 turns; would that be a 'fun' game? You're missing the point of the turn 1 GDR by half a continent. The AI is not self-aware. It can't go "hold on it's turn 1 why do I have a GDR" and hold back deliberately. If an AI with a GDR turn 1 can't steamroll everything reachable by turn 50, then the combat AI is actively detrimental to the game because it can't exploit production advantages and combat advantages. If the AI can't use a turn 1 GDR, then it won't be able to use its military at all. Give Ghandi in 4 a stack of modern armor turn 1 and he'll crush everyone under their threads, because the AI in 4 knew how to use its military. It didn't know how to use it well, it didn't know how to use it effectively, search Sulla's multiplayer games reports for actual military wizardry in the civ 4 engine, but loving hell the Civ 6 AI can't even clear the bar of using its military. It can't even clear the bar of "point unit that can instacapture city at city and capture".
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2019 09:02
|
|
|
At least the barbarians and city-states know how to raze a city, sometimes 
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2019 09:32
|
|
|
BBJoey posted:the passivity of the AI very much is a problem, though? and if you're happy with a passive AI that's all well and good, but the game has no fewer than 8 difficulty settings and perhaps an AI that is willing to use the most powerful unit in the game to its advantage belongs at one of the higher ones. my problem with the passivity of the AI is that its inability to launch and coordinate an attack outside of dumb luck, doesn't stop it from declaring war like it's a little napoleon
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2019 09:53
|
|
|
I just ended a game on Prince and, while the AI is most certainly incapable of posing a military threat unless you're literally forgetting about building military (in which case Barbarians will probably stomp you way before another civ can), they will at least try to attack you and/or move an army near your borders. They're actually pretty decent at going for religious victory (even too much), or culture victory. Also what they seem to be unable to do with military, they can sure do with religious units - the map was constantly blanketed with missionaries, inquisitors, apostles and gurus from 3 different religions having a field day (I had my own but didn't bother really because I got there late and only had lovely bonuses left to choose) Oh and why on Earth does every AI come at you with horribly lopsided deals, all the time? "Hey give me that 1 luxury resource you have a copy of. I will give you 3 gold for it even though I have several unused copies of various luxury resources I could offer you, but no, gently caress you... I might give you open borders if I feel real generous, maybe." Or "give me your only work of writing / relic in exchange for 1gpt for 10 turns. That's a great deal, no? What do you mean get lost? I'm sad and angry that you would refuse all our trade offers" Well Wilhelmina, try to make a decent offer every once in a while instead of literally trying to rob me, and I might take it ... crazy, I know
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2019 10:02
|
|
|
Kanfy posted:Incidentally I've been playing an unofficial contination to a mod of a mod of a mod of Civ IV which brings together a variety of other mods and mods of mods in two-person multiplayer. I love how deep the rabbit hole we've somehow ended up and that people are still making stuff for that game. A New Dawn 2? Rise From Erebus Final Fixes Reborn? also I guess check back in five years, I bet by then Vox Populi will go through the same process
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2019 10:26
|
|
|
Honestly, Civ having discrete military units with distinctive roles and such is kinda odd given that in other systems you're dealing with production as 'hammers'. You'd expect something like 'military points' to be the way it's done or something. That being said, in civ 4 it was easy enough to just grab some units and beeline toward a city with a reasonable chance of success if you put enough hammers into producing units and that's probably a good thing for a civ game. Tactically finicky placement on tiles is one of the worst things for an AI.
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2019 11:50
|
|
|
TorakFade posted:Oh and why on Earth does every AI come at you with horribly lopsided deals, all the time? Probably due to the new amenity system. Having just one of any luxury is no longer a big deal.
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2019 11:52
|
|
|
Goa Tse-tung posted:also I guess check back in five years, I bet by then Vox Populi will go through the same process VP also has a bunch of modmods trailing behind it so the process is well underway
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2019 12:24
|
|
|
Avirosb posted:Probably due to the new amenity system. Wait what? It doesn't work like it used to anymore? (1st copy of a luxury resource gives amenities to 4 cities, 2nd copy and further have no benefit so can be traded away)
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2019 14:58
|
|
|
Goa Tse-tung posted:A New Dawn 2? Rise From Erebus Final Fixes Reborn? ExtraModMod Unofficial Overall Fall From Heaven II was pretty much the best thing to happen to Civilization
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2019 15:42
|
|
|
PaybackJack posted:There are plenty of players that enjoy the story of building their Civilization and don't need a completely cutthroat AI. Yes, agreed on the first point, but your arguing that a game which isn’t Civ should have difficulty levels, which is unrelated to the game which is Civ and already does. The AI is effectively incapable of winning. That’s not hyperbole. Where’s the latest update on how the AI does taking a city with walls, again?
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2019 19:33
|
|
|
Beamed posted:Yes, agreed on the first point, but your arguing that a game which isn’t Civ should have difficulty levels, which is unrelated to the game which is Civ and already does. I once almost lost a city with walls, but it really only happened once in like 15 games, and when the war started I had basically no army and not even the walls (I built them during the war), and I guess the attacker was particulary lucky on what units the dice chosen for it Yeah, the AI just cant fight, and its worst than it was on Civ 5, where this was already pretty bad. I do have fun with the game in spite of that, but lets not pretend this aint a problem or that the civ being incapable of winning a war with an incomparably superior army was just being nice to the player
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2019 19:39
|
|
|
I've only seen it a handful of times (including just a little while ago), but it always makes me laugh when I see a CS with a settler that they captured. More than any other event, that is proof positive of just how bad the AI is in this game.
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2019 04:34
|
|
|
It would be awesome if rebel cities stay independent long enough then they'll become their own empire. Like a new player enters the game.
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2019 04:44
|
|
|
PaybackJack posted:There are plenty of players that enjoy the story of building their Civilization and don't need a completely cutthroat AI. Settler mode is perfectly fine for people who want to play in a sandbox. But at Deity, the AI should attempt to WIN by any means necessary.
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2019 06:49
|
|
|
punk rebel ecks posted:It would be awesome if rebel cities stay independent long enough then they'll become their own empire. Like a new player enters the game. In civ4 that was possible. In vanilla they never became a new autonomous player that the player could interact with beyond war. , but in numerous mods new players could join all the time.
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2019 06:54
|
|
|
Yes, the RevDCM mod for civ4. I'm still playing it, like literally right now.
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2019 09:04
|
|
|
My favorite element of the game may be having a linguist cat burglar spy drop into a city and within 2 turns steal their entire cultural heritage. Then all the poor losers come and visit my city and marvel at my civilization’s amazing works when an identical painting was stolen from them in a daring heist two weeks ago. Even better when the spy somehow steals a story or a song like “did you hear someone STOLE Symphony No. 40 so we can’t listen to it any more even though it’s an intangible construct” come to Broadway if you want to hear Mata Hari performing it live losers.
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2019 13:52
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 30, 2024 22:23 |
|
|
Yeah, you gotta appreciate the little things, like the symbol for antiquity sites being a dinosaur bone even though the closest thing you'll ever get to it will be a mummy. A cat one, at that!
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2019 14:38
|
|
