|
I used to do a lot more slinger openings because I'd go with a builder after them but with the secret societies mode and now heroes you just get so much more out of being able to explore the world. I'd probably still grab a slinger on an island chain kind of map, but anything with a good sized continent now is going to be so much more rewarding.
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2020 17:01
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 31, 2024 15:59 |
|
|
Azathoth posted:I've experienced that on lower difficulties too. Not sure when they start spawning or if they're part of the initial setup, but it definitely feels unfun and makes me not really want to explore at all with my warrior, which I'm clearly supposed to want to do, at least a little. The experience gain is pretty limited after the first level. I think barbarian camps are the most interesting when you encounter them serially in the middle distance, so that you can "face" your troops in their direction and chip away at them. They're somewhat interesting when you find them before their scout can reasonably see your city (when there are a few camps), and they threaten other civs too. I always restart when there are two that have spotted me early, and sometimes when one spots me early and it's going to be a slog to take them all out.
|
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2020 18:39
|
|
|
homullus posted:The experience gain is pretty limited after the first level. I think barbarian camps are the most interesting when you encounter them serially in the middle distance, so that you can "face" your troops in their direction and chip away at them. They're somewhat interesting when you find them before their scout can reasonably see your city (when there are a few camps), and they threaten other civs too. I always restart when there are two that have spotted me early, and sometimes when one spots me early and it's going to be a slog to take them all out. yeah, that's fair. i feel like the intended (and ideal) early game is mostly exploration. things like "hey, this would be a good spot for my next city" or "here's some city states and the couple of empires near me" but early barbs turn it into "okay, no more exploration, I need to use my scout to block the barb scout from seeing my city while I beeline my warrior over here" followed by "okay, my warrior is in place but this drat barbarian scout is trying to move towards me, so I have to herd them away from my city with one of my scouts". just a complete abandonment of any kind of strategic thinking in favor of early micromanagement to make sure that an unlucky barb camp spawn doesn't literally ruin the rest of the game. barb camps spawning nearby should be more "okay, I need to deal with that in the near future" and not "fuckfuckfuckfuckfuck get every unit over there now before they see my capital and really gently caress poo poo up", and the way they are now, it's completely the latter, even on the lower difficulties, which is just weird.
|
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2020 18:58
|
|
|
Azathoth posted:yeah, that's fair. yeah. On the other hand, if WELP is going to happen, it is almost always very early, with little lost if you restart. Aside from the occasional early avalanches of barbarians, I think they're pretty interesting and fun. As others said, you should be building at least one slinger early, probably three because they upgrade to archers so cheaply and thereby get you one or two eurekas (one for killing a unit with a slinger, one for having three archers). Consider also using the strategic view of the map until you get your empire on its feet, because it is much easier to see where the barbarian camps have spawned in your explored-but-not-currently-seen territory. That ease is also the reason for exploring your territory, even at the risk of finding barbarians--you can start moving units toward new ones the turn after they appear.
|
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2020 20:35
|
|
|
Had a weird bug with hero mode multiplayer, I was Lady Six Sky and summoned Maui to hopefully give me more plantation resources. I put him on a tile and he shat out some coffee. But my friend went in to check out what he looked like and said "drat he just gives you wine?" For some reason in my map he had created coffee, but in my friend's it was a wine tile. I didn't believe him, he had to send me a screenshot. But it did show up as a wine on his screen. Very strange. It's cool that as far as I can tell, Maui's ability needing a "blank tile" also basically tells you where undiscovered strategic resources are. Doesn't tell you what they are but you can save space if you don't need production by plopping down a district on that tile.
|
|
#
?
Nov 24, 2020 00:26
|
|
`
|
ded posted:If Yerevan is in the game a religious victory is the most easy thing. Just pick 3x stronger spreads and spam apostles. I hate dealing with religion in this. It's too much of its own thing and takes too much micro to be successful. Which is sad because that means that I have never played any civ that has religious bonuses. I also hate when you create a huge map and 6 civs all start without 10 hexs of your starting position. Seriously, i shouldn't send my starting scout out and meet a ton of civs instantly.
|
|
#
?
Nov 24, 2020 05:09
|
|
|
I solve the religious problem by turning off the victory. It's normally really easy for me to win with it even without a religion heavy civ. I do absolutely exploit the poo poo out of religion tho, with golden age cheap builders and grabbing all the great people and now reviving heros as well. Why yes I would love to bring Hercules back and instantly make 3 districts then have him murder the hell out of all comers. Then there is Ethiopia which when you combine them with voidsingers is absolutely unstoppable when you have religion rolling.
|
|
#
?
Nov 24, 2020 05:20
|
|
|
twistedmentat posted:I hate dealing with religion in this. It's too much of its own thing and takes too much micro to be successful. Which is sad because that means that I have never played any civ that has religious bonuses. Starting bias are hugely annoying and I wish they'd introduce some controls for them. For me, it's always starting on the other side of the world from another player on my team. One reason that I like to play teams is that we can work together to protect our gardens but when there's 5 civs between you and them you end up just kind of playing multiplayer solitaire for most of the game. I wish there was an option that changed how far civs started from one another AND allowed you to force teams to spawn next to each other. I don't care if it's loving balanced or not, that's why I just want the option.
|
|
#
?
Nov 24, 2020 09:34
|
|
|
PaybackJack posted:Starting bias are hugely annoying and I wish they'd introduce some controls for them. For me, it's always starting on the other side of the world from another player on my team. One reason that I like to play teams is that we can work together to protect our gardens but when there's 5 civs between you and them you end up just kind of playing multiplayer solitaire for most of the game. I wish there was an option that changed how far civs started from one another AND allowed you to force teams to spawn next to each other. I don't care if it's loving balanced or not, that's why I just want the option. I think the only way right now is a TSL map and just chose neighboring civs :/
|
|
#
?
Nov 24, 2020 12:04
|
|
|
twistedmentat posted:I hate dealing with religion in this. It's too much of its own thing and takes too much micro to be successful. Which is sad because that means that I have never played any civ that has religious bonuses. It's some real bullshit how slowly religion expands naturally. What is even the point of cities exerting religious pressure if they almost never flip a city naturally, and then if they do the city is just instantly turned back by 10,000 micromanaged apostles?
|
|
#
?
Nov 24, 2020 16:25
|
|
|
It bothers me how my city can have the same religion for thousands of years and then be insta flipped by a wave of AI apostles.
|
|
#
?
Nov 24, 2020 17:06
|
|
|
Religion victory is kinda dumb anyway. It takes both invasion and missionaries to convert people, not one or the other.
|
|
#
?
Nov 24, 2020 17:33
|
|
|
PaybackJack posted:Starting bias are hugely annoying and I wish they'd introduce some controls for them. For me, it's always starting on the other side of the world from another player on my team. One reason that I like to play teams is that we can work together to protect our gardens but when there's 5 civs between you and them you end up just kind of playing multiplayer solitaire for most of the game. I wish there was an option that changed how far civs started from one another AND allowed you to force teams to spawn next to each other. I don't care if it's loving balanced or not, that's why I just want the option. I honestly hate whenever I play teams and I start close to my teammate. Since the optimal strategy 90% of the time is to settle as much territory as possible we often times end up in a situation where one player inadvertently cuts off the other player's expansion and just makes that player have a bad time. edit-That said, a team game where me and my teammate both play Hammurabi seems absolutely ridiculous.
|
|
#
?
Nov 24, 2020 18:50
|
|
|
I bought Babylon last night, and they seem odd? Like I get the -50% tech but making Eureka's way more effective, but my tech choices are way bigger. Like I could research niter in 1000bc. It didn't help I was in a horrible position. Zero horses and zero iron in my territory and the civ blocking any expansion past 3 cities had 4 sources of iron visible.
|
|
#
?
Nov 24, 2020 21:00
|
|
|
Babylon's fun, you just need to really plan your actions out to maximize eurekas. I feel like the heroes were totally wasted on this playthrough. I'm basically on my own and not really fighting anyone, just going to go for a science victory now that I'm landing on the moon in 1660.
|
|
#
?
Nov 24, 2020 21:42
|
|
|
Been having fun setting research to whatever my farthest off tech is, then using the other choices as a task list for the short game. Plus the heroes I picked (Beowulf, Hippolyta, and Arthur) made killing my two neighbors a breeze. I ended up doing a religion just because I got an early relic, and it really helped re-summoning heroes and boosting my culture to keep the civics tree up to date with my crazy Science growth. Think I discovered stream power in like 1100. Babylon is fun and broken. Need a culture version of this civ. Yoruba?
|
|
#
?
Nov 24, 2020 21:50
|
|
|
Babylon can be surprisingly good for a peaceful approach - building three Musketmen gets you Replaceable Parts way, way ahead of anyone else, which supercharges your farms. I just won a Diplomatic victory with them on Deity because my early crossbows made Gorgo respect me. Although I have a problem with only ever going for diplo victory because I'm best at it, so now I'm going to try for some Immortal wins with other strategies.
|
|
#
?
Nov 24, 2020 22:17
|
|
|
Touchdown Boy posted:Religion victory is kinda dumb anyway. It takes both invasion and missionaries to convert people, not one or the other. This is historically very untrue. Obviously the Religious Victory plays up a Live Laugh Love idea of religious unity even to the point of a very, very tonally Off victory screen from when I won a religious victory by Crusading as Byzantium, but its not without historical precendent that missionary work has lead to conversion of particularly cultures/regions entirely without the backing of invasions. Rimusutera fucked around with this message at 04:39 on Nov 25, 2020 |
|
#
?
Nov 25, 2020 04:36
|
|
|
Rimusutera posted:This is historically very untrue. Obviously the Religious Victory plays up a Live Laugh Love idea of religious unity even to the point of a very, very tonally Off victory screen from when I won a religious victory by Crusading as Byzantium, but its not without historical precendent that missionary work has lead to conversion of particularly cultures/regions entirely without the backing of invasions. Im not convinced but this isnt really the thread for it. A lot of mass conversions were on the backs of colonialism or invasion. Or at least ruler conversion then religious suppression. At some points in history religions did co-opt other peoples beliefs to get them to convert but this is usually if they are not strong enough to outright supplant them. Granted I am not up on all of worlds history but this is a common theme over people just deciding to believe in a different God all of a sudden.
|
|
#
?
Nov 25, 2020 13:33
|
|
|
Touchdown Boy posted:Im not convinced but this isnt really the thread for it. A lot of mass conversions were on the backs of colonialism or invasion. Or at least ruler conversion then religious suppression. At some points in history religions did co-opt other peoples beliefs to get them to convert but this is usually if they are not strong enough to outright supplant them. I'm not sure its entirely offtopic to discus some of the historicity of history themed strategy game in its thread but I'm sure a mod can tell us if so and then we can both shut up about this. As to the general point, yes rulers being convinced first plays a big part of it but it allowed the establishment of religious communities that did the grunt work of proselytizing to the masses and all. Christianity spread to a lot of Europe this way and the early Church was way less ironfisted towards the still vaguely syncretic pagan peasantry than a lot of popular sterotypes might presume. The Anglo-Saxons were converted by missionary work, as were Norse peoples. Buddhism spread to East Asia out of India entirely through missionaries as far as I'm aware, not backed by armies, and Islam spread to South East Asia & West Africa as well via merchants and traders. Sure yes, there's a general lack of the abstraction dealing with whether your missionary work is directed at the general populace of local elites but I imagine its meant as a mix of both. You'd be surprised as to the amount of times people have seemingly become convinced to believe in a different god or at least, to be a bit universalist, different theologies related to that god. And its not like the game rules out using force as a component of religious conversion in and of itself, even without Romans 2: Tagma Boogaloo; nothing wrong by the victory condition with waging war against your strong faith gen rival to take all their holy sites. Anyway where I'm going with this is yes there's a ton of historical basis for religious hegemony through war and conquest, but also for you just sending missionaries to your neighbors for your religion to take hold.
|
|
#
?
Nov 25, 2020 17:50
|
|
|
I don't discount your account at all, but there were a lot of massacres and killing in Europe over converting tribes to Christianity as well. As well as the cutting out of sects deemed heretical. I agree though, its not that it makes no sense no have missionary spam, but there are usually external pressures involved beyond mere theological debate. Even going so far as to say projection of power through trade may convince 'the backward peoples' of the time period of your gods superiority etc as well. So you need missionaries, but in a lot of cases most people were happy with their religion until external factors took hold. Having all this taken into account in a game on the other hand might be a stretch.
|
|
#
?
Nov 25, 2020 19:01
|
|
|
Early Christianity also spread like wildfire in part because it offered a better version of the afterlife. Many religions envisioned the afterlife as a cold, dark, shadow of existence for all or most, with only the most amazing individuals going to Valhalla or the Elysian Fields or whatever. Early Christianity also built on mystery religions like the Eleusinian Mysteries or Mithraism, in which people learned something (we don't know what,  ) that made this life and/or the next more bearable, as opposed to just trying to keep ghosts and the gods from murdering you. Mystery religions had no missionaries, because the whole point was not sharing the mystery.
|
|
#
?
Nov 25, 2020 19:21
|
|
|
Touchdown Boy posted:I don't discount your account at all, but there were a lot of massacres and killing in Europe over converting tribes to Christianity as well. As well as the cutting out of sects deemed heretical. The biggest issue with Civ's portrayal of religion is that it doesn't posit a religion as an independent entity from the government in whose territory it is founded, and that the player, as the embodiment of a particular empire, has full control over the religion and how to spread it simply because it was founded within its borders. More often than not, government and religion were actually engaged in a competition for power rather than a government working to spread a religion, or a religion serving as a trojan horse for a governmental takeover. If it were more historically accurate, religions (even those founded by the player) would themselves have their own agendas and relationships with empires, rather than being an appendage of a particular empire. This might be more EU than Civ, but in a more historically accurate portrayal, religions would likely be something like a combination of a city state and a non-temporal empire. That is, religions just sorta spring up around the game over time, and your empire has a favorable/unfavorable standing with every religion that it contacts. If you don't have a religion or don't like your current one, you could ask that a particular religion spread to you, as being on favorable terms with a religion and having it be the majority religion within your empire could offer benefits. In the same way, if you piss off the religion that has the majority within your empire, it gives negatives to you as your population is pissed off that you don't like their god. Heretical sects spring up from time to time and you have to choose whether to stay neutral, assist in stomping them out, or go with the heretics and throw out the existing order. You or your opponents could seek to weaken a rival by supporting a heretical movement, that sort of thing.
|
|
#
?
Nov 25, 2020 20:57
|
|
|
Azathoth posted:The biggest issue with Civ's portrayal of religion is that it doesn't posit a religion as an independent entity from the government in whose territory it is founded, and that the player, as the embodiment of a particular empire, has full control over the religion and how to spread it simply because it was founded within its borders. More often than not, government and religion were actually engaged in a competition for power rather than a government working to spread a religion, or a religion serving as a trojan horse for a governmental takeover. If it were more historically accurate, religions (even those founded by the player) would themselves have their own agendas and relationships with empires, rather than being an appendage of a particular empire. This would be really cool. I'd also appreciate not having a second layer of units to micromanage.
|
|
#
?
Nov 25, 2020 21:03
|
|
|
Religion should cause conflict and help alliances, and affect diplomatic and cultural victories, not be its own victory condition, except maybe for a gimmick civilization (or less controversially, a secret society) that wins that way.
|
|
#
?
Nov 25, 2020 21:35
|
|
|
homullus posted:Religion should cause conflict ... IS-AAAA--BELLLLLLLLL---AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA! Sorry, have no idea what came over me there. You were saying? Perhaps tying religion output to cultural output in some way might work, where you can support religion as a fraction of your culture, like the old Economy sliders?
|
|
#
?
Nov 25, 2020 21:49
|
|
|
homullus posted:Religion should cause conflict and help alliances, and affect diplomatic and cultural victories, not be its own victory condition, except maybe for a gimmick civilization (or less controversially, a secret society) that wins that way. I think that's a cooler way to go, but it would be pretty bad PR if they grouped Christianity alongside the Illuminati as outside factors that influenced the development of your civ. That would be an interesting way to go in the future but Civ players typically hate the addition of random events that many other strategy games will have a lot of. Having secret societies that have agendas though and being able to buy into with influence or gold to sway those agendas could be an interesting addition to the game if done in a way that makes it meaningfully different from the World Congress. I like how religion works now because you don't need to micro apostles to make use of it, although I do hate the design of the victory condition. True, it doesn't make sense linking it directly with your Civ but I feel like it's more meant to represent the dogma of your civ rather than be a stand in for actual religions even if it uses their real world names.
|
|
#
?
Nov 25, 2020 22:25
|
|
|
PaybackJack posted:I think that's a cooler way to go, but it would be pretty bad PR if they grouped Christianity alongside the Illuminati as outside factors that influenced the development of your civ. That would be an interesting way to go in the future but Civ players typically hate the addition of random events that many other strategy games will have a lot of. Having secret societies that have agendas though and being able to buy into with influence or gold to sway those agendas could be an interesting addition to the game if done in a way that makes it meaningfully different from the World Congress. The idea with the secret society would be that it would unlock "religious victory" as a thing at all, for whatever religion your civ got, not that it would be baked in as a Christian secret society. Could also be a thing for governors instead, where you only have the victory conditions for the governors you appoint (so if you don't appoint any, you can only win on total score at the end).
|
|
#
?
Nov 25, 2020 23:02
|
|
|
Checking year after release: is the game fun as a single player game? Or is the first post in this thread still accurate?
|
|
#
?
Nov 26, 2020 00:00
|
|
|
Best Friends posted:Checking year after release: is the game fun as a single player game? Or is the first post in this thread still accurate? They're adding really rad features that are perfect for single player runs. You can no poo poo play as vampires during armageddon with castle outposts and everything, these days.
|
|
#
?
Nov 26, 2020 00:15
|
|
|
Best Friends posted:Checking year after release: is the game fun as a single player game? Or is the first post in this thread still accurate? I love it and I mainly play single-player. If you're a big fan of Paradox games you might find it a bit too simple, but it's more complicated than Civ V and really hits the sweet spot for me. We should probably update that OP.
|
|
#
?
Nov 26, 2020 00:16
|
|
|
Funnily enough I just started playing it again (I ended up getting the expacs on sale and I really like them) and then caught up with some 600 posts in the thread. A lot of the bullshit that soured me on the game at release and caused me to shelve it has mostly gone. Also there are some neat UI mods out. So yeah, OP needs updating. But I have no familiarity with the heroes/vampires/secret society stuff. In particular, the AI seems... less insane? How are people finding the AI in SP? Microplastics fucked around with this message at 00:42 on Nov 26, 2020 |
|
#
?
Nov 26, 2020 00:40
|
|
|
Thank you both!
|
|
#
?
Nov 26, 2020 00:40
|
|
|
JeremoudCorbynejad posted:
In my experience the AI sort of gives up on armies around mid game. It also has no loving clue how to fight a city with a wall. edit : I've watched the AI suicide units 1-2 at a time into a city state for 60+ turns. ded fucked around with this message at 00:59 on Nov 26, 2020 |
|
#
?
Nov 26, 2020 00:56
|
|
|
lmfao i forgot about the sexist agendas.
|
|
#
?
Nov 26, 2020 01:25
|
|
|
Civ VI is awesome and with the game modes they are releasing and a very strong second expansion (gathering storm) it’s much better in my view than Civ V or IV and I say that as someone who has put hundreds of hours into every civ game beyond earth included
|
|
#
?
Nov 26, 2020 01:48
|
|
|
I'm not sure we can trust someone who put hundreds of hours into Beyond Earth, sorry.
|
|
#
?
Nov 26, 2020 02:42
|
|
|
I just want civ4 on hex map.... With a few tweak to the mechanics to adapt it on such a world. Also an espionage tweak.
|
|
#
?
Nov 26, 2020 03:04
|
|
|
Its the Firaxis Civ cycle. Civ x comes out and people shout it is worse than Civ x-1 with expansions. Civ x gets more expansions and gradually becomes better than Civ x-1. There are always people who say they can't give up on Civ x-1 but most people will have settled into Civ x. FWIW I put < 40 hours into release Civ 6 because I was feeling bored but now I have 212 hours making it my 5th most played game (way more than Civ5 at 120 hours). That's all single player as I have played only like 2 multiplayer games of any Civ.
|
|
#
?
Nov 26, 2020 03:13
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 31, 2024 15:59 |
|
|
i have 836 hours in civ6 796 in 5 only 150 in IV but I think I bought that physical and then on steam later? Or maybe steam started tracking time played after i put a ton of hours into it? I certainly remember playing a lot of it. i also have 88 hours in beyond earth. So I got Mulan as my first hero ever, and she single handedly defeated Byzantium for me. EDIT: So Himiko is insane. Yea gimme your army, we're goin' warin' twistedmentat fucked around with this message at 06:20 on Nov 26, 2020 |
|
#
?
Nov 26, 2020 04:05
|
|