|
I know the war sucks but the religion is VERY WELL DONE, the economic and resource aspect is FANTASTIC, and the diplomacy? *kisses fingers like a chef* Perfection.
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2016 19:34
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 5, 2024 12:28 |
|
|
Internet Explorer posted:I slept on it and just wanted to come back and post the following: Why is anyone playing this game while this is still broken? It's fun to learn the mechanics, to learn to make a better empire, to experience the differences the different civs make. "Is the AI challenging me enough?" is not a question I ask myself in Civ games. I do not play Civ on high difficulty levels and never have. I look forward to their addressing the AI shortcomings but am fortunate to not share your perspective.
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2016 19:35
|
|
|
There are points where I stop and zoom in on my little Japanese metropolis and wish that there were more buildings in between the districts so I could get the true overcrowded hellhole aesthetic.
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2016 19:40
|
|
|
Decrepus posted:I know the war sucks but the religion is VERY WELL DONE, the economic and resource aspect is FANTASTIC, and the diplomacy? *kisses fingers like a chef* Perfection. Dude if you can post on this thread 10 times a day about how little fun you have with this game why can't other people play Civ6 and enjoy it?
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2016 19:42
|
|
|
Most people I know don't play Civ for the challenge. Decrepus, we get it. You hate the game. But you don't seem to be able to stop playing it either?
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2016 19:45
|
|
|
Internet Explorer posted:I slept on it and just wanted to come back and post the following: Why is anyone playing this game while this is still broken? Its still a fun game, even if the AI battle logic is messed up. I mean, even in Civ 5 I never felt terribly threatened by the AI armies either. I put about 40 hours into it, had fun with it, and will probably wait before picking it back up, which is pretty reasonable for a game like this. In Civ 5 I did the same thing. I played 2, 20 hour games, decided it was neat but pretty rough and sorta broken/missing content in places and put it away for a year before the expansions come out. So I can't say I am surprised or anything.
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2016 19:44
|
|
|
Efexeye posted:Most people I know don't play Civ for the challenge. Yes I'm playing the game right now.
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2016 19:46
|
|
|
Crosswell posted:Basically I love being pandered to and even I can't stomach this crap. Yeah I hate getting crushed by a runaway AI player, and usually just play at prince level so I can feel like we're all playing by the same rules (even if we're not really). That said, it basically ruins the game for me to know that, at a certain very easy to attain point, I've basically inadvertently enabled god mode. What's the point of domination victory if you're the only player even allowed on the track? For that matter, how does one of the main systems of the game get released so fundamentally and obviously broken? Testing had to have revealed that eventually the AI became incapable of meaningfully waging war
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2016 19:46
|
|
|
Civ has always ALWAYS struggled with the aspect that most people want it to be a war game and it really isn't. Combat is just one of like, 15 other systems that have to work together.
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2016 19:52
|
|
|
I'm also glad I don't have to do too much warfare -- the one-unit-per-hex thing makes it a big pain in the rear end to move a bunch of units in something resembling a formation. Maybe if, in addition to escort situations, you could have "be right next to me" or "be right behind me" requirements as well.
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2016 19:55
|
|
|
Efexeye posted:Civ has always ALWAYS struggled with the aspect that most people want it to be a war game and it really isn't. Combat is just one of like, 15 other systems that have to work together. The game needs its DLCs. Just like V did. Would you agree that V was not very good at release? I haven't played IV in so long that I don't even remember what its expansion added. I only remember Caveman2Cosmos.
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2016 19:56
|
|
|
Decrepus posted:The game needs its DLCs. Just like V did. Would you agree that V was not very good at release? They've never been good at release. And they've never had good AI. But they keep selling a million copies so I dunno
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2016 19:58
|
|
|
Decrepus posted:I haven't played IV in so long that I don't even remember what its expansion added.
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2016 20:04
|
|
|
jBrereton posted:The ability to play Fall from Heaven 2/C2C. Fall from heaven 2 has only been downloaded 600,000 times. Sounds like poo poo.
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2016 20:08
|
|
|
Internet Explorer posted:Go play Cities:Skyline or something. I would actually love a SimCity version of Civilization. Too bad the only option right now is playing Civ 5 as Venice.
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2016 20:08
|
|
|
Decrepus posted:The game needs its DLCs. Just like V did. Would you agree that V was not very good at release? Civ V was bad at release. It was worse than 6 though. Like, "I can't play multiplayer because of desyncs and crashes" kind of unplayable. We experience desyncs, but only at the end of the game when poo poo is real busy and it always recovers. I don't think we've ever experienced a crash.
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2016 20:11
|
|
|
I think civ 6 is pretty good. The AI being bad at attacking is fine because I don't want to attack or be attacked. The diplomacy being a weird mess doesn't matter to me either since I would just disable being contacted by leaders entirely if I could. The only things that actually bother me are religious combat making zero sense and all of the win conditions being kind of boring. Fun story from my current game, I am playing as Catherine, I've got 3 cities, all with an inquisitor in them and then I have 1 inquisitor I accidentally misclicked just sitting in a holy site that I was keeping around in case I got around to founding a 4th city or took someone elses city. My neighbor Peter marches over an assortment of missionaries, apostles, and inquisitors (about 15 in total) and decides that the most important thing to do in his attempt to spread his faith was to assault my inquisitor. That lone inquisitor killed all of them. He just kept throwing dudes at that inquisitor and he was having none of it. I don't know how a str 75 inquisitor killed 4 104 str apostles without breaking a sweat but it sure was funny to me.
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2016 20:26
|
|
|
Failboattootoot posted:I think civ 6 is pretty good. The AI being bad at attacking is fine because I don't want to attack or be attacked. The diplomacy being a weird mess doesn't matter to me either since I would just disable being contacted by leaders entirely if I could. The only things that actually bother me are religious combat making zero sense and all of the win conditions being kind of boring. If your inquisitors/apostles stand on or next to a holy site, they heal between turns. It's awesome.
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2016 20:29
|
|
|
prefect posted:If your inquisitors/apostles stand on or next to a holy site, they heal between turns. It's awesome. I noticed that and it is awesome but like, he was 1 shotting everything that attacked him and taking like 5 points of damage. That whole horde of nonsense never managed to get him out of green health. I am just chalking it up to being parked in the holy site at this point but it was still silly.
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2016 20:32
|
|
|
Failboattootoot posted:I noticed that and it is awesome but like, he was 1 shotting everything that attacked him and taking like 5 points of damage. That whole horde of nonsense never managed to get him out of green health. I am just chalking it up to being parked in the holy site at this point but it was still silly. I want to say there's also a terrain bonus for being on a holy site, but I could be imagining that.
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2016 20:43
|
|
|
Failboattootoot posted:I think civ 6 is pretty good. The AI being bad at attacking is fine because I don't want to attack or be attacked. The diplomacy being a weird mess doesn't matter to me either since I would just disable being contacted by leaders entirely if I could. So what do you actually do? Play a shittier version of sim city?
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2016 21:17
|
|
|
Is there any way you can check the age, art type, etc. of other civs' great works before you trade for them? You know, so you can get those theme bonuses.
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2016 21:31
|
|
|
Efexeye posted:Civ has always ALWAYS struggled with the aspect that most people want it to be a war game and it really isn't. Combat is just one of like, 15 other systems that have to work together. Well, domination and space race are the two longest running victory conditions. Between that and the enormous amount of resources in game devoted to combat, you can see why long time fans would consider it to be an integral part of the game. Even if you don't want to make war, having competent threatening AI players forcing you to balance your chosen victory path with defense and diplomacy is pretty important too, I think. As it is now you can pretty much just expand, wall up, and next turn your way to whatever non violent victory you're going for
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2016 21:36
|
|
|
CAPTAIN CAPSLOCK posted:So what do you actually do? Play a shittier version of sim city? I build a cool civilization? I can just as easily turn this around on you because war has never been remotely fun, interesting, or competent in this series compared to any other dedicated strategy game.
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2016 21:40
|
|
|
I did this but they still pumped out culture/tourism. I think you have to conquer their biggest cities and even then if they are close the other cities will generate enough to put them over the top.
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2016 21:44
|
|
|
kid sinister posted:Is there any way you can check the age, art type, etc. of other civs' great works before you trade for them? You know, so you can get those theme bonuses. No. You are never allowed any information about anything in a civ game until the community makes a mod allowing you to do so. Then you must wait 1-2 weeks after every official update for the community to update those mods. It is tradition.
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2016 21:58
|
|
|
Failboattootoot posted:I build a cool civilization? I can just as easily turn this around on you because war has never been remotely fun, interesting, or competent in this series compared to any other dedicated strategy game. Why are people suggesting games that don't even offer the same thing as civ to people like us who are enjoying the game? It's cool, you don't get why people would enjoy such lovely, broken AI. We get that you don't get it. But these other games are not civ.
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2016 22:04
|
|
|
The Human Crouton posted:No. drat. How about this? How do the adjacency bonus cards work: does that tile get the bonus, or do the neighboring tiles get the bonus?
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2016 22:16
|
|
|
kid sinister posted:drat. How about this? How do the adjacency bonus cards work: does that tile get the bonus, or do the neighboring tiles get the bonus? I'm assuming you are asking that if you had a campus with a +2 total bonus is that bonus now +4; or if my campus is next to a rainforest which normally gives +.5 bonus does that rainforest now give +1 to the adjacent campus. Don't know.
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2016 22:23
|
|
|
This game is already much better than 5 at release. I wish there was a way of resolving your differences without war. I don't bother asking the AI to not convert cities or forward settle, I simply declare war and stomp them into the ground. It would be nice if other avenues opened up to penalise those civs even if it was artificial in its application to AI civs.
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2016 22:26
|
|
|
This thread is 1UPT and the current Civ VI AI.
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2016 22:46
|
|
|
Raphus C posted:This game is already much better than 5 at release. I wish there was a way of resolving your differences without war. I don't bother asking the AI to not convert cities or forward settle, I simply declare war and stomp them into the ground. It would be nice if other avenues opened up to penalise those civs even if it was artificial in its application to AI civs. It would be nice to have a "Broken Promise" Casus Belli or something. Right now asking the AI not to do something doesn't matter at all. I've gotten promises to stop spreading religion and stop spying, and they never seem to follow through on it. The game actually informs you when the AI breaks a promise they made to you, but there isn't anything you can do about it. All you can do is make them promise again, and they'll just break it again. Unless you have another valid reason to go to war, they can just keep doing it with impunity unless you want a huge Warmonger penalty. Which barely matters, because everyone hates you regardless, but still.
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2016 22:55
|
|
|
The Casus Belli system is a good idea in principle. The only problem is that it hinges on the idea that the AI is smart enough to tell the difference between the varying war monger penalties. Something like "war monger penalties halved" for religious war probably means fuckall to the AI when they all hate you for the rest of the game once the war ends. The only good casus bellis are Liberation and Protectorate wars because those have no warmonger penalties at all (until you take it too far and take a city from someone and don't give it back).
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2016 22:59
|
|
|
In most every game I've played so far, I've spent most of the time denounced by all the other civs. They even get furious when I take over some lovely little city state, for some reason.
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2016 23:06
|
|
|
Ice Fist posted:The Casus Belli system is a good idea in principle. It used to not be like this for me, I could use the Holy War casus belli to wipe someone out and the AI wouldn't care, but the latest patch added a large warmonger penalty for eliminating a Civ that doesn't seem to be balanced out by the overall warmonger penalty reductions. And sometimes you really need to wipe someone out because they won't cede their cities/capital to you and even if they do they'll still hate you for the rest of the game (You occupy one of their cities).
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2016 00:32
|
|
|
I don't know how you can play multiplayer with just one friend when team victories are disabled. It's boring for us that the only way to win is to spend 60 turns going to Mars since conquering the other human player might as well just be game over.
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2016 00:43
|
|
|
Taear posted:I don't know how you can play multiplayer with just one friend when team victories are disabled. It's boring for us that the only way to win is to spend 60 turns going to Mars since conquering the other human player might as well just be game over. My buddy and I go for whatever victory type we want. We usually set out and announce what we're trying to do before hand. For instance - Last game: I decided I wanted to see if I could leverage China's early wonders, and Eureka bonus for a massive science victory snowball while my friend decided they wanted to try for a culture victory as America. I won, but not as convincingly as I'd hoped (I was hoping to win by 1900, but I didn't win until 1932 most likely because I needed one or two more cities and also should have built a key industrial district sooner but didn't build it until it barely had an effect) Previous game: I was Teddy and my friend was Hojo. I went for culture and dominated. By the end of the game I was generating an absurd amount of tourism. I would have won much, much earlier than the 1940s but my friend didn't know what the gently caress to do with the Japanese and decided too late to focus culture, but because he focused culture it made it take longer for me to win. Game before that: I tried for a culture victory as Gorgo, my friend went for a science victory as Brazil. He won, easily. I was generating a lot of culture and tourism, but I hosed up and didn't realize until too late that all my my trade routes were with city states instead of other civs and since everyone hated me for being a warmonger I couldn't get open borders treaties. Fun game though as I didn't give a gently caress and declared war on everyone.
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2016 01:13
|
|
|
Magil Zeal posted:It used to not be like this for me, I could use the Holy War casus belli to wipe someone out and the AI wouldn't care, but the latest patch added a large warmonger penalty for eliminating a Civ that doesn't seem to be balanced out by the overall warmonger penalty reductions. And sometimes you really need to wipe someone out because they won't cede their cities/capital to you and even if they do they'll still hate you for the rest of the game (You occupy one of their cities). Also, why does nobody like me????? 
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2016 01:16
|
|
|
Ice Fist posted:The Casus Belli system is a good idea in principle. They changed the AI too. It used to be somewhat roleplaying a civ leader, but now it is actively trying to win the game. That means when you are leading you naturally become a target. The Casus Belli system is a great idea, but since the AI is more worried about not letting you win the game rather than playing out a leader it just becomes a question of whether you are a target early or not. Along those lines, RIP equitable trade partners.
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2016 01:27
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 5, 2024 12:28 |
|
|
Lockback posted:They changed the AI too. It used to be somewhat roleplaying a civ leader, but now it is actively trying to win the game. That means when you are leading you naturally become a target. The Casus Belli system is a great idea, but since the AI is more worried about not letting you win the game rather than playing out a leader it just becomes a question of whether you are a target early or not. I mean good lord I just played a game where Ghandi had the second-largest military from pretty much Turn 1 and Montezuma was denouncing me for being a Warmonger.
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2016 01:28
|
|