|
gal civ 2 owns because you have a race that uses only slavery and they gave everyone race specific buildings so you just get giant pits of slaves until they have been there so long you have slaves mining out more slaves
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2014 21:30
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 6, 2024 10:02 |
|
|
You think they would grow like population would since slaves gently caress also.
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2014 21:34
|
|
|
drilldo squirt posted:You think they would grow like population would since slaves gently caress also. Only MoO2 had that but even then you had to be genetically pure otherwise you would just get your base race.
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2014 21:42
|
|
|
Masters of orion 2 is the best game I ever played and I wish they would make a new one.
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2014 21:45
|
|
|
drilldo squirt posted:Masters of orion 2 is the best game I ever played and I wish they would make a new one. yeah
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2014 22:31
|
|
|
I cant wait to play this game in 4 hours and 20 minutes when its finally released.
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2014 22:32
|
|
|
Zoq-Fot-Pik posted:The military techs in that game had descriptions like "the second laser tier" and a few other techs had placeholder descriptions. The unit builder made combat pretty broken iirc. The AI and how planets worked were pretty cool and that's all I remember about that game. it wasnt really the descriptions that were good, but all techs had a nice little description of them once you actually aquired them
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2014 23:18
|
|
|
Skeleton King posted:gal civ ii was full of humor, interesting tech descriptions, and the races had all very well defined personalities and major gameplay changes between them- from how and when they would settle other planets, to what kind of weapons they would build- to how they would do diplomacy, to the kind of tech they wanted everything was p detailed and fun (combat was a little too easy at a certain point though for sure) it was completely mediocre, ugly and got boring really fast. BE so far looks like civ5 reskin. the tech web, factions, and affinities, which all were supposed to be big selling points are superficial as gently caress.
|
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2014 00:39
|
|
|
Zoq-Fot-Pik posted:The military techs in that game had descriptions like "the second laser tier" and a few other techs had placeholder descriptions. The unit builder made combat pretty broken iirc. The AI and how planets worked were pretty cool and that's all I remember about that game. Yeah there was like 50 Laser Techs and each one gave like +1% to lasers, +2%, +3% ... +50%. Cut and repeat for like, Armor Techs and other crap.
|
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2014 01:17
|
|
|
Powercrazy posted:Eh, I guess in that lens, Beyond the Sword made things "worse." But the game absolutely got better after that expansion was released. I like the Civs that were introduced and I like some of the new options that BTS brought in, but on the whole the features that BTS brought along were pretty poor. Like the space race now requires you to wait like 10-20 turns after you launch your space ship to win the game. This isn't necessary at all and I have never seen it actually play as a factor - the first one to launch has always been the first one to win from what I've seen.
|
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2014 01:21
|
|
|
Yolomancer is right and too many people easily conflate the type of balance that a patch brought with the expansion that was available at that time. Yes, Civ got more balanced with time, but stuff like espionage, corps, and AP threw the balance out of whack.
|
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2014 01:23
|
|
|
Thread lies, it's completely unplayable and will remain so at least until a few patches are released.
|
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2014 01:40
|
|
|
Also other than the pretty difficult to attain (but nearly impossible to stop) early AP victory, what was so bad about it if you turned that victory condition off? Corporations are powerful as gently caress, and Sid's Sushi is hilarious, but what was wrong with Espionage?
|
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2014 18:39
|
|
|
The other thread is like concentrated sunk-cost fallacy.
|
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2014 19:39
|
|
|
Powercrazy posted:Also other than the pretty difficult to attain (but nearly impossible to stop) early AP victory, what was so bad about it if you turned that victory condition off? The AI has no idea how to manage it, and with their production bonuses they just poo poo out a billion spies. You end up playing whack a mole with your tile improvements being destroyed or water poisoned. Back in civ3 they had a pollution mechanic, where at a certain point in the modern age, cities would "pollute" surrounding tiles and they would give no yield until a worker cleaned it up. This was based on random chance and was never fun, so they removed it from the game. That whack a mole type feeling comes back with the randomness of the AI espionage. It's also broken from the human perspective, where bonus modifiers like jails and security bureau's actually make it a pretty profitable form of economy, where you can build up espionage points really fast and just steal techs from the AI constantly. In multiplayer it's stupidly broken, since the spy unit can scout out enemy territory and make attacks either impossible (scout out enemy unit composition well ahead of the attack) or unstoppable (send city into a riot which invalidates all cultural defensive bonuses, and walls/castle defensive bonuses, also sabotage production, or scouting out enemy unit composition). The intelligence gathering during warfare becomes WAY too simple, especially with how cheap the unit is, and that you can build an infinite amount of them, and removing them is down to random chance.
|
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2014 19:48
|
|
|
i think that this game is fun and i am enjoying playing it 
|
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2014 21:04
|
|
|
Those are fair points. I can totally understand how dumb that is, especially with the lack of active counter-espionage. I wonder if making spies national units would help? Basically you can field 4 of them at a time, or something like that and they cost espionage points to build. Great Spies would still be 'free'. And yea it was dumb that even if you were running counter espionage, and were hugely out-producing the AI on espionage points and had spies all over your empire, they would still be able to sabotage tile improvements every 2-3 turns. Pretty unfun mechanic imo. The city revolt thing is a good example of how espionage should work though. Make it expensive to do, but the defense nullification is terrific and powerful and worth doing, just needed to be balanced vs other espionage tradeoffs a bit better.
|
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2014 21:06
|
|
|
Impermanent posted:The other thread is like concentrated sunk-cost fallacy. Oh word?
|
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2014 21:32
|
|
|
Pewdiepie posted:Oh word? lol
|
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2014 21:34
|
|
|
Powercrazy posted:Those are fair points. I can totally understand how dumb that is, especially with the lack of active counter-espionage. I wonder if making spies national units would help? Basically you can field 4 of them at a time, or something like that and they cost espionage points to build. Great Spies would still be 'free'. In vanilla civ you had to research Communism, build a national wonder, and then you were limited to 3 spies. The spy missions cost gold at that time, iirc. It was a pretty decent mechanics. While we're talking about the 'expensive' costs of espionage actions, it was definitely WAY too cheap to bump people into different civics/religions using spies. Late game multiplayer became all about bumping people into poo poo civics or religions over and over lol. Also I remember stuff like poison water supply being ridiculously broken on Epic and Marathon speeds (the length of time they would last didn't scale with the length of the game, so they ended up lasting way longer than they should've lol). Basically BTS is what you get when someone just adds a bunch of 'cool' crap to a game without thinking about how it plays with everything else. It plays more like a well polished mod, than anything else. COINCIDENTALLY Jon Shafer was the lead designer for BTS. He was hired because he made a bunch of really lovely mods for Civ3. He was also the lead designer for Civ5. Lol.
|
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2014 22:27
|
|
|
Jon Shafer should have his stupid head hit with a brick. Civ 5 is a bad game because it is very poorly balanced and most of all it's basically a singleplayer only game because of the bad multiplayer, which is only made worse by the lack of an actual multiplayer community in the first place. who the gently caress think this game is fun against a braindead ai?
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2014 04:07
|
|
|
Larry Parrish posted:Jon Shafer should have his stupid head hit with a brick. Before Civ5 got released, there was a Civ4 community on somethingawful, and nearly every single loving person was playing on noble or lower. People today just want to come home from their lovely loving job and win, just stomp all over whatever they're playing.
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2014 05:27
|
|
|
Hello. I play on Emperor. Thank you.
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2014 05:31
|
|
|
I play on Monarch, because I'm bad.
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2014 05:44
|
|
|
Zoq-Fot-Pik posted:I play on Monarch, because I'm bad. monarch isn't bad. hell, i have respect for prince players, because they're at least taking the AI on at a difficulty level where it fights back. In my mind anyone that knows about basic strategy (ie, how to place cities, what tiles to work, how to use workers, how to chop, and how to whip) should definitely beat Monarch. Imo Monarch/Emperor is probably the base difficulty. Diety and Immortal are way easier than in vanilla civ (in that, they are actually beatable) but its still at the point where you need to strictly follow certain strategies, whereas Emperor gives you a lot more freedom.
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2014 05:58
|
|
|
I played like a step above Settler in Civ 4 like 8 years ago or w/e, but it's not my kind of game so much so I didn't pursue becoming a master at it.
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2014 06:14
|
|
|
I usually played Prince or Monarch in Civ4. Except for one game where I abused the gently caress out of everything including save-scumming, and was able to win with a Churchill conquest victory before industrialization on deity. Protective Charismatic CR3 Redcoats are extremely my poo poo.
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2014 10:42
|
|
|
Playing Sumeria and rushing to Vultures is probably the easiest way to win on small maps. I play on Emperor  (Deity in V because holy poo poo the AI is bad)
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2014 11:21
|
|
|
bump, this game has been out for 9 days and been playable for 0 and i dont think anyone plays it anymore
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2014 21:47
|
|
|
i play it borsche, come troll me
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2014 21:54
|
|
|
sulla finally released his BNW review http://www.garath.net/Sullla/Civ5/bnwreview.html
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2014 22:34
|
|
|
Borsche69 posted:sulla finally released his BNW review http://www.garath.net/Sullla/Civ5/bnwreview.html Wow. I assumed he just shelved Civ 5 entirely after his review in early 2011 or whatever.
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2014 22:40
|
|
|
His last Civ 4 vid was like 4 months ago but at least he's playing things other than League of Legends again.
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2014 22:42
|
|
|
Borsche69 posted:sulla finally released his BNW review http://www.garath.net/Sullla/Civ5/bnwreview.html this is good poo poo
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2014 22:52
|
|
|
Sulla is so cool.
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2014 22:56
|
|
|
Knuc U Kinte posted:Sulla is so cool. He's epic.
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2014 23:02
|
|
|
Knuc U Kinte posted:Sulla is so cool. sulla was an optimate. screw his cursus honorum for aristocratic brats, i roll with marius
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2014 23:06
|
|
|
when i grow up i want to be just like sulla
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2014 23:06
|
|
|
quote:Civ5 suffers here from a mistaken attempt to balance "Tall" empires against "Wide" empires. This is something that the designers mentioned frequently in the buildup to the game's release, and the Civ5 community discusses this all the time as well. It's a baffling concept that makes absolutely no sense when discussing gameplay in the empire-building genre of games. Why in the world would you want to create a game where a "Tall" empire of four cities would be as strong as a "Wide" empire of twenty cities? If that's the case, then what's the point of expanding at all? It's much easier to sit on a handful of cities, after all. An empire-building game where small nations are just as good as large nations is an empire-building game where expansion becomes pointless. This is exactly what Brave New World has done: it has undercut the entire purpose of the genre! Let me make use of an analogy here: arguing that "Wide" and "Tall" empires should be balanced is like arguing that small armies in Starcraft should be able to compete on even terms with large armies. I mean, that sounds incredibly stupid, right? The purpose of Starcraft is to build an army to kill your opponent. Sure, there are units designed to counter mass spam of cheap units, but the basic principle remains that bigger armies are better. If you could defeat a 200 supply army with a 50 supply army, then what would be the point of building units at all? Such a mechanic would destroy the entire raison d'etre behind Starcraft. Brave New World does the same thing with respect to expansion. A handful of cities performs as well as a large empire, making expansion and warfare pointless. This mistaken attempt to balance "Wide" and "Tall" strikes a blow at the very heart of why people play the Civilization games in the first place. This is a good review.
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2014 23:30
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 6, 2024 10:02 |
|
|
If you could kill 10 billion marines with 3 battle cruisers starcraft would have people still playing it, because it would be loving awesome.
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2014 23:54
|
|