|
I didn't end up getting Beyond Earth because people said it had all the pre-expansion Civ 5 issues and was unlikely to get the expansions and patches to solve them. I want a Civ in Space for the modern era. Even the bad space part of Spore was kind of fun.
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2015 06:12
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 8, 2024 01:17 |
|
|
 i appreciate the effort at least. the leaders changing over time was really neat in previous civ games
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2015 06:17
|
|
|
Of course there's going to be a civ 6. It's a cash cow.
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2015 11:44
|
|
|
gently caress, you guys, Endless Legend is loving good as hell
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2015 11:54
|
|
|
Fergus Mac Roich posted:gently caress, you guys, Endless Legend is loving good as hell Is it? I played the poo poo out of Endless Space, it was fantastic except that the performance dropped into the loving toilet in multiplayer 
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2015 12:48
|
|
|
I fooled you. I fooled you. I got pig iron. I got pig iron. I got all pig iron.
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2015 14:30
|
|
|
Bicyclops posted:still not as terrifying an idea as http://www.civilizationonline.com/ 
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2015 18:59
|
|
|
Soral posted:
dramatic differences indeed
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2015 19:14
|
|
|
gold frills, bold thrills
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2015 19:56
|
|
|
Frank Horrigan posted:Is it? I played the poo poo out of Endless Space, it was fantastic except that the performance dropped into the loving toilet in multiplayer I like it more than Civ V and I liked Civ V
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2015 21:18
|
|
|
Borsche69 posted:Yeah the fat cross is a lot better than how it's done now, since three tiers of hexes being under a cities control is absurd. Two tiers isn't so bad (18 workable tiles compared to the fat cross which has 21), so I'm not sure why they made it have 37 tiles. i like the symmetry of hexes over the BFC, because the BFC cuts off the tiles 2 diagonal of the centre. That's just unnatural and gamey. Unfortunately, the 3-wide radii are too large, and so civ5 could never find a good balance between underexpansion (and leaving massive swathes of unsettled territory) versus ICS (dozens of bland, samey cities that don't actually contribute more than marginal)
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2015 22:42
|
|
|
Cities need to take up more than 1 hex. Maybe make the city initially have access to the first two rows of hexes. Then when the city gets to a certain size, "the city" grows to another hex, which gives it access to additional hexes (and other stuff). Like this where the city originally has access to 18 hexes, then when it grows to 2 hexes, it has access to 23. This would change combat a lot, helping to reduce the "single stack of doom" 'problem,' who knows.
|
|
#
?
Mar 1, 2015 00:40
|
|
|
it seems that some problems could be solved by making the hexes like 1/5 of the size and then using multiples hexes according to the need. Towns could occupy a 5 hex area and reach resources in a 5 hex radius, but its radius only grow 2 hexes, smaller units would only occupy 1 hex and bigger ones would occupy an area 3 or 4 hexes across so having one unity per tile wouldn't be a problem.
|
|
#
?
Mar 1, 2015 00:47
|
|
|
Civilization trivia: the word "hex" is also the word for a curse, as cast by a witch or boggart.
|
|
#
?
Mar 1, 2015 02:21
|
|
|
I don't see what multitile cities add beyond making urban combat something more of a thing, and I don't see how multitile units add much without creating some major challenges in the combat system. You'd have to massively alter the gameplay involved in order to make it interesting rather than halfassed, and I dunno how well that could sync up with the 4X genre.
|
|
|
#
?
Mar 1, 2015 05:30
|
|
|
Powercrazy posted:Cities need to take up more than 1 hex. Maybe make the city initially have access to the first two rows of hexes. Then when the city gets to a certain size, "the city" grows to another hex, which gives it access to additional hexes (and other stuff). Endless Legend does something similar to this, which I really liked. You build a 'district' and then place it on the map bordering hte city, giving it control of the tiles that border the new district. Its a much more organic process of expanding the workable tiles, although it kinda removes the nature of expanding your borders (Endless Legend had predefined regions that you gained control of by settling)
|
|
#
?
Mar 1, 2015 05:36
|
|
|
In the beginning, there was Go. -Leonard Nimoy
|
|
#
?
Mar 1, 2015 05:39
|
|
|
Effectronica posted:I don't see what multitile cities add beyond making urban combat something more of a thing, and I don't see how multitile units add much without creating some major challenges in the combat system. You'd have to massively alter the gameplay involved in order to make it interesting rather than halfassed, and I dunno how well that could sync up with the 4X genre. Without changing the combat much, the purpose would be to grow the cities workable area for late game purposes.
|
|
#
?
Mar 1, 2015 07:10
|
|
|
Just say like 4 cities have full(possibly more) management, then all the other cities are minor cities and contest territory while providing small economic benefits. That way you can, you know, have something to lose in a war that isn't critical so every war isn't a hellwar. Honestly combat shouldn't be a focus in civ anyway.
|
|
#
?
Mar 1, 2015 15:47
|
|
|
Panzeh posted:Just say like 4 cities have full(possibly more) management, then all the other cities are minor cities and contest territory while providing small economic benefits. That way you can, you know, have something to lose in a war that isn't critical so every war isn't a hellwar. What the hell else is the focus.
|
|
#
?
Mar 1, 2015 16:00
|
|
Powercrazy posted:Without changing the combat much, the purpose would be to grow the cities workable area for late game purposes. Okay, but I'm looking at it and seeing an encouragement of tall growth rather than wide growth, so if I were designing the next Civ game, I would be implementing it primarily as a comeback move for losing civilizations to defend against winning ones. Or as something that has to be built specifically (eg a "Suburbs" improvement) that has a variety of negative effects that come with expanding the workable area of the city permanently. There should be tradeoffs to make defensive strategies worse than offensive ones and keep the game about growing outward. Larry Parrish posted:What the hell else is the focus. Exploration, expansion, and exploitation.
|
|
|
#
?
Mar 1, 2015 16:36
|
|
|
Are the total war games fun.
|
|
#
?
Mar 1, 2015 16:48
|
|
|
Effectronica posted:Okay, but I'm looking at it and seeing an encouragement of tall growth rather than wide growth, so if I were designing the next Civ game, I would be implementing it primarily as a comeback move for losing civilizations to defend against winning ones. Or as something that has to be built specifically (eg a "Suburbs" improvement) that has a variety of negative effects that come with expanding the workable area of the city permanently. There should be tradeoffs to make defensive strategies worse than offensive ones and keep the game about growing outward. as long you get rid of the happines mechanic then it should be good, that and the upped science cost by number of cities is what made civ5 primarily tall
|
|
#
?
Mar 1, 2015 17:21
|
|
|
Effectronica posted:Exploration, expansion, and exploitation. and extermination. Combat shouldn't be hte 'focus' in that you aren't doing Total War style battles, and you don't need a combat calculator more complex than a random number generator influenced by things like strength and promotions, but War should be a huge aspect of Civilization.
|
|
#
?
Mar 1, 2015 18:12
|
|
Borsche69 posted:and extermination. Combat shouldn't be hte 'focus' in that you aren't doing Total War style battles, and you don't need a combat calculator more complex than a random number generator influenced by things like strength and promotions, but War should be a huge aspect of Civilization. Well, yeah, it should be about a quarter of the game at least.
|
|
|
#
?
Mar 1, 2015 18:19
|
|
|
Effectronica posted:Well, yeah, it should be about a quarter of the game at least. I mean it'd be nice if they had other things in them but every Civ game pretty much boils down to taking the best resources ASAP and then either defending the ones you have or stealing everyone elses. It's so laser-focused on being in forever war the whole match that I'm pretty sure adding anything else would make it a different game entirely.
|
|
#
?
Mar 1, 2015 18:35
|
|
|
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IJiHDmyhE1A
|
|
#
?
Mar 1, 2015 18:44
|
|
|
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aL6wlTDPiPU
|
|
#
?
Mar 1, 2015 19:43
|
|
|
Larry Parrish posted:I mean it'd be nice if they had other things in them but every Civ game pretty much boils down to taking the best resources ASAP and then either defending the ones you have or stealing everyone elses. It's so laser-focused on being in forever war the whole match that I'm pretty sure adding anything else would make it a different game entirely. Through the Ages has an important military factor but you can still win the game being militarily inferior, it's just hard.
|
|
#
?
Mar 1, 2015 19:52
|
|
|
What if CIVILIZATION had Lyrics?
|
|
#
?
Mar 1, 2015 19:57
|
|
|
Larry Parrish posted:Everyone who has ever worked on a Civ game is out making their own games now like At The Gates and Offworld Trading Company that are just horrible and bad if you don't play them online. Can Civ developers please stop making multiplayer games that everyone thinks should be played singleplayer. Thanks. is at the gates even going to have multiplayer? and otc is designed ground-up as a competitive rts Zoq-Fot-Pik posted:Did Civ 3 have anything better than in Civ 4? borders (even if the ai didnt give a poo poo) StashAugustine fucked around with this message at 06:22 on Mar 2, 2015 |
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2015 06:20
|
|
|
One thing I wish I could do in Civ is make a military unit stick to a civilian unit so I don't have to micromanage escorts for settlers and trade routes
|
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2015 07:30
|
|
|
At the gates looks like it's going to be an unfocused confusingly designed mess from what we've seen.
|
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2015 07:47
|
|
|
StashAugustine posted:is at the gates even going to have multiplayer? and otc is designed ground-up as a competitive rts At The Gates is SP-only. I could talk more about it but I am in the Alpha, but i'll say I think it's an interesting take.
|
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2015 12:24
|
|
|
YIKES Stay Gooned posted:Are the total war games fun. I have mediaeval 2 and it's a total blast. I remember shogun 2 being good but I don't own it. The others I haven't played. I heard Attila is good but I'm waiting.
|
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2015 15:11
|
|
|
This song is AWESOME!!!
|
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2015 15:15
|
|
|
Red Suit posted:One thing I wish I could do in Civ is make a military unit stick to a civilian unit so I don't have to micromanage escorts for settlers and trade routes You could do that in civ4.
|
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2015 17:30
|
|
|
Endless Legend basically does right everything civ v does wrong
|
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2015 18:21
|
|
|
memy posted:Endless Legend basically does right everything civ v does wrong Except having any kind of difficulty.
|
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2015 23:50
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 8, 2024 01:17 |
|
|
Bicyclops posted:I didn't end up getting Beyond Earth because people said it had all the pre-expansion Civ 5 issues and was unlikely to get the expansions and patches to solve them. I want a Civ in Space for the modern era. Even the bad space part of Spore was kind of fun. Why is this?
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2015 00:39
|
|
