|
Evil Canadian posted:Time for a Canadian civ and the mighty Canada Caveman warrior replacement UU. le canadian thinker ._. o o o (there needs to be more canadians)
|
#
?
May 16, 2016 02:04
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 20, 2024 06:46 |
|
|
madeupfred posted:le canadian thinker ._. o o o (there needs to be more canadians) what the gently caress is this
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2016 02:04
|
|
|
Ratios and Tendency posted:What's dated about the philosophy of SMAC? A lot actually it's definitely a game of it's time.
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2016 02:35
|
|
|
Node posted:what the gently caress is this The Canadian Thinker. It says it right there in his post!!! What the hell is wrong with you?
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2016 02:36
|
|
|
Node posted:what the gently caress is this The Canadian Thinker thinks that there needs to be more Canadians.
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2016 02:42
|
|
|
Borsche69 posted:The Canadian Thinker. It says it right there in his post!!! What the hell is wrong with you? ^ this
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2016 02:43
|
|
|
Who would even be the leader? Trudeau? King? John A MacDonald? ... Actually MacDonald would be kind of funny if he was as visibly intoxicated in the diplomacy scenes as he was during his speeches.
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2016 02:57
|
|
|
Eighty posted:Who would even be the leader? Trudeau? King? John A MacDonald? Tim Horton.
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2016 02:59
|
|
|
I was a big proponent of putting Canada in when I was 14. Now I think mods can mostly take care of it. It is workable though. The classic choices of leader are Trudeau or Pearson, but I kind of like the idea of Canada's 22 year Prime Minister King, or going the originalist route with MacDonald. Uniques would probably be something to do with railroads and some great war military or possibly the Avro Arrow depending on how masturbatory you wanted to be.
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2016 03:18
|
|
|
Eighty posted:Who would even be the leader? Trudeau? King? John A MacDonald?  A real Canadian hero.
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2016 03:34
|
|
|
Eighty posted:Who would even be the leader? Trudeau? King? John A MacDonald? 
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2016 04:00
|
|
|
SirKibbles posted:A lot actually it's definitely a game of it's time. Anything specific?
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2016 05:19
|
|
|
Borsche69 posted:What the hell is this? Conquests was an absolute disaster. It destroyed the corruption mechanic (both in calculating the costs, and with the civil engineer specialist), added awful OP lethal bombardment, broken rear end Statue of Zeus needing Ivory (a luxury resource that would only have like 4 copies in the world, because of the civ3 map gen) and giving the ridiculously powerful Ancient Cavalry Yeah, Civ4's mechanics were fundamentally sound, your general strategy and the pace of the game didn't change much as more expansions were released. Civ5 constantly changed as new patches came in, almost as if the core design wasn't sound. I actually know of some of the Civ4/BTS/Civ5 testers: Sullla, Krill, and TheMeInTeam. All three of them were excellent SP and MP players. Sullla had nothing but praise for Soren Johnson's design. Meanwhile, Krill and TMIT constantly complained about how their issues with BTS and Civ5 were not properly balanced. I'm not as familiar with the specifics of TMIT's criticisms of release Civ5, but I am with Krill's criticisms of BTS. BTS is still good, because it added alot of decent tweaks and new content to base Civ4, like better AI, or more units/buildings/civs. But the big, box-selling new content in BTS was hideously unbalanced. For instance, ship blockades were completely broken, because they were uncounterable. The Apostolic palace was easily gerrymandered, and you could use it for either cheesy early diplomatic victories, or completely loving over your opponents with crippling unhappiness. So it's really unfair to compare Civ4 release to Civ5 release, because the latter was at very different stage of nailing down their designs. Ed Beach is a veteran and he hopefully Civ6 have a better design from the early stages.
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2016 05:55
|
|
|
One thing I really hope for this game is that diplomacy messages don't just randomly pop up and take over your entire screen. That annoys the poo poo out of me in Civ 5. Why can't it just be an alert along with all your other alerts that you can either respond to or ignore? Especially since most AI diplomacy messages are inane bullshit like "tee hee your friends are my friends too" or "you built a city too close to the city that i built right next to your capital, rear end in a top hat"
Fister Roboto fucked around with this message at 08:16 on May 16, 2016 |
|
#
?
May 16, 2016 08:14
|
|
|
Fister Roboto posted:One thing I really hope for this game is that diplomacy messages don't just randomly pop up and take over your entire screen. That annoys the poo poo out of me in Civ 5. Why can't it just be an alert along with all your other alerts that you can either respond to or ignore? Especially since most AI diplomacy messages are inane bullshit like "tee hee your friends are my friends too" or "you built a city too close to the city that i built right next to your capital, rear end in a top hat" the funny thing about this one is that in civ 5 it shows up in an alert queue along with everything else. you know, the way a sane person would expect it.
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2016 08:18
|
|
|
Fister Roboto posted:One thing I really hope for this game is that diplomacy messages don't just randomly pop up and take over your entire screen. That annoys the poo poo out of me in Civ 5. Why can't it just be an alert along with all your other alerts that you can either respond to or ignore? Especially since most AI diplomacy messages are inane bullshit like "tee hee your friends are my friends too" or "you built a city too close to the city that i built right next to your capital, rear end in a top hat" Honestly, with the exception of a declaration of war, all diplomatic messages should just be alerts. For the 100th time; I'm not giving any of you fuckers open borders so you can settle a city in the middle of my country on the god drat worthless tundra spot.
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2016 08:19
|
|
|
i hate talking to other AIs because loading up the million polygon leaderhead chugs like crazy its a big selling point on the box but its a huge loving waste of effort
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2016 08:27
|
|
|
But some guy made Steam Filmmaker porn out of the leaders so it's actually Totally Worth The Effort
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2016 08:32
|
|
|
Fister Roboto posted:One thing I really hope for this game is that diplomacy messages don't just randomly pop up and take over your entire screen. That annoys the poo poo out of me in Civ 5. Yeah those screens are so intrusive. Why must I drop everything and get on the phone just because Napoleon has a snide remark to make about the size of my army? I'm running an empire here, surely I can hire a receptionist to forward all his bullshit to voicemail
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2016 08:47
|
|
|
Well guys, just saw this thread so I decided to close the other Civ VI thread. I tried.
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2016 09:38
|
|
|
Even the supposedly bad AI of Civ V is very much able to kick my rear end, and as soon as I meet all of world leaders the most likely try to band up and kick my rear end, which is karma in action, me being a bad and murdering neighbour, but I'd really like it if they improved your units' AI, particularly pathfinding and workers build order. I don't know if it's that hard or have the players just gotten used to the micromanaging, but having my AI worker stop building a road because it would have to avoid an unit that's located a few turns away or trying to take the shortest path and deciding to embark and disembark in the process, thus making it take a longer one is always a surprise and a really unpleasant one. Also, I could have just missed it, but not only being able to automate workers without being able to prioritize improvement of certain type and being a subject to AI's whim is a pain. Sometimes it turns out okay, since some buildings do receive bonuses from Policies or Tech, but I doubt they take that into account. I'd like to be able to just tell the AI "build farms here, build trading posts there, build mines there etc.", maybe even as a global option that I can change. But preferably a localized one, since I'd probably forget that I had set something special up. Szurumbur fucked around with this message at 11:55 on May 16, 2016 |
|
#
?
May 16, 2016 11:44
|
|
|
Wizgot posted:Well guys, just saw this thread so I decided to close the other Civ VI thread. I tried. cultural victory!
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2016 11:49
|
|
|
Wizgot posted:Well guys, just saw this thread so I decided to close the other Civ VI thread. I tried. You actually beat me to it but I didn't notice because I was going off the Civ V thread discussion. Some people might have already subscribed to yours though, wanna put a link in it to this one? Also I just spotted a post in that thread that I liked: Tendales posted:Yeah, I'd love to see territorial borders be a more interesting mechanic. One idea I've been toying with since like Civ4 is the ability to have disputed borders. If two nations both claim some of the same tiles, then they have a border war, which is a smaller scope of conflict than a full on conquest that's the only choice now. Of course, a border war could always escalate if neither side if willing to back down... This would be amazing and I'd love to see something like this too. My only concern is that the AI, being so poo poo at diplomacy in general, would find this an impossible feature to navigate and either make it frustrating for the player (most likely outcome) or a cakewalk for the player once he figures out how the AI thinks. But nonetheless I'd love to see them take a stab at it. As a realism nut, I want to be able to simulate disputed territory. It's played a huge part in history and it's a shame that most Civ wars are all-or-nothing. A simple version might go something like this: * Instead of an automatic border expansion mechanic, you just get to claim whatever tiles you like by spending culture on them * But any tile can be claimed by anyone, so claims might overlap * Only one player can work the tile (or get the resources from it), so to exert control you have to station a military unit there * You can fight over a disputed tile without a declaration of war * Or you can settle a dispute by including control of the tile in a trade negotiation (which removes - or establishes - your claim for X turns) * For added complexity you could have other powers recognising claims, which would feed into negotiations. So to take an IRL example if North Korea is all "I claim Yeoncheon as mine" then South Korea can say "well 190 other nations say that's bullshit, so no???" but if it's more polarised than that, a dispute claim costs less to settle. I can but dream 
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2016 12:07
|
|
|
Fister Roboto posted:One thing I really hope for this game is that diplomacy messages don't just randomly pop up and take over your entire screen. That annoys the poo poo out of me in Civ 5. Why can't it just be an alert along with all your other alerts that you can either respond to or ignore? Especially since most AI diplomacy messages are inane bullshit like "tee hee your friends are my friends too" or "you built a city too close to the city that i built right next to your capital, rear end in a top hat" I was forced to play in multiplayer mode with all AI opponents because of this. Games went much faster.
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2016 12:38
|
|
|
JeremoudCorbynejad posted:You actually beat me to it but I didn't notice because I was going off the Civ V thread discussion. Some people might have already subscribed to yours though, wanna put a link in it to this one? Just did that
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2016 13:09
|
|
|
Charting the logical trend of growing American celebrity politics from President Obama to Presumed Nominee Trump to Intent-Declaring Kanye, and then adding a lag factor for slower Canadian tastes uptake, the leader of the Cnadian civ would be a 38 year old Justin Bieber. I hope they do a clean wipe for all leaders though. No more Gandhi. No more Ghengis. Rustle up some new representative historical figures even if that means taking some less deified choices and toning down the worshipful preamble voiceover.
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2016 13:56
|
|
|
shadow puppet of a posted:I hope they do a clean wipe for all leaders though. No more Gandhi. No more Ghengis. Rustle up some new representative historical figures even if that means taking some less deified choices and toning down the worshipful preamble voiceover. Yeah, that's not gonna happen.
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2016 14:01
|
|
|
Megazver posted:Yeah, that's not gonna happen. Kublai needs some time in the Khan spotlight and Indira could easily fill the role of nuke-monger Gandhi. There have been a trillion well-documented personalities within the Japanese imperial lineage too. its not like the game is selling based on the chance to be a little 8-bit Napoleon anymore. Spice it up, Sid
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2016 14:07
|
|
|
I like the graphics. I hope they cut down on needless bullshit like leaderheads and just keep it simple and laptop friendly. I'd like for certain geographical areas to be tied to a civ's sense of identity somehow. In Civ5 somebody would get pissed at you for settling in lands they consider theirs, it'd be cool if that were made a bit more transparent and you'd get regions within each civ, lands that they consider "theirs" and provide some bonus if conquered or something like that, with certain civs more inclined to care about that. Instead land always felt like arbitrary blobs of soil with purely strategic use. Some leaders have become boring, like Elizabeth for England for the fifth time. Cromwell would be cool. Robespierre for France, Akhenaten for Egypt, Roosevelt for America, Tacitus for Germany. Shibawanko fucked around with this message at 14:15 on May 16, 2016 |
|
#
?
May 16, 2016 14:10
|
|
|
Civ4 had multiple leaders/civ but that's because they went for a trait pick system instead of handcrafting individual civs.
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2016 14:10
|
|
|
Shibawanko posted:I like the graphics. I hope they cut down on needless bullshit like leaderheads and just keep it simple and laptop friendly. While hopefully there will be a toggle more sophisticated than "set up a multiplayer game and play with only AIs", I don't think they're gonna scrap one of their more iconic features.
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2016 14:21
|
|
|
I really like the diplomacy screens but I can totally get how they can be annoying if several pop up in quick succession when you just want to get a new building going in a city. It'd be nice if you could set an importance threshold for them to pop up fullscreen, so lesser things would just be alerts.
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2016 14:28
|
|
|
Shibawanko posted:I like the graphics. I hope they cut down on needless bullshit like leaderheads and just keep it simple and laptop friendly. I take your point even if I don't agree with it--Elizabeth is always England's leader because she was by any measure England's most successful ruler, it would be preposterous if she weren't England's default leader--but... Robespierre? Seriously? He "ruled" for like 5 minutes, if you can even call it that. On the other hand there's the clamoring for leaders to be represented in the game who were terrible rulers. Even if any serious representation of him weren't verboten, Hitler was a short lived brutal dictator who left Germany in smoldering ruins to actually be divided into two countries for the next 50 years. It's a Good Thing to have several options for leaders for at least the big nations, but they should at least be historical figures who were actually successful rulers and not, y'know, the complete opposite of that.
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2016 14:57
|
|
|
I like the sound of multiple rulers per civ with different personalities. Dealing with a Cromwell or a Gerald Ford would be different from Liz or Washington. Even better would be a change in civ leadership based on somewhat unpredictable events. Really shift the board around if someone can pull of some Wonder-based regime change after a few turns of the World Congress. Probably wont happen until Civ-as-a-Service comes out and its all run in the cloud for $19.99/month. Even then probably still wont happen.
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2016 15:05
|
|
|
lol, Gerald Ford. I guess there's no point arguing about it since I can't even comprehend the mind of a person who actually thinks Gerald Ford being a Civ leader would be cool.
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2016 15:06
|
|
|
I'm sorry if you are so bent on having leaders be uberman gods shot from low camera angles that you'd not want to see a world leader bumble around and mix up their trade deals to comedic effect.
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2016 15:08
|
|
|
shadow puppet of a posted:I'm sorry if you are so bent on having leaders be uberman gods shot from low camera angles that you'd not want to see a world leader bumble around and mix up their trade deals to comedic effect. I'd rather not have the leader be a bumbling retard. It'd be funny to play Dan Quayle as a mod but stupid otherwise. If you're gonna use the worst leaders then why have the Civs have traits and UUs/UBs that are meant to represent the best of their civilization? Why not give them nega-traits that represent the worst? Like Russia loses 15% production because they're all alcoholics and 15% gold because of corruption? That doesn't sound like fun.
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2016 15:26
|
|
|
Even in the Civ world it should be possible to elect a bad leader once in a few hundred turns under the Freedom ideology. You know, that thing that seems to constantly happen to civilizations throughout the course of history.
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2016 15:27
|
|
|
Unique trait would be some kind of assist mechanic and the rush to buddy him up would be ridiculous.
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2016 15:29
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 20, 2024 06:46 |
|
|
C. Everett Koop posted:Unique trait would be some kind of assist mechanic and the rush to buddy him up would be ridiculous. Isn't it Sweden that gets (and grants) a 10% Great Person generation boost when you buddy up with him? It would be like that, but turned up to 11.
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2016 15:38
|
|