Civilization VI: I Get A Little Bit Genghis Khan

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Video Games > Civilization VI: I Get A Little Bit Genghis Khan

«‹›2 »

Panzeh: Nov 27, 2006; "..The high ground"

Gabriel Pope posted:

Also, perfect information is much better suited to boardgames because they're simpler and more elegant with more abstraction. Perfect information in something with the scope and complexity of Civ just winds up with a lot of irrelevant information to sift through.

I don't think civ needs perfect information, but I think a little very well-crafted obfuscation is a lot better at creating awesome decisions and surprises than a bunch of nothingness.

# ¿ Sep 3, 2016 01:54

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ¿ May 14, 2024 16:54

Panzeh: Nov 27, 2006; "..The high ground"

I'm fairly confident that religious victory will be like culture victory where it's just a gimmick win anyway.

# ¿ Sep 23, 2016 10:51

Panzeh: Nov 27, 2006; "..The high ground"

Jastiger posted:

I wouldnt mind more dlc but it is what it is. The best thing about be and vox populi, in my opinion is the ability to have mega yields. I always found it a bit silly that the fields from 1200 made 2 food snd in 2020 it made like 5. In vox and be you could have Mega yields. Made you feel powerful, yet balanced.

Well civ5 is really not made for vox pupuli's megayields and it kinda shows.

# ¿ Sep 26, 2016 15:42

Panzeh: Nov 27, 2006; "..The high ground"

Bouquet posted:

So kind of like modern politicians? No wonder they feel like real people!

Nah, they're badly written and basically some of the most obvious author mouthpieces there are.

# ¿ Oct 1, 2016 23:48

Panzeh: Nov 27, 2006; "..The high ground"

MMM Whatchya Say posted:

I didn't age particularly well but also it's just one of those things people form Strong Opinions about so it can get kind of irritating if you're not on board.

It's just when someone says it's "THE BEST EVERYTHING EVER" i cringe because the game has so much loving terrible about it, sharing a bunch of flaws with civ2.

# ¿ Oct 2, 2016 11:39

Panzeh: Nov 27, 2006; "..The high ground"

Darkrenown posted:

Makes sense I suppose. UI is pretty bad there though.

Is there a way to guarantee independence or otherwise warn people off of attacking your city state buddies?

The more Civ6 I watch the more I wonder why they didn't just use a CTP style Public Works system where you just divert some production from cities into a common pool and use that to buy tile upgrades etc. It's even more like how Builders work now without the micro of moving the Builders about.

If they made war more like CTP style public works it might be a system in which the AI could actually compete.

# ¿ Oct 2, 2016 22:28

Panzeh: Nov 27, 2006; "..The high ground"

JeremoudCorbynejad posted:

Hahaha. That would be hilarious if some relics were -1 culture due to curses but you don't find out until you've got it.

That is actually something you can do in advanced civ(the board game). Trade people calamities.

# ¿ Oct 11, 2016 18:35

Panzeh: Nov 27, 2006; "..The high ground"

I'm not sure I like how fast the district costs scale up but it's still almost always better to be settling a no-district city than not to. Wide is back.

More and more I think Civ should've gone to a system of major cities, which have full management, and minor cities which do not and simply occupy territory, give resources, and a small trickle based on adjacent hexes so that you can just fill up the map and have little things to fight over and give or take without catastrophically crippling someone.

# ¿ Oct 22, 2016 14:27

Panzeh: Nov 27, 2006; "..The high ground"

Grand Fromage posted:

I was hoping that at some point Sean Bean would die, maybe at Future Tech, and someone else would take over narrating.

Have it just be the Nimoy "beep..beep..beep"

# ¿ Oct 22, 2016 15:27

Panzeh: Nov 27, 2006; "..The high ground"

I have no idea why they even have 'send envoys' and choices like whether to receive them. They add nothing to the game and instead force you to pay attention to the diplomacy popups which are annoying as gently caress.

The more I play this game, the more I sour on the presentation and the stuff they tried to ape from paradox games.

# ¿ Oct 27, 2016 12:26

Panzeh: Nov 27, 2006; "..The high ground"

Staltran posted:

That's the AI we have though, and that's probably not going to change. Hopefully they'll at least patch the AI so it realizes when it could just take your capital instead of just shuffling their units around it until reinforcements arrive and walls get built.

Besides the whole death stack thing is also because of AI not programmed to handle stacks properly. The AI in Civ 4 had a single stack moving around on the map and a garrison stack in every city, because that way it couldn't look like a complete moron. If they had done something else the AI would have constantly lost cities because it left them lightly defended when it shouldn't have, heavily defended cities that weren't threatened at all leaving them without enough units where they actually needed them, or tried to attack with stacks that weren't big enough to actually achieve anything. So you give the AI massive production bonuses so that it can afford to defend everywhere, and that means a human player can only conquer an AI if they get extremely hammer efficient trades. Since the AI only has one stack, you also only need one stack. Civ 4 mp on the other hand has a heavy emphasis on 2-movers and ships, since humans don't have the production to defend everywhere at once.

1UPT would be far more palatable if they let you stack units, but you couldn't attack while stacked and everything in the stack took damage if attacked or something. That would take care of the traffic jams and needing to give new move commands constantly. Also the goddamn city states couldn't block your settlers in chokepoints . And the AI couldn't block your workers/great people/whatever with their missionaries. Though I've managed to move my religious units to stack with AI units by giving the command when I can't see the AI unit, which then lets you keep moving to other hexes occupied by the AI and walk through their unit carpet to their city to convert it.

I've not seen a TBS game with a particularly effective tactical AI and most games have an easier time than civ doing it because they have static maps and situations.

In civ 4, stacks of doom were absolutely not optimal. If you see humans in MP, they don't stack very much because there's actually no combat advantage to it- there are 4x games that do make stacks better and they're much much worse. The only advantage stacking offers in civ 4 is that it picks the best defender. Otherwise, combat is still 1 on 1, and there's collateral damage to boot. Still, the AI putting together its mobile stack and attacking with it was credible enough when it had enough of an advantage. The problem stacks had was based on the UI's lack of ability to present them clearly more than anything else, and I can dig that objection to stacks.

I'm not saying this as someone who thinks civ 4 is flawless. It has some problems, but having played civ 6 some more, i'm finding it's just more bloated than it needed to be and very safe design-wise.

# ¿ Oct 27, 2016 23:10

Panzeh: Nov 27, 2006; "..The high ground"

piratepilates posted:

I'm not 100% sure what I'm looking for, but how do you develop a better intuition of what to build, when, and why (Civ6)?

I have fun little games going on the default mode where I do pretty well, by the end I can crank out a science victory to win -- most of the time I'm just building what the advisor recommends. I feel like I'm tossing a coin on what to build in my cities, e.g. do I want a monument over a granary, or do I stop building granaries at all at some point in the game, when is a good time to build settlers vs. focus on improving cities, etc.

How do I gain a feel for answering these questions during the game?

Also I don't know if this makes sense but I like playing the game like Colonization, where you focus on building up manufacturing and producing goods to sell to the old world. Is there a strategy in Civ6 that is similar to playing Colonization?

Civ is a very different game from col- in col, that's almost the whole game- building a machine that gets you the things you need to win the war of independence. In civ, that's basically represented by a trade route.

Also if you're playing any kind of strategy that involves doing anything by turn 300, the main important yield in cities is actually hammers- food is useful, but good food tiles are way easier to find than good hammer tiles.

Panzeh fucked around with this message at 13:53 on Sep 15, 2019

# ¿ Sep 15, 2019 13:50

Panzeh: Nov 27, 2006; "..The high ground"

Marmaduke! posted:

It's worth building a bunch of warriors, slingers and scouts for two reasons:
So that when you have nothing better to do with your military cards than +1 amenity from a garrison, you can use this
And
So that when your buddies decide to conquer your city states, you can surround them with your own units to protect them

Also you're getting good mileage out of the milestones that military actions give you- also, you can beat up your neighbor if they're nearby.

It's also not a huge cost to build military units if you're settling good cities.

If you have any closeby powers, hitting them and taking a city or two off of them will easily recoup any investment in units.

# ¿ Sep 16, 2019 03:21

Panzeh: Nov 27, 2006; "..The high ground"

Marmaduke! posted:

Exactly, you always get the bare minimum effect, and then you can use them in a few ways if you want. Plus it improves your military score so the AI is less likely to attack you (although sometimes it's good to be attacked so the AI absorbs the grievances).

Yeah, in the time while you're settling and better districts are unlocking, you generally have little else to do but build military units so it's not really a cost. The only time i don't build a significant army in that time is when i'm beelining a weird victory.

# ¿ Sep 16, 2019 12:31

Panzeh: Nov 27, 2006; "..The high ground"

Fleetwood Crack posted:

Once the path to victory becomes clear, I start to lose interest. And I think that's pretty common among civ players.

civ has about 125 good, well-playtested turns and then another 375 turns of filler

# ¿ Sep 17, 2019 17:11

Panzeh: Nov 27, 2006; "..The high ground"

People liked colonization and the AI is mostly incapable of winning that game.

# ¿ Oct 26, 2019 21:48

Panzeh: Nov 27, 2006; "..The high ground"

Gort posted:

That game has the Independence War as an endboss which was satisfyingly difficult though

I've almost never heard the war for independence in col described as 'satisfying' but i get the point.

A lot of the problems with the war is shoving a huge bit of combat into a game with decidedly light combat, so it's more just a matter of stockpiling enough muskets and cannons in the correct cities.

# ¿ Oct 26, 2019 22:09

Panzeh: Nov 27, 2006; "..The high ground"

Honestly, Civ having discrete military units with distinctive roles and such is kinda odd given that in other systems you're dealing with production as 'hammers'. You'd expect something like 'military points' to be the way it's done or something.

That being said, in civ 4 it was easy enough to just grab some units and beeline toward a city with a reasonable chance of success if you put enough hammers into producing units and that's probably a good thing for a civ game. Tactically finicky placement on tiles is one of the worst things for an AI.

# ¿ Oct 28, 2019 11:50

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ¿ May 14, 2024 16:54

Panzeh: Nov 27, 2006; "..The high ground"

Honestly, I kinda feel like civ needs more abstract combat, not less. If military was as detailed as everything else, unit types would just be buildings that generated "military points" which you could pay varying amounts of to take hexes of hostile enemies.

# ¿ Feb 4, 2020 13:36

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Video Games > Civilization VI: I Get A Little Bit Genghis Khan

«‹›2 »