|
The hard bit would be making it fun or satisfying for the player who just spent three hours building a nice big empire and now has to contend with the possibility of it falling apart like a wet Yugoslavian newspaper. It would be such a setback that it would be near enough a lose condition. I think the only way to make it work is to put in some arbitrary rules that ensure that it happens only when (a) you're staggeringly incompetent, (b) you're given plenty of warning and do nothing about it, (c) you're miles ahead of everyone else and it's time for that rubberbanding to snap back and leave a giant red mark on your backside. I would love it though.
|
#
¿
May 30, 2016 17:14
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 13, 2024 23:06 |
|
|
This dicussion reminds me of this video I discovered recently, which is a fun watch: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ymI5Uv5cGU4
|
|
#
¿
May 30, 2016 17:23
|
|
|
Rexides posted:Ideally, in the Play to Be Interesting vs Play to Win AI debate, I think you can have the best of both worlds if the Civ 4 diplomacy variables for the AI were moved to each civ's population instead of the leader. For example, if Isabella would not declare war to a fellow Buddhist, it would not be because the AI script told her so, but because the AI didn't want to take a happiness penalty. This way you could also affect Human vs Human diplomacy. Give another player enough free gifts, and then see him being incapable of declaring war to you without triggering crippling unhappiness, because his people love you so much. This is what luxury trades are supposed to achieve anyway, isn't it? Trade enough luxuries and you both become dependent on each other (perhaps one more than the other) for the happiness, and war becomes untenable. Also trade routes, but with gold. Trouble is, the AI gets happiness and gold crutches and so can afford to give the human player the finger. The "play to win" AI would abuse these crutches so they need to be carefully placed. I think the only crutch the AI truly needs is combat effectiveness because it's so poo poo at it.
|
|
#
¿
May 31, 2016 11:19
|
|
|
In Civ the "science dudes" would win all the time. I do like it when the UAs are more creative, and introduce new mechanics instead of tweaking numbers on old ones. I think the devs definitely went in that direction with the expansions and DLC (consider Denmark, Venice, Austria). I hope they do more of that in 6, although what we've seen so far (China gets 4 charges per builder instead of 3!) doesn't bode well...
|
|
#
¿
Jun 1, 2016 09:58
|
|
|
My guess is that improvements are constantly delayed by workers being reassigned, or spooked by barbarians. So poo poo gets left unimproved for ages. I've seen screenshots of late-game AI capitals surrounded by unimproved tiles. There's no excuse for it though, I'm sure some simple rules could avoid it.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 1, 2016 16:12
|
|
|
Elias_Maluco posted:Maybe a system where you allocate pop to build the improvement, this way it can build parallel to buildings, it wont require worker units and still it involves management (since the pop you allocated to building is 1 pop less you got for food, production and etc). Makes more sense too IMHO Yeah this seems like the ideal system to me. (so long as a slaving mechanic came in to maker up for the lack of worker-nabbing  )
|
|
#
¿
Jun 1, 2016 18:38
|
|
|
Tree Bucket posted:(Also has anyone complained about helium balloons existing in the bronze age yet) Lol I hadn't even noticed that
|
|
#
¿
Jun 2, 2016 11:30
|
|
|
I am a big fan of the concept of city-states and I am really liking the look of what they're doing here. The unique bonuses sound awesome. And I like that you can put money in the meter and steer their army around for a bit. I do hope that they'll be able to feature more prominently in a "proxy-war" type situation though, especially in late-game cold war times.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 2, 2016 19:39
|
|
|
Jay Rust posted:That last picture mentions "Amenities". Do we know what those are? Yeah I wondered that. The little icon looks like a circus tent, so I wonder if those balloon-laden camps provide the same stuff. Also, Well-of-souls says the government type "Classical Republic" gives a bonus to Amenities, which makes me think Colosseum, so maybe it's just another word for Happiness? Edit: if the Luxuries provide Amenities then yeah this sounds like a find-and-replace for Happiness. Edit 2:  From the city info. There's a green "2" there, but other numbers are white, so I reckon that number can go negative. We know happiness is per-city and not global, so it must be happiness. Microplastics fucked around with this message at 20:17 on Jun 2, 2016 |
|
#
¿
Jun 2, 2016 20:12
|
|
|
Gort posted:OK, so science is one bucket you fill up for bonuses, culture is another. Like Civ 5.  It sounds like they kinda grafted the Civ 4 social policy pick-and-mix onto it though, the way you can unlock these cards and then put them into slots. I'm really eager to see that in action.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 2, 2016 20:30
|
|
|
Gort posted:Yep. It wasn't a criticism. Civ games tend to revolve around filling buckets for rewards. Yeah I wasn't having a go. I admit I don't really understand that emoticon but i like using it
|
|
#
¿
Jun 2, 2016 20:54
|
|
|
RagnarokAngel posted:Reminder than you could create the Internet without computers. The steam punk web. It's a series of tubes
|
|
#
¿
Jun 3, 2016 17:02
|
|
|
I also like that you can build ironclads, carriers, and battleships without ever learning how to sail. gently caress the wind, we make our own wind or we go home 
|
|
#
¿
Jun 4, 2016 14:30
|
|
|
I'm not sure what would be my ideal implementation of religion. All I know is I liked the relative simplicity of Civ4's system and the customisation of Civ5's. I didn't like faffing around with missionaries and I think I would have preferred them to work a little more like spies rather than units on the map. Looks like missionaries are back in Civ6 though so at the very least I hope they'll have made them less faff. Even if they just balanced the beliefs though that would be an immense improvement.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 5, 2016 09:49
|
|
|
Yeah you can't really compare it to the military game. The AI gets a production bonus on military, sure, but that's to counter the superior combat intellect of the player. The player can't apply that kind of advantage to the religion game.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 5, 2016 20:03
|
|
|
Eric the Mauve posted:Prepare yourself for an Unpopular Opinion: Religion should never have been introduced to Civ as its own mechanic in the first place and it's a better game without it. What didn't you like about Civ4's implementation? The only criticism I've seen is that it wasn't interesting enough, but I've not seen anyone claim it was a poor mechanic so I'd be interested to hear your take on that.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 5, 2016 21:06
|
|
|
Jastiger posted:I laid out my position on religion earlier but I really want to reiterate, I think they missed a key thing when they didnt' give religion any NEGATIVE connotations. It should be useful early on and become almost problematic later on. That'd really change the dynamic I think. Sure your Holy Warriors are loving everyone up, but its 2012 and now no one wants to be your friend and its seriously hurting your happiness and science. I distinctly remember during the development of Civ 5 that one of the things they wanted to get away from (specifically in the move from the Civ4 civic system to the Civ5 social policy system) was the idea that any choices would have negatives attached to them - instead there would be only positives. So nothing could be lost by selecting an additional policy. Of course it's just a little bit bullshit because Civ5 comes with some pretty big opportunity costs, and while you might gain a little from a given policy you might lose a lot by not selecting another. But I think it was supposed to be a psychological thing, to avoid more casual players being frustrated by the fact that a given policy comes with a negative and they have to do a cost-benefit analysis before picking it (as you would do when switching Civics). Anyway that's just an aside and I don't know if Ed Beach will be sticking by the same philosophy for this one. I'm not sure about religion becoming detrimental in the late-game, I'd rather it just peter out to nothing. I feel like the modern era has enough mechanics in play to keep things interesting (diplomacy, ideologies and more complex ways of doing combat), without players having to contend with an exit strategy for religion. Religion should be kept back as "something to do" in the mid-game, after most of the world has been explored/settled in the early game and it's time to go a-crusadin'. Edit: btw I'm working my way through my first Civ 5 CBP game and I love their implementation of religion. Not only are the beliefs definitely seem a lot more balanced but each founder belief unlocks its own little national wonder, and I love the names they've picked for them. There's a list here: http://civ-5-cbp.wikia.com/wiki/Beliefs Microplastics fucked around with this message at 07:43 on Jun 6, 2016 |
|
#
¿
Jun 6, 2016 07:38
|
|
|
Xelkelvos posted:The Community Balance Patch fixes a lot of the complaints about Civ 5 that I've seen pop up in this thread including: gold-spamming City States, Global Happiness, belief imbalances, (civilian) unit stacking, dead policy trees, weird tech consequences due to the oddly shaped tech tree, and some other things. It really is a whole new game. The happiness system is completely redesigned and takes some getting used to, but I like it so much more. Anyone with an interest in Civ6 (so anyone in this thread) should definitely give it a spin. I put a link in the bottom of the OP.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 6, 2016 10:04
|
|
|
Kumaton posted:So if I spawn on a continent by myself, my entire dumbshit civilization won't be able to figure out how to write? Or am I misreading how Eurekas work? No you'll just miss out on a boost. You'll still get the tech, but at regular beaker cost (instead of half the cost). I'd hope they'll code it to prevent such situations though. Spawning alone on a continent makes a very boring game anyway.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 8, 2016 19:15
|
|
|
berryjon posted:I think you misunderstand. A Eureka bonus give you a 50% Bonus to research made on that tech. So once you've discovered another Civ, every 10 Beakers of research gives you 15 added to your total. It doesn't magically fill up half the bar. Are you sure about that? A minute into the gameplay video, Writing is at about 55% complete with 2 turns to go. Then the player meets another Civ to satisfy the eureka condition, and it immediately unlocks the tech. The civic Military Tradition unlocks in the same manner about 2 minutes into the video.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 9, 2016 09:50
|
|
|
I rather hope that there is some unpredictability to them at least, like 1 of 3 possible quests when you start researching a tech, and you won't know which one you'll get until you start. That would help deter players from planning ahead and help to make them more situational. Sadly that doesn't look to be the case.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 9, 2016 12:25
|
|
|
Could be worse.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 9, 2016 14:24
|
|
|
Edit: ^^ beaten, kinda. You could use them as a barb-hunting party or a city-state harassment gang though. Three spearmen is quite an investment to make so presumably a player wouldn't do it unless they had more plans for those spearmen. Unlike "meet a Civ" which is going to happen whether you want it to or not and requires basically zero investment. I think that would be a sensible way to approach it - make the quests costly enough that a player wouldn't do it just for the beakers but instead has to consider what other payoffs there may be, and has to make a judgement call.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 9, 2016 15:23
|
|
|
Phobophilia posted:no evidence exists for eureka moments increasing the rate of beaker accumulation by 50%. all the evidence suggests that eureka moments simply give research credit One person said it once (and was corrected), who are you taking to exactly? 
|
|
#
¿
Jun 9, 2016 15:30
|
|
|
Random events can enhance the strategy but only if done well. They can encourage players to find ways to manipulate probabilities in their favour, or make contingency plans, or just challenge them to cope with a new unexpected situation.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 10, 2016 09:10
|
|
|
Elias_Maluco posted:I dint liked the random events in Civ 4, so I just turned then off in the options. Its very convenient. I did Civ 4 last year and my recommendation would be to start with vanilla before working your way through the expansions. Also some of the scenarios may be a good way to familiarise with some mechanics, provided the scenario hasn't been modded beyond recognition. I had a lot of fun with the Warring States China scenario.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 11, 2016 15:45
|
|
|
Hand Row posted:I really like their idea that each Civ has a known agenda along with a random one built into their AI. I think that will have a much greater impact than the other stuff which generally doesn't amount to much. Yeah this sounds fun. I like the Devs' description of how agendas might be played off one another, too. The example they used was: build a lot of wonders and China gets annoyed (because their agenda is hating other wonder whores) and wages war against you, which annoys America (because their agenda is hating anyone causing trouble on their continent) so they go to war with China, you join in on the offensive, steal all China's wonders and end up being best buds with America on a continent and being full of wonders. If the agendas are suitably interesting their could be some excellent chain reactions going on as a game develops.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 17, 2016 16:14
|
|
|
Chronojam posted:Some limited conflict where you couldn't take cities but could pillage and block tiles would be interesting. Sometimes I'm not interested in capturing lands, just slowing things down or removing pesky units. Maybe even have some way to attack cultural boundaries without taking cities, letting you ninja a city in close to snatch resources. There have been some comments from the developers that hint at something like this, I believe one of the comments was "there will be more than one way to do combat". However that could have been in reference to the new "siege" mechanics.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 17, 2016 18:05
|
|
|
Re: Gandhi Early on when talking up the agenda system, one of the devs (possibly Ed, not sure) said something like "Gandhi is going to have some friends"... a pretty strong hint that Gandhi is in.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 21, 2016 22:03
|
|
|
Civ 4 won multiple awards in 2005 before it got any expansions, going by wikipedia.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 23, 2016 08:08
|
|
|
The AI is poo poo at using unit promotions and they give the player a way to amplify the combat advantage he already has. On the other hand they give players an extra fun thing to fiddle around with, they help to represent the military advantage a nation gains with combat experience (though this could be done with civics), and they give an incentive for players to retreat units beyond the loss of hammers. I prefer them to be in because they are fun, but the Civ 5 implementation was awful. It seemed to me that the correct choice was always to bee line for Logistics and Range. There was vet little balance.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 23, 2016 18:16
|
|
|
TooMuchAbstraction posted:Here's my counterproposal: no promo grinding against city-states (their units count as barbarian units for purposes of experience, or whatever), and when you upgrade a unit, it loses all of its promotions and gets a "Historic Legacy" promotion instead, that just gives it +10% strength and doesn't help unlock any other promos. And it doesn't stack with repeated upgrades. So your unit is slightly more awesome because it has a storied legacy, but it still has to work to get all those special abilities. I love this idea The AI should just get a few free +strength promotions, they don't know how to use anything else.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 23, 2016 18:20
|
|
|
Luckily it looks like Civ 6 will allow players to take control of their city-state allies' armies in war time, so you won't have to rely on lovely combat AI (at least not for city-states, anyway). I think if you go to war with another Civ as an ally then there needs to be some sort of mechanic to ensure they pull their weight, or get rightly shat on diplomatically for not doing so.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 27, 2016 18:54
|
|
|
TooMuchAbstraction posted:I disagree. Asking civs to join you in warfare should be largely symbolic unless they spot an opportunity. I don't want to have to race my ally for who gets to conquer the enemy's capital, but I don't mind if they nibble up a few border cities that are left undefended because the enemy's main force is fighting my armies. Understandable, but I'd like to see the mechanic implemented in such a way that these aren't problems. I don't know exactly where I'd start because I haven't thought about it much, but it would be nice if you could agree with an ally, in advance, what you were going to take - akin to the secret protocol buried in the Molotov–Ribbentrop Pact prior to WWII. I wouldn't expect it to be easy though - the AI would have to be able to make a strategic judgement that is probably far beyond its abilities. I'd love to see an attempt, some kind of simple implementation based on the value of cities (in terms of what they contain and what resources they have access to) and their locations (the AI would want cities it could incorporate into its own empire, and not isolated cities). And if the AI takes a city you wanted in the course of the war, or vice versa, they transfer it to you. Of all the things I want from Civ though that's pretty low on the list. I normally do my wars by myself anyway
|
|
#
¿
Jun 27, 2016 19:53
|
|
|
Gort posted:The trouble with blocs is that at the end of the day, Civilisation is a game with a single winner. I think it's possible to have blocs even in a winner-takes-all game... it would depend on how its implemented, but I can think of a few games where it pays off to ally with another player and co-operate in conflict and trade to get ahead of the other players (or maintain parity with an opposing bloc). A backstab is inevitable of course, but that only serves to make it even more interesting... backstab too early and opposing blocs might sneak ahead of take advantage of the fallout, backstab too late and you might find the backstab has already happened and it was your back that was stabbed
|
|
#
¿
Jun 27, 2016 21:32
|
|
|
AlphaKretin posted:The "worst leaders" thing would make a neat Scenario, perhaps. Cuts down on the number they'd have to come up with too. I am a big fan of scenarios and I wish there had been a much greater number of them in Civ 5. The Into the Renaissance scenario in Civ 5 was superb, though not very well balanced (useless for MP). Fall of Rome is also good. I hope Civ 6 comes with, at least, a good scenario editor.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 29, 2016 14:09
|
|
I know I never did.
|
Phobophilia posted:aka you have no idea what the gently caress you're talking about I suspect, though I can't be certain about this, that majormonotone means ICS was a big deal (i.e. big problem) for the series and Civ 4 dealt with it nicely by having a balanced maintenance mechanic. No need to be so hostile, we're all gandhis here.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 29, 2016 16:16
|
|
|
As England I'm going to see how quickly I can obtain Tea with Milk and two Sugar.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 5, 2016 07:46
|
|
|
StashAugustine posted:Is it just me or does that video show chariot archers firing at range 2? Yes it does - but that shouldn't be surprising, it was the same in Civ 5. On another note, this video raises more questions about how river crossings work... to quote myself: JeremoudCorbynejad posted:towards the very end of the gameplay video, a scout with 3MP has the option of crossing a river into a flat grassland tile but can move no further (not even into a second flat grassland tile). At the start of the video, a builder can... so either there's a builder-specific rule or a scout-specific rule (and I'm guessing the former, because why would the scout be the only unit with restricted movement?) I no longer have the faintest clue how river crossings work, this latest video throws up too many questions Edit: can anyone reconcile these movement rules? What's the rule here? Bearing in mind that the chariot in the final screenshot has 2 out of 4 movement left. I can't tell whether it costs 3MP to cross a river, or 2MP, or what.    
Microplastics fucked around with this message at 22:42 on Jul 6, 2016 |
|
#
¿
Jul 6, 2016 22:35
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 13, 2024 23:06 |
|
|
Rexides posted:Hey man, it's cool that you are super perceptive like that, but the two videos might have been taken during different points in the development process and the rules might have changed in between. Not to mention that they can change yet still until the release day (or even after). Yeah I did consider that, but it doesn't even seem consistent in the same video (the Egypt one). I think I figured it out though. The chariot archers have 3MP and I was mis-reading the ZOC situation - that's why they have only 1MP left after crossing the river. The last shot just demonstrates their special ability (extra MP when starting in plains)
|
|
#
¿
Jul 7, 2016 07:59
|
|