|
I endorse this particular Civ6 thread
|
#
¿
May 14, 2016 01:30
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 3, 2024 15:25 |
|
|
people were making "dumbed down" snipes at Civ5 for its gameplay mechanics back ago, and now people are looking at only the graphics to make such a snap judgement?
|
|
#
¿
May 14, 2016 01:46
|
|
|
Civ6 graphics look fine, I just hope that the gameplay isn't as weak as Civ5. I have made my peace: stacks aren't coming back, waves of AI units are going to waddle around and get shot to pieces making bad players feel like badasses. If they can make empire building and MP work then I'll be happy.
|
|
#
¿
May 14, 2016 04:38
|
|
|
Civ4 religion was a diplomatic tool in SP. It was a cool way to form blocs and alliances. Civ5 religion was just a big perk tree and just a pile of gold, if you were lucky and the AI Boudicas didn't roll their belief pick on tithe.
|
|
#
¿
May 14, 2016 05:49
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
lmao at civ5 players bitching that civ6 will be the one for worthless casuals
|
|
#
¿
May 17, 2016 16:22
|
|
|
"1 unit per tile makes everything more tactical! im too incompetent to handle more than 4 cities, i should be able to complete with anyone who expands beyond that!" *puts 3 archers on a chokepoint, watches as the ai slam entire army into it, pats self on back for being a strategic genius*
|
|
#
¿
May 17, 2016 16:29
|
|
|
I understand that 1u/t is here to stay from now on, the danger is if the "support" units simply mean that 1u+s/t is going to be the optimal strategy in endgame of Civ5. I do agree that Civ5 was super fun in MP, but you can say the same thing for Civ4. In fact, even more so, there were a ton of Civ4 tactics that a good player could exploit. The combat and management games were much more intertwined. Midgame Civ4 combat, when the terrain had filled in, was all about terrain control: you wanted to set up killing zones where the enemy could not invade without being obliterated. At the same time, you wanted to settle in a way that let you push your cultural borders in a way that made your opponent vulnerable. There was alot of feints and misdirections involved in Civ4: if you knew what your opponent could see, you could hide your stack and attack by surprise. You could set up attacks by drawing enemies out of position. You could bait units to attack, and obliterate them with a stack hidden behind your city. You could use two movers to enhance the power of surprise attacks, or use them to fork entire areas, forcing the opponent to choose where to defend, and where gets razed to the ground. And all these could also be done to you, meaning you had to be constantly on the lookout. On the city management side, there was alot more city specialisation, you were always on the lookout for a good hilly city that you could use as a unit pump, which would complement the rest of your empire that was more likely to be focused on economy. Units had a much shorter window of relevance, and unit upgrade costs were more punishing, meaning that timing attacks were trickier. A good player could set up build queues for a powerful upgrade like knights, have the new tech come in, and instantly have a dozen units one turn, and another dozen the next. Some of these elements were present in Civ5, but not to the same extent. Civ5 combat is very much about getting a good surround, or hitting the next timing window first. Less stealth mechanics: you can't hide a blob of units, and that gives your opponent time to respond. There also isn't as much dynamism, where one bad mistake could cost you the entire game. Civ5 also has different justifications as to why you go to war. In Civ4, you go to war in the order in which you could economically integrate your opponents into your empire, in Civ5, you go to war to win. This makes Civ5 more turtley, if you can peacefully settle 4-5 cities, you can sit back, keep your borders fortified, and tech to an overwhelming advantage over someone who could only peacefully settle 3 and had to conquer someone else. Sure, a warmonger could win by constantly knock over opponents until they reach the frontrunner who hadn't snowballed out of control, but there is no impetus for the frontrunner to actually expand by warfare. In Civ4, everyone, even the peaceful expanders, were constantly eyeing your neighbours for weakness, which made the midgame interesting, and would constantly shift the balance of power. Weakness was death, and a huge investment for the victor, which in turn invited predation. So what I'm saying is, as Joey says, Civ5 wasn't actually a tactical and strategic leap over Civ4, no matter what the box blurb or prince players say.
|
|
#
¿
May 18, 2016 02:11
|
|
|
Cowman posted:Not letting workers stack pissed me off in 5. Building a road and a unit ends its turn in the way? Worker stops what it's doing and you can't continue the road. Happened all the time and it was such a huge pain in the rear end. This is one of the annoying things that arose from a mixture of Civ5's new mechanics and legacy mechanics, like open borders. Just as Civ4 was intended to fix up all of the previous games, Civ6 should theoretically fix up all the jankiness and flaws of Civ5.
|
|
#
¿
May 18, 2016 08:08
|
|
|
JeremoudCorbynejad posted:I think I could probably warm to stacks if the UI wasn't so impenetrably texty. I never got a lot of experience with Civ 4 combat as a result, which is a shame because it sounds like it was entertainingly strategic, from what you've said. BTS MP espionage was a mix of weak, strong, and broken. The happiness/health sabotage actions are weak. The drop city defence sabotage action is almost brokenly powerful, lets you rampage through enemy territory with a stack of mounted units. Tech stealing is mathematically a better conversion of commerce into research than actual teching. Civic/religion changes were broken: costs didn't scale with empire size, so you could prevent people from using state property/free market forever. Spy units were a tad too good, you could have vision on everyone's armies, meaning you'd never be caught by surprise. And spy units in neutral terrain cannot get captured, which made them way too good as sentries. Because a normal unit acting as a sentry can be killed by 2-movers, which is a good map control mechanic. I don't mind BNW condensing down many of the inelegant spy mechanics into what they have now, it really needed tweaking. The downside is that most of the BNW spy actions are uninteresting, and boil down to sitting and waiting, and have few opportunity costs or trade offs.
|
|
#
¿
May 18, 2016 10:43
|
|
|
i hope they remove you
|
|
#
¿
May 18, 2016 12:42
|
|
|
The Human Crouton posted:Agreed. Worst of the shapes. I want to play as the leader of a human civilization, not as a loving bee. jfc i cant believe i need to explain elementary poo poo the problem with square tiles, where diagonal movements cost as much as cardinal movements, is that it becomes optimal to always move on diagonals every single turn, because such moves are ~40% further than cardinal moves it also gets rid of the jankiness of the "big fat cross", where cities can't access tiles 2-diagonal from the centres i regularly poo poo on civ5 but its hexes are one of its major advantages over civ4. the only downside is that 2-rings of hexes has only 18 tiles, while the full BFC has 20 tiles, meaning that hex cities wont be as big as BFC cities. civ5's solution was to expand city sizes to 3-rings, which was a mistake because it set the game down the path of tiny numbers of cities
|
|
#
¿
May 19, 2016 00:13
|
|
|
ouch a clams start i dont envy him really bad city count though at T100, sheesh
|
|
#
¿
May 19, 2016 08:31
|
|
|
the idea of cold or hidden wars sounds cool, but bts privateers were completely broken. their blocking area was way too big: a 5x5 square, which exerted itself onto water tiles that the privateer had no physical access to. plus, they could tile block even if military ships were present, meaning the main line military had no choice charge into privateers sitting on defensive coastal terrain also, privateers completely broke the AI
|
|
#
¿
May 19, 2016 17:10
|
|
|
got bought out so when 38 died everything died with it
|
|
#
¿
May 20, 2016 01:12
|
|
|
civ4 wars had great use of combat workers: take a city, lay down a road, and advance your army through additional tiles up to the next target
|
|
#
¿
May 24, 2016 01:25
|
|
|
Jay Rust posted:What's stopping you from doing that in Civ V? The maintenance cost? the cost, and the fact you cant wire up a broad front with roads without backrupting yourself id often build some extra roads to the front, but only a few
|
|
#
¿
May 24, 2016 01:36
|
|
|
John F Bennett posted:New info + gameplay video: thoughts as I listen: dislike workers having consumable charges: this turns a long-term strategic decision into a short term decision, and removes a source of conflict (worker kidnapping) considering tile improvements compete with districts and wonders for tiles, they had better have big bonuses to yield, not the pissant +1 food or +1 hammer of civ5 improvements, which makes them worth the time and hammer investment. there was a reason you almost always went worker first in civ4 really dislike trade units being responsible for building roads, gently caress you if i need to send trade units to the enemy just to get some freaking roads, and i cant even preemptively wire up the front with roads. at least roads seem to look nicer decimal units for your empire-wide science/culture just looks weird crossing rivers no longer consumes all actions, what a shame, i liked that from civ5 forest and hill tiles cost 2 moves to enter, but you need to have 2 moves available at the time you enter. this is going to feel really weird. i wonder how this is going to interact with war: will you be unable to attack if you don't have 2 full movepoints? or can you still attack, but be unable to occupy the tile if the enemy is fully killed? that could work quite nicely, sometimes you don't want to occupy a tile and overextend your unit. and what will be the defensive bonus on hill/forest tiles? civ4's defensive bonuses were way too strong, with +50% on forests, +25% on hills, which stacked, it needs to be higher than civ5's, but not as ridiculous as civ4's quite like the new tile graphics, everything pops, from hills, to farms, to forests. minimal "bleeding" between tiles, so you know where a hill ends and a flatland begins like unrevealed tiles having a paper theme, dislike the revealed but fogged tiles reverting to the paper theme instead of simply being darker "normal" tiles tile overlays and naming is back, thank god quite like techs getting boosts from performing behaviours on the field the civic/social policy system sounds pretty cool how you can mix and match, like an expanded version of civ4's. unfortunately, it's going to be hell to balance, unless they go for strong bonuses in general, limited slots to play with, and easy reconfiguration china's wonder rushing with builders is going to be ridiculous the diplomacy sounds okay, but this is one of the things that is impossible to judge from press releases thank loving god buildings no longer cost upkeep, their hammer cost is already an opportunity cost i hope you can still raze badly placed cities and city states, but considering the district system, im not sure that would even be possible the "great wall" as described by quill sounds janky as gently caress uh, yeah, in general, i think civ6 won't be a polish of civ5, but an attempt to do a civ5 on civ5 itself Phobophilia fucked around with this message at 17:07 on May 25, 2016 |
|
#
¿
May 25, 2016 16:35
|
|
|
i remember firing up EL and being shocked, shocked, that it only took a few seconds to load up.
|
|
#
¿
May 27, 2016 01:21
|
|
|
The game had better give a drat good reason for me to waste a tile on a fort or a wall instead of something productive
|
|
#
¿
May 27, 2016 11:32
|
|
|
yet another IGN preview: http://www.ign.com/articles/2016/05/25/civilization-6s-new-game-changer-features important quote: you can manually build roads using military engineers. will they, like builders, have a limited number of road tiles available? also, they try to justify the limited use of builders. still not sure i agree with it, but this is probably a fault of the civ5 model of samey tile improvements, lack of city specialisation, and low improvement yields
|
|
#
¿
May 27, 2016 14:44
|
|
|
I rarely ever ran out of things for my workers to do in Civ4. There was always a new city to bootstrap, or forests to chop, or an half-grown city might need to be reworked for cottages, or I might want to replace mines with windmills for growth, or I might want to make a workshop hammer pump, or I want to expand my road network, or wire up a front city to make it more defensible, or I might want to build a canal fort to set up a raid. The Civ4 worker minigame was fun because there was a nigh infinite skill cap. I did often run out of things to do in Civ5, and if Civ6 is following that model, then this limited use worker mechanic might be a good idea.
|
|
#
¿
May 27, 2016 17:29
|
|
|
health was a soft cap on growth in civ5, farms were the only thing you ever build, meaning you'd get a food surplus for each citizen working the land... forever. meanwhile, in civ4, farms competed with crucial cottages, so you could only build so many farms. civ4 cities could be planned out from settlement to endgame, you can estimate the final size of the city, so you'd spend most of the game setting it up for that endpoint where you'd stabilise working cottages and mines. meanwhile, civ5 cities didn't have any kind of endpoint, you'd just work farms forever, unless you wanted some temporary production
|
|
#
¿
May 27, 2016 17:51
|
|
|
basically, in civ5, overprioritising production is a trap, population is king. pop = science, and your tradition capital is the single most efficient conversion of pop and happiness to scienceJay Rust posted:That's a real oversimplification. You can know where a Civ V city's borders will end: three hexes in every direction. And you shouldn't just be building farms: growth is great but so are all of the buildings. Plus, you have Great Person tile improvements, reasons to keep jungles and forests intact, decisions regarding whether to build an alternate road through your cities... There's a lot to consider! pretty much only my capital will approach size 36+, and that's around the time i launch the spaceship. it takes way too long for a civ5 city to reach its cap also, most GP tile improvements are a trap
|
|
#
¿
May 28, 2016 00:38
|
|
|
engineers are important for wonder rushing and snowballing their benefits, while scientists make all those endgame techs disappear in a blink of an eye and if you popped a great merchant, then you done hosed up, because that delays scientists
|
|
#
¿
May 28, 2016 01:01
|
|
|
Staltran posted:Oh and exploiting the fact that building settlers sets your food production to 0 even if it would normally be negative. oh come on, this has been known for ages, you always set your cities to max hammers and no food while pumping settlers
|
|
#
¿
May 28, 2016 01:13
|
|
|
I think the idea of city states is nonsense, you have small-time civs to fight around/push around: they are civs that got bottled up, have less land than others, but still follow similar rules as other civs. Heck, just give some rubber band mechanics to the AI so they keep pace with the civs running ahead of the pack, so they can have some disproportionate influence on the world without being instantly eaten up.
|
|
#
¿
May 30, 2016 04:42
|
|
|
It could theoretically work if the big boy civs have one set of AI behaviours, then the little civs have another set of AI behaviours where they get to kingmake and play the big boys off against one another. But why are you setting this in stone from 4000BC? This should be as a consequence of how the world shakes out. Also, City States don't actually do anything.
|
|
#
¿
May 30, 2016 04:57
|
|
|
voiced leaderheads were a mistake, because now every single new leader needs high def art assets and VA studio time, which means they're a magnitude more expensive, and you can't do creative things with them like interchangable leaders for civs also they loving chug when you fire up the diplo screen. i dont give a gently caress about what they look like or say, i just want to compare what they have on the table
|
|
#
¿
May 30, 2016 10:42
|
|
|
you end up not doing that because if it costs this much budget to make a hi def leaderhead and voice acting, there's no point attaching that leader to an old civ, you may as well make an entirely new civ and nail another bullet point to the box blurb which is why i think civ5 leaderheads are a terrible investment and a colossal waste of effort
|
|
#
¿
May 30, 2016 12:50
|
|
|
it would work better if everyone started at the same level, and some civs, early-to-midway through the game, gave up on territorial ambitions, and switched their AI into the "prison bitch mode" where they kingmake and sell out to the highest bidder sure, it means the need to be worth more alive than dead and land redistributed, which is fine, give them a disproportionate number of world congress votes, or bonus happiness, lots of small nations use this kind of thing as leverage against more powerful countries unfortunately, the devs shot themselves in the foot, because there's no way they can put together the leaderhead assets and va files for another 72 civs on a dime
|
|
#
¿
May 30, 2016 16:40
|
|
|
Just fired up an emperor/continents game of civ4, because I'm hilariously rusty on it. Started next to Monty and Pacal. I gave in to Monty's first tribute demand, and so Monty declared war on Pacal. I rushed for macemen, and counterinvaded, taking all of Monty's and Pacal's cities. This was a long, grueling, grinding war, I didn't just build a handful of units, I had to keep building units non stop to deal with losses. The two of us had a broad front with one another, so I had to continuously scout out and keep an eye on other fronts so I didn't get counterinvaded. And in the end, the war was worth it, because in this game, land is power. My economy is a wreck, if someone invaded with a stack of rifles, I'd be toast, but if I can recover, I can easily win the game. This kind of dynamic play is what is missing from Civ5.
|
|
#
¿
May 31, 2016 04:59
|
|
|
If there's one thing to say about disposable workers, it means the AI won't work anywhere near as many unimproved tiles, meaning they can be more economically competitive even at middle difficulty levels like emp.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 1, 2016 01:32
|
|
|
But right now, the AI isn't using unlimited workers, they have a higher worker:city ratio than the players, but they tend to be mismanaged, or out of position, or hiding in a city too scared of getting sniped. Now, you can basically have tile improvements on demand: a citizen working an unimproved tile means the AI will queue up a worker in a nearby city, and send it out. And because there is now a direct correlation between hammer output and tile improvements, the AI can actually take advantage of this with their handicap bonuses.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 1, 2016 01:48
|
|
|
TooMuchAbstraction posted:You're making statements without establishing causal linkages. In Civ5, workers are unlimited in the number of improvements they can create; in Civ6 they will be limited. Nothing in that says anything about how effectively the AI will use workers. Yes, a Civ5 worker can make infinite improvements over infinite turns. However, you don't have infinite turns. Instead, the AI builds X number of workers, and distributes them out to where it thinks they are required. This means you often have huge stretches of unimproved tiles as its workers are allocated to inappropriate locations, or are killed by the player or by barbs. Civ6, the 3-use instant build improvement will be easier for the AI to manage. It decides a city needs improvements, the nearest cities build a worker, bam bam bam, the tiles are improved. No waiting around, the snowball happens instantly.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 1, 2016 10:17
|
|
|
Tile switching and then non-completion in Civ5 would result in loads of half-built improvements everywhere. Instead, what I think is happening is that a tile improvement order gets queued on an individual worker, but then a new order slots itself ahead of that empty tile, and that empty tile is simply getting lost in the queue. The limited charges/worker may be a concession to the realities of 1-unit per tile. Civ4 lets you stack workers: a mid game AI empire can happily sack 2-3-4 workers on a tile, and 1-2 turn out an improvement. A Civ5 worker slowly improves a tile over 5-7 turns, and you can't accelerate it by contributing more man-hours, and then it might get called out to do another job, so it never starts the original order. On demand workers means the AI no longer needs to plan as far ahead, and you can do things like refresh the queues every 20 turns or so. As for not simply paying out gold or hammers from a city? That's fine, you can do tricks like feed a new city improved tiles using workers produced in an established city. I'm not going to bootstrap a new city off its own production, I'm going to subsidise it with production from my core while it's still growing.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 1, 2016 16:49
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 3, 2024 15:25 |
|
|
Fister Roboto posted:The roads look good. Roads looked like poo poo in Civ5. seriously was that not so loving hard?
|
|
#
¿
Jun 2, 2016 02:11
|
|