|
I don't care if they go with multiple leaders or not, as long as the Civs can have V-style unique bonuses that differentiate them. The mix-and-match approach of IV felt like the world's most boring buffet.
|
#
¿
May 16, 2016 17:19
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 3, 2024 16:18 |
|
|
Eric the Mauve posted:I know I'm literally the only person in the world who thinks this, but I think Civ 1 got unit stacking right and every system since has been inferior. Stack as much as you want, roll one die to decide who wins, if your best defender loses then you lose the whole stack (except in cities or fortresses) so stack your entire army on one tile at your peril. Sid had the right idea with Civ I, but even Civ II stacks were bearable. I started hating stacks with the promotion system in Civ IV. It felt like it barely mattered to select promotions for each unit individually. I'd rather have a system of global unit promotions like CIV:BE. e: I can't even remember how war worked in Civ III Rexides fucked around with this message at 20:19 on May 17, 2016 |
|
#
¿
May 17, 2016 20:17
|
|
|
RE: Expansion Tall vs Wide is a lovely dichotomy that emerged as the capacity for a single city to drive your civ-engine became more important and more micromanagy, while at the same time kept being the only method to expand. It probably started when Civ III abolished the per-city unit support penalty (which was a crap mechanic and I am glad to see gone), while each game kept adding items you could possibly build in your cities. I would like to see some kind of "colony" mechanic that can act as a city in terms of border growth and resource acquisition, but doesn't contribute to the main pressure levers (military production, science, culture) the way a normal city can. Then maybe that can force players to actively expand and compete for land, and make turtling in strategies not as good, while not requiring too much cognitive power from those of us who want to build singular super cities. I remember that Civ III had a similar mechanic, but it was there merely to grab some distant resource that no one else had settled. Eric the Mauve posted:The biggest combat fuckup in Civ V was having ranged units operate differently from melee units, rather than just having unique attributes (good against spear/bad against horse/etc.) "Ranged I: +500% vs AI" 
|
|
#
¿
May 18, 2016 10:39
|
|
|
Jastiger posted:Speaking of irrigation, while I'm glad you don't have to do that I hope they would add canal options and stuff like that. Things to improve tiles to make them have more utility. Canal's to get your tile that is 2 tiles in to be coastal so you can build naval units, or allow naval units to cross 1 tile wide land spaces without plopping a city. Tunnels through mountains and planting trees should be an option too. We'll just have to wait and see! They should make sure that the engine supports runtime terrain modifications. Not because I want anything specific to that in Civ 6, I just want proper terraforming in Civ:BE 2
|
|
#
¿
May 18, 2016 14:03
|
|
|
TooMuchAbstraction posted:Making them squishier in melee...well, they're going to be part of combined-arms military now, so they'll be paired with melee units to defend them better. That's not my interpretation. I think that you will be able to combine a rifleman with another rifleman, or a rifleman with an anti-aircraft gun, but not a rifleman with a cannon. Speaking of which, I don't think combining two or three units together is going to help the AI that much. Sure, it will reduce the end game clutter, but in the end when it comes down to both opposing forces being comprised of three-unit stacks, the AI is going to lose. Firaxis, we know that the AI cheats. Just let it cheat by having a combat bonus instead of just bumping production.
|
|
#
¿
May 18, 2016 14:46
|
|
|
Xelkelvos posted:That's totally not how I'm reading it. How I see it is the ability to combine "support" units like AA guns, great generals or maybe ranged units with typical melee units like cavalry or warriors We'll see. They didn't specifically mention that melee+ranged is impossible, but the two different mechanics they mentioned did not seem to allow for that. In my mind ranged units are not support, but "support" was never a hard mechanical concept anyway.
|
|
#
¿
May 18, 2016 17:16
|
|
|
JeremoudCorbynejad posted:They also gave players something to capture/liberate, making diplo relations more interesting (a way to grab influence with city states for instance). If they manage to make "war" a less binary situation than it is now, I'll be glad to have workers around as a way to make Civ vs Civ interaction more interesting. Right now the only other gameplay value they offer is the opportunity cost between building a granary or a worker.
|
|
#
¿
May 19, 2016 11:34
|
|
|
Xelkelvos posted:When will I be able top have terrorist units that can covertly go into cities and wreck infrastructure I read this as "tourist units". Now I want a unit that can go into cities and wreck the local culture.
|
|
#
¿
May 19, 2016 15:13
|
|
|
Failboattootoot posted:I hope they don't scrap the things Beyond Earth did that were cool because it flopped. I would love for Civ 6 to have the quest system because it adds a lot of flavor and granular adjustment that I like a lot, even if some of them are no brainers always take option A no matter what. I hope you are talking about the multi-stage quests and not the building "quests", because those sucked and felt more like a 13-year-old's first attempt at modding than something a professional game designer would do.
|
|
#
¿
May 20, 2016 13:04
|
|
|
Either create a good tactical game where unit dynamics (tanks, DPS, support) and terrain in a single conflict inform the strategy, OR abstract small scale conflicts away and make war a logistics puzzle for your empire to solve. Since Civilization just loves the concept of a unit, I think they should just focus on the first approach.
|
|
#
¿
May 24, 2016 09:16
|
|
|
I hope that the new policy cards system will have some nuance to it and not just be some switches you flip whenever you declare war. It will be interesting if they make it interact with diplomacy both on the city state level and world congress decisions (if that makes it in), otherwise it won't do that much for me. Also, I find it a bit jarring that some terrain improvements will be built by Other than these small things, the new details make me very, very hopeful for the final game.
|
|
#
¿
May 26, 2016 14:18
|
|
|
Jastiger posted:The idea of a city sprawling everywhere and taking up nearly all of your land seemed like a turn off at first, but....the more I think about it the more im thinking why not. It shouldn't be easy of course, but why not have mega cities after the modern age? It should be hard to be big early and later it should almost be a necessity, no? Too bad that cities are limited to 32 tiles... Would have been great if cities could grow big enough to swallow nearby smaller cities.
|
|
#
¿
May 26, 2016 20:30
|
|
|
I know what you mean, and I love it in the way it makes cities look pleasantly realistic, but I wouldn't be surprised if they avoided it this time in order to make what's going on on the terrain clearer. Maybe they could allow for some bleeding into adjacent tiles, but use roads to mark district edges. (Also, please make districts act like roads if we are not allowed to build them wherever we want)
|
|
#
¿
May 27, 2016 09:43
|
|
|
Poil posted:Personally I won't miss it. While the idea is good it basically always just boils down to getting enough money to buy all city states so the AI doesn't ban every luxury. Except that now you won't be able to buy out CS with money.
|
|
#
¿
May 27, 2016 10:57
|
|
|
Staltran posted:Maybe you have more tiles than pops to work them with? We may not have been playing the same long-running critically acclaimed series of 4X games.
|
|
#
¿
May 27, 2016 12:11
|
|
|
I know that it's barely an excuse for the game itself, but you can play a map with zero city states. We tried it once with a friend, and I have to admit I kinda enjoyed not having the pressure to bribe every single CS into worshiping me.
|
|
#
¿
May 28, 2016 19:11
|
|
|
It's one of the things I absolutely don't care about because after the game starts, it doesn't matter if the civ you picked had one or a billion alternative leaders. I'd rather focus on systems (and visuals!) that enhance the core game rather than giving me more options to fiddle with on the Setup Game Screen. e: Kalko posted:Browsing through the Well of Souls site, it looks like the Campus only has space for a Library, University, and Research Lab. Assuming the other districts follow a similar pattern, that means there's only one specialized building for three eras : ancient, medieval, and modern. Alongside the fact that they've said there's only 50 technologies in the game (and maybe a similar number of civics which are researched concurrently) does this indicate that the game length is going to be shorter than in previous games? The new Culture system will take up the burden of the missing techs. So you should get less technologies that you will research more slowly, but in the time you will get some kind of Culture "unlock" that should trigger the same pavlovian reaction in your brain that normally a tech does. Or so I assume. Rexides fucked around with this message at 14:06 on May 30, 2016 |
|
#
¿
May 30, 2016 14:03
|
|
|
Maybe it would be possible to have multiple leaders by giving players several people to choose from when you select your civ, but for AI's there is always only one pre-determined option. That way they don't have to produce additional assets for the diplomacy screens, and players will get to play as their favourite dictator/warlord/mass murderer. So if they were to apply that for Civ 5, for example, and you selected the Russians, you could choose between Catherine or Stalin, each with their own numerical bonuses and intro voice-over, but if you were to meet Russia as an AI civ it would ALWAYS be Catherine.
|
|
#
¿
May 30, 2016 15:34
|
|
|
Delacroix posted:It's straight-up embarrassing when Beyond Earth was completely overshadowed by a indie offering. I hope you are not talking about Pandora, it was poo poo compared to BE. Speaking of BE, didn't they promise a revamped Diplomacy system with the expansion? I never got it because I didn't care for sea cities, but maybe Civ 6 diplomacy will expand on that? 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.
|
|
#
¿
May 31, 2016 10:07
|
|
|
Yeah, combat bonus crutch goes without saying.
|
|
#
¿
May 31, 2016 11:50
|
|
|
Clarste posted:From a gameplay perspective, it's probably something like needing both Organized Religion and Architecture to build a cathedral or whatever. Oh god I hope this is not the case. Worst case you can unlock it with either, but having both gives you a production bonus, but I would hate nothing more than finally getting the technology that gives me the signing new thing I had in my sights, and finding out that no, it's still far away.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 3, 2016 16:32
|
|
|
Phobophilia posted:you had more multi-tech dependencies in civ4, like horseback riding + archery for horse archers, or archery + feudalism/machinery for longbows/crossbows, or hbr + military tradition + gunpowder/rifling for cuirassiers/cavalry, or rifling + assembly line for infantry I hated that. gently caress realism.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 3, 2016 17:10
|
|
|
berryjon posted:So... you gave spearmen a hidden +1000% Combat against Armor units, right? It's not proper civ otherwise
|
|
#
¿
Jun 4, 2016 00:15
|
|
|
Religion and ideology/tourism should be rolled into one mechanic that spans the entire game instead of two half-baked rusty buckets of points that barely matter and you just have to micromanage all the same.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 5, 2016 12:05
|
|
|
Yeah, random events in Civ 4 felt like Baby's First Mod rather than a feature of the base game.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 9, 2016 07:39
|
|
|
I am conflicted. On the one hand I think that a bonus to conversion of beakers to progress in the tech will free us from having to game the system in order to have optimal results, on the other hand I think that having an immediate and obvious bonus will be more satisfying. Of course even the conversion bonus does not ensure that it won't involve some metagame tactics: people will just won't start researching a technology until they have fulfilled it's eureka objectives.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 9, 2016 10:12
|
|
|
I think that people worry that instead of the eureka system being a way to reward certain choices that are normally unrelated to research, it will just be baked into your research plans from the get go and assumed to be the baseline consideration for your overall science strategy when playing Civ 6. Just like the "building quest" bonuses in Civ:BE were supposed to just add a bit more life and story into the game, but just ended up supplanting the main bonuses, like building an ultrasonic fence just to get the trade unit protection bonus.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 9, 2016 14:06
|
|
|
Truth be told, there is so much opportunity cost in building three spearmen, that if you don't plan to use them immediately to ruin someone's day then they will just be wasted production, science bonus or not.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 9, 2016 15:21
|
|
|
I would love if random events were implemented into a mechanic that actually made it interesting to interact with. Like a deck of cards that you got to pick from if you so wanted, and it's contents were affected by your current situation. For example, if you just discovered a new city state you could see the game shuffling a card that gave you a bonus with it if you draw it, or if you go into war with another civ it shuffles in some sabotage cards etc. Maybe it can be a way for players who feel they have nothing to lose to just go through five or so cards in one turn and hope that hey get several good things. Anything but the lovely ininspired system that Civ 4 had.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 10, 2016 13:05
|
|
|
MMM Whatchya Say posted:Sometimes start locations are better than they appear because some resources are hidden. gently caress Uranium, where is my salt, game??? 
|
|
#
¿
Jun 10, 2016 15:26
|
|
|
Jastiger posted:I hate to be a broken record but I think endless legend did trading best. Roads and trade is automatic based on your diplomatic status. You had to research and build infrastructure so you were involved but you didn't have to continuously redo trade routes all day long. That's because they were severely underutilized as a concept. You just picked the most profitable ones, maybe choose the one with the most science if they were closely valued. It's a shame, because they would have been a great mechanic for culture wars. They kinda figured it themselves with the religious influence, but these bonuses were so measly that didn't matter.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 10, 2016 15:58
|
|
|
Deltasquid posted:New personalities are a gain. Egypt under Cleoptra will try to be buddies with the strong and bully the weak. Egypt under another hypothetical leader down the line might have another UI and playstyle. If they pull it off, then yeah, there's a certain level of randomisation on how Earth map games play out. It's an opportunity cost thing. What do you gain by implementing another leader for the same Civ, other that people who like that specific feature nodding their heads in approval? With just a bit more resources you can add an entire new civ that can actually draw new customers. Also, I find the randomization argument a bit weak. Having more Civs adds more to randomization than having more leaders for fewer civs. Sorry for framing the argument as either-or, but when you make a game on a specific budget, that's how it is.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 16, 2016 12:19
|
|
|
Chucat posted:In Civ 4 it was good for adding in more trait combos (if you were running unrestricted leader/civ combos) without having to add in a completely new civ, and if you're running restricted, it was pretty good at maybe adding a new spin on a Civ. One more reason not to add that feature again, trait combos were a horrible way to differentiate civs.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 16, 2016 15:49
|
|
|
Gort posted:It'd be cool to have pre-made lists of Civs depending on map type. Like if you're playing on archipelago you'll run into all the big naval bruisers like England, the Dutch and the Ottomans, while if you're playing a desert map you run into Egypt and Morocco. Unless it's a civ that's completely going to lose on it's UA, I think that it's kinda cool when a Civ evolves in a way completely different than in reality, like coming face to face with English steppe horsemen or having naval battles with the Mongolian Invincible Armada.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 17, 2016 13:05
|
|
|
They should just merge all European Civs into "Polyeuropea" so that we have more budget for more interesting Civs. e: Leader should be Hitler. Rexides fucked around with this message at 14:23 on Jun 17, 2016 |
|
#
¿
Jun 17, 2016 13:55
|
|
|
I don't mind the antagonistic AI, my main problem is that the main vector of antagonism for most of the game is war. I would love it if there were mechanics that facilitated trade or cultural "wars" for example. e: I mean, you have great musicians and missionaries, but the only way to defend against them effectively is war, so...
|
|
#
¿
Jun 17, 2016 17:10
|
|
|
And it would be great if you could do that without entering a diplomatic state that can only end with the utter and complete destruction of one of you.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 19, 2016 18:05
|
|
|
Maybe Astrology is first-tier tech? I mean, it's an entirely new game, not a modification on Civ 5's existing tech tree.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 19, 2016 18:47
|
|
|
Cythereal posted:Tank unit is a Sherman this game. Very good choice, considering how cartoony the art direction is.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 19, 2016 19:26
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 3, 2024 16:18 |
|
|
DNK posted:Note: Astrology is the pseudoscience fortune-telling bullshit / very early stargazing and mapping. We know. We were quoting the WoS info Cythereal posted. Astrology seems more likely than Astronomy to lead to faith-producing buildings anyway. Away all Goats posted:Maybe there'll be drawbacks? Like maybe they have more expensive upkeep or they can only move onto tiles with a road or something. Maybe, but in the end two units are twice as strong as one, and the drawbacks must be crippling in order to make me not choose that option as the only sensible one.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 20, 2016 10:56
|
|